BERNICE WONG

Throughout this term, I’ve been lucky to learn a lot. Not just about sustainability, but about seeing my every day in a new perspective.

I chose to take a sustainability track on a whim, not knowing much about what to expect or what I would be learning. However, I’m pleased to say that I’ve been able to encounter a great community of forward-thinking individuals, who have shown me another way to look at our surroundings.

How has this course changed my point of view? I feel that I’ve changed the most as a consumer. I notice more brands that are socially responsible, I question more environmental statistics, and I ask more questions about product characteristics. News articles reflecting environmental topics seem more eye-catching. Honestly, I’m not a bold environmentalist, nor do I plan to be one. But through this course I’ve definitely been able to bring myself to do the little things I can do to help.

Luckily, I live in Vancouver so it’s pretty easy to buy green and buy local. Other than that, I’ve been pretty determined to try and consume less in general. I’ve always been an impulsive shopper, and the best thing that I’ve (or at least my wallet has) been able to gain from this course is questioning my purchase decisions.

Green Metropolis is a book by David Owen about how world cities should aim to be like New York in order to become more sustainable. I found this an interesting concept, as a the most populated city in the USA which boasts Wall Street, Broadway, lavishness and consumption is probably not where I would start while looking for models of sustainable living.

Nevertheless, it is the extreme density of living and the city’s street plan which make it one of the least energy consuming places to live.  Owen’s first points are that Living Smaller, Living Closer and Driving Less are the key components to increasing a city’s sustainability. He states “Manhattan’s street plan was created by merchants who were more interested in economic efficiency than in boulevards, parks or empty spaces between buildings. The resulting crush of architecture is actually humanizing because it brings the city’s commercial, cultural and other offerings closer together, thereby increasing their accessibility.”

This means that because there are so many businesses, services, activities on every street corner in NYC, people never have to go very far to satisfy their needs. Average living space is also smaller (less heating/electricity), and the extreme density of people means that it’s actually faster to walk from point A to B that it is to drive. As well, because the apartment buildings are so big and close together, neighbouring buildings use heat escaping from one building to heat the next.

And it turns out, this convenience actually makes quite an impact on sustainability:

• 82% of New Yorkers use public transit, biking or walking as their primary mode of transportation
• In comparison, the average American walks about 18% of the time, but only 8% as their primary mode of transportation (i.e. the 18% includes situations where they are walking to the bus stop or walking to their car)
• 0.9% is the average number of cyclers in the USA
• The average Manhattanite uses gas at levels comparable to American energy use in the 1920s.

So interestingly enough, the average individual living in New York is doing more for the environment (in terms of energy consumption and GHG emissions, not in other areas) than someone living in a small town

Funny video about fracking from a classmate:

Don’t Frack My Mother

Finding out about biological concrete actually reminds me of green-roofing, which (from what I know) is the idea of planting grass and other plant life on the rooftops of buildings for a variety of economic and sustainability benefits.

My friend’s father [excuse the shameless advertising] actually manages the Vancouver branch of Architek: a living architecture technology company who recently completed the green roof installation at Van Dusen Gardens.

Both these initiatives, green roofing and living building architecture, are great, and are reminiscent of The Eight Reasons Sustainability will Change Management!

From an economic perspective:

1. Green roofing retains water, which reduce drainage costs resulting from heavy rainwater (I mean, we live in Vancouver)

• Cost advantages!

2. Reduces sound reflection, for those who live near busy roads

• Innovative way to enhance efficiency, and maybe even sell more houses because homeowners won’t be so put off by living close to a main street

3. As with biological concrete, green roofing improves an area’s climate and livability:  green roofs humidify and filter dust in the air

• AND looks way better. Seriously:

My favourite part about green roofing is the potential for some apartment buildings to turn their roofs into gardens! Vancouver is quickly turning into a high-rise city, especially in suburban areas of Burnaby and New Westminster. For those individuals who can’t afford houses, but still want the back-yard feel, a green roof can provide that!

Sustainability is taking the world by storm, and the field of architecture is no exception.
A new form of concrete has been developed in Barcelona with a biological composition that has moss and other types of green organisms to grow out of it.

