ROPE - A New Set of Sustainability Principles

To ensure most of us are pulling in the same direction, we need a common set of sustainability principles to guide our actions. Dozens of sets of sustainability principles are chronicled in Andres Edwards’s book The Sustainability Revolution. The problem with most of these sets is that they’re too detailed to remember or they’re framed in a negative way. Building on principles from Janine Benyus’s biomimicry approach, William McDonough’s Hannover Principles, Karl Henrik-Robert’s The Natural Step, and Lovins’s and Hawken’s Natural Capitalism, here is a set of positive and concise sustainability principles. Just like the efforts of an organization to become sustainable, which is a journey not a destination, this list of principles is a work in progress.

Collapsing several sustainability concepts into a short acronym is one way to help people remember the principles. I submit for your consideration the ROPE acronym: Resources, Opportunity, Perspective and Environment. This ROPE is a lifeline that will pull us toward a sustainable future.

Resources should focus on using “just enough” local, small-scale, decentralized and renewable inputs whenever possible. Opportunity is the way to view a sustainable future: creating a world that meets our needs even better than what we have now. Perspective involves taking an intergenerational and global view where everyone’s basic needs are met while the privileged consider what truly makes them happy. Perspective also involves valuing the strength that diversity and interdependence bring to a community and an ecosystem. As for Environment, we have a responsibility to restore the environment our lives depend on: for our own sakes, for the benefit of future generations, and for Nature’s well-being.

What Exists Is Possible – Leading Transformational Change for Buildings

The American Institute of Architects recently issued the AIA 2030 Challenge which aims to reduce energy use in new buildings by 50 percent by 2010 and challenges its members to create carbon-neutral buildings by 2030. Ideally, a carbon neutral building will generate as much on-site renewable power as it uses, instead of simply purchasing carbon offsets to compensate for carbon emissions.

To accomplish carbon neutrality with on-site green power generation, buildings must first maximize energy efficiency by insulating the building envelope (walls, roof, and windows); installing efficient equipment; and installing controls to turn off heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems (HVAC), and lights and equipment when not needed.

One of the early adopters of this transformational approach to building design is the electrical engineering firm Integrated Design Associates in San Jose, California. Their green workspace is comfortable and pleasant, and serves as a role model for others. After all, what exists is possible.

Some notable green features of the 7,200 square foot building include:

* A ground source heat pump connected to radiant flooring (water flows through pipes in the ground then up through the concrete slab, tapping into the year-round 57 degree temperature of the Earth) to cool the building occupants in the summer and warm them in the winter

* Abundant indirect daylighting (passive solar) lights and heats the office space

* 30 kilowatts of photovoltaic panels tied to the electricity grid (so they don’t need batteries)

* Equipment controls connected to the burglar alarm so when the last person leaves for the day, the photocopier and plotter are automatically turned off

* Motion sensors connected to the lights and computer for each cubicle

* Electrochromic glass (which darkens to shade the occupants from direct sunlight)

The principal of the firm, David Kaneda, estimated that these additional green features added a five percent premium to the cost of the building. However, these costs are an investment that yields quick returns since operating costs over the life of a building are generally estimated to be three times the architectural design and construction costs.

Is It Possible to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80% by 2050?

In June 2005, California Governor Schwarzenegger set an aggressive goal to address climate change with Executive Order S-3-05: reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Since then, people around the country have been debating wildly how the state is going to achieve this goal and even if this goal is possible to achieve.

Let’s assume it is possible and that we have a responsibility to future generations to try to stabilize atmospheric carbon. How would we do it? Clearly there will not be one single solution: every activity that contributes greenhouse gases must contribute to the solution.

Commonalities among various think tank plans to stabilize atmospheric carbon include: increased vehicle fuel efficiency, reduced miles driven, more mass transit, more solar power, more wind power, more tree planting, alteration of energy-intensive agricultural practices, and net zero carbon buildings. Princeton University’s Carbon Management Institute is betting we will figure out how to sequester carbon on a large scale (beyond tree planting) and solve the twin nuclear power problems of radioactive waste disposal and high cost compared to other sources of energy.

We will need to allow ourselves a period of time to experiment with promising options so we can determine what more we need to do to address this issue. Now that the mainstream public better understands the problem, we have political will to implement solutions. It’s exciting to watch various sectors pitch in and help: government agencies at all levels are setting policies that encourage energy efficiency, the financial sector is investing in clean energy, utilities are expanding their rebate programs, and leading corporations are setting aggressive greenhouse gas reduction goals and meeting them.

Where Are We Going to Find Five More Earths?

An "ecological footprint" is a measure of the amount of resources needed to sustain one person and absorb her/his wastes. In the United States, the ecological footprint of the average U.S. citizen is large compared to most other countries in the world. If everyone in the world lived like the average U.S. citizen, the global community would need six planets. While Costco sells many useful household items in large sizes, they don’t sell planets, in singles or in five-packs.

Our planet is a savings account. We are currently living off the interest and drawing down the principal. To be sustainable, we need to find a way to live off the interest; that is, use renewable resources and not use them up faster than they can replenish themselves.

Will the Great Transition to a Sustainable Future Be Painful?

Last summer, my family and I traveled to the Monteverde Cloud Forest, an isolated rainforest preserve in Costa Rica. The 30 kilometer unpaved road to Monteverde demanded slow driving to avoid sharp rocks, jack-knifed tractor trailers, large potholes, and mudslides. The ride was physically painful for our backs and gave us headaches. But after relaxing over night in one of the sustainable tourism hotels and touring the nature preserve, we knew the journey had been worth the trouble. We enjoyed the peace and robust beauty of the jungle the next day during a guided tour where we saw a two-toed sloth, a tarantula, hummingbirds, and the rare quetzal bird.

The drive to Monteverde is an apt metaphor for our society’s journey to a sustainable future: the trip may cause temporary, mild discomfort but the destination will meet our needs in new and exciting ways.

What will mild discomfort mean? Is it painful to reduce waste? There are so many examples in our society where we waste material resources. The broken irrigation sprinklers that flood the nearby street waste water. Uneaten prepared food that is thrown away wastes food. A freight ship idling at a port wastes petroleum and creates air pollution. None of these wastes add value in our society.

Then there are the larger systemic changes. Over the next generation, we need to redesign our societies to encourage smart growth, create closed-loop manufacturing systems, and transition to organic agriculture. These will all involve investments in our future that we need to make anyway.

What Does a Sustainable Future Look Like?

Think about the happiest times of your life. Where were you? Who were you with? Were you watching television or shopping?

Some of my best memories include parties and dinners with friends, backpacking and riding trains through Europe, hiking, attending concerts, completing big projects for work, and planting trees in my community. What do these activities have in common?

Perhaps the things that make us happiest and most fulfilled are the kinds of experiences we should be building our society and physical infrastructure around. I believe that ultimately people find meaningful work, community, music, art, nature and spirituality more fulfilling than activities that isolate us physically and bankrupt us financially. Could this be a clue to how we could create a sustainable future?

What Is Greenwashing?

To paraphrase U.S Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart from Jacobellis v.Ohio (1964), "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." This is how I feel about greenwashing. The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't quite illuminate the essence of the term with the definition "disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image" because it doesn't distinguish between enlightened corporate behavior that helps build a sustainable future from cynical corporate behavior that confuses the public with green claims.

Perhaps there is a formula we could devise to determine if a company is greenwashing. If a company spends X dollars to buy renewable energy credits then spends X dollars times 1,000 to publicize it, its efforts could be characterized as greenwashing.

Many people cite WalMart as a prime example of greenwashing but the case is not so clear. WalMart set and met its goal of selling 100 million compact fluorescent lamps and is in the process of raising the average fuel efficiency of its trucking fleet from 6 mpg to 18 mpg. They are building new stores that meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building criteria, are buying renewable energy, and are demanding that their suppliers reduce packaging. And yet last I heard, they still didn't offer health insurance to most of their employees, and the siting and shuttering of their stores is disruptive to many communities.

But any sustainability efforts with such far reaching effects should be praised, while we keep the pressure on these organizations to do more. While WalMart is not perfect, their efforts are made in the spirit of continuous improvement.