As interesting (and slightly creepy) as its aesthetic appeals will probably be, it actually has a lot of environmental and economic advantages.

Of course, the growing organisms absorb and reduce CO2 in the immediate atmosphere, reducing overall CO2 levels in the particular area. Not only is this good for the environment, but it’d probably make breathing easier, especially in populated urban areas. (As a born-and-bred Vancouverite, there’s nothing I appreciate more than the clean air.)

The wall layers also capture solar radiation and insulate the atmosphere inside, reducing energy consumption and cost.

It’s also possible to choose specific areas of the building that you want to cover and others that you don’t, to create “ornamental alternative” ways of decorating the building with different “finishes and shades of colour”.  They were pretty vague about the aesthetic benefits in the articles I looked at… Honestly though, I’m not particularly enthused about living in a building that looks like this:

Or this:

Kind of looks like it’s moulding…

But hey, you win some you lose some.

Since the early 1970s, Sweden has invested a great deal of resources into growing its sustainability sector. So much so, that “Sweden’s success [has become its] problem.” ( Nancy Owano, Phys.org) 45% of Sweden’s energy supply comes from renewable energy, energy that comes from burning household waste. This has allowed the average Swedish household to leave only 1% of its everyday waste to end up in a landfill. For the average European household, this number is about 38%.

Too good to be true?

What about the CO2 emissions that result from burning waste? Residual material?

Sweden’s Waste-to-Energy guide by the national Waste Management team (SWM), states that material can be extracted from incineration residues to create gravel for construction purposes. As well, CO2 emissions from incineration are much lower, according to the following graph by SWM:

However this article, and a number of others, point to the harmful emissions caused by burning waste. Unfortunately, these arguments are not mentioned in SWM’s publications.

A comprehensive solution…

Sustainability is deeply ingrained in Swedish society. The country prohibits sale of drinks in plastic or metal containers, unless part of an approved recycling system.  The government is allocating SEK 400 million (63 million CAD) towards R&D in environmental technology. Stockholm holds an annual vintage clothing fair called Vintagemässan, attracting over 6,000 attendees during its last occurrence. But more than the pros and cons of their energy renewal system, I think it is Sweden’s emphasis on sustainability in so many aspects of its societal consciousness, which brings their society one step closer to green living.

Link to original article: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-sweden-norway-trash-lots.html

Under the umbrella of sustainability, the first topic that comes to mind as a resident of Vancouver, BC, is the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Perhaps it is a topic that has been over addressed in the past few months, but as the review is being carried out I feel it is rather relevant.

The facts are familiar to most: Northern Gateway was proposed on May 27th, 2010. A $6 billion project, it consists of 1,177 km long twin pipelines running from oil sands in Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia, as well as the creation of two ship berths on the coast of Kitimat. One pipeline is responsible for the transportation of diluted bitumen from the sands to the berth. The second is designated to transport the remaining condensate from Kitimat back to Bruderheim.

While browsing through articles on the topic, I came across an article in the Huffington Post with the following statement:

“While the country debates the safety and security of pipelines, the effects of climate change continue to mount. The impacts run the gambit from minor irritants like the swarming flies in Beamsville and damaged foundations in Ottawa to the almost science fiction-like dissolving shellfish industries and dead carbon-emitting forests in B.C. The impacts are profound, compounding, and complex, but the political conversation is juvenile.”

Although I have studied this topic rather frequently throughout the year (being assigned a number of projects on the topic), I had never really considered the climate effects of the Northern Gateway project. The focus of most articles and research were the dangers of pipeline fractures, tanker accidents, and Aboriginal rights; to the extent that GHG emissions were generally glanced over or not mentioned at all.

I am currently registered in a sustainable energy course, and just recently learned of the overwhelming impact the additional oil would have on GHG emissions. I also learned the JRP can’t even take GHG emissions into consideration –they can only consider the minimal emissions caused by pipeline and factory operations. Definitely has been food for thought over the past week…

A powerful image shown by Professor Hoberg (Conservation 425):