Natural Reactions

I've landed in Lapland of Northern Finland for a week workshop/think tank to consider the relationship between humans and nature. In the dialogues (between artists, scientists, and those of us who fall un-categorically between), we make the point of understanding humans as a part of nature - reversing "scientific" thought of removing oneself from the equation. Already on the first day, some interesting points have come up and I believe that I'm starting to reshape (or sharpen the focus of) my perspectives on sustainability.

One question from this morning was - since we humans are looking at nature and attempting to learn from what we deem as 'positive' or 'effective' qualities, do other objects in nature do this? Butterflies move their wings when hanging on trees to resemble leafs when predators are near without any cognitive ability to consciously know that their movement protects them. We had read some Darwin in the build up to the program, and we (as humans) tend to believe that plants and non-conscientious species adapt in reactive ways to somehow better themselves/the future of their species. An interesting note here is the habit of separating humans from the rest, but perhaps we too are simply reacting to our surroundings.

There has been a lot of talk about human impacts and how to mitigate the disturbances to ecosystems that we are causing - from lessening our consumption, to the potentials of creating new species to replace those that go extinct. There is a wide range of backgrounds and expertise at this workshop which bring a lot of new perspectives, reactions, and possibilities together (for better or worse). A point can be made in looking objectively at the human species on the planet that we are a biological case of overpopulation - a simple scientific thought with very complex ethical implications.

Fortunately so far, humans are not subscribing to the prescription of culling that we use when other species overpopulate an area and ruin resource bases or cause pollution (as you hear of for deer perhaps), but many are realizing that our impact must be lessened. Many people like to argue for or against sustainability as some kind of human duty to the planet, but I am realizing it can also be seen as a human duty to humans. Sustainability is a reaction the human species is developing to a threat - adaptations to species and to life habits are necessary if we are to continue to survive at current or projected population levels. Some questions remain in do we try to change ourselves, or do we try to change the world around us to accommodate us, or are both approaches necessary for the planet to support us?

road art between Rovaniemi and Kilpisjaarvi

Emotional Infrastructure

This year, when I set out to write a masters thesis on how city sustainability goals are breaking down at the local and neighborhood scales in Oslo it turned into 150 pages about values. What values we hold and why, which ones we share and what that can foster, and which we disagree with, halting communal goals.

In today's blog browsing I came across this - http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/05/17/why-arent-we-building-emotionally-connected-cities-a-guest-post/

The author asks (and in part answers) why are cities not investing more in emotional infrastructure. Understanding that things we love thrive because of the extra effort, can the same approach not be taken for cities? How can we as designers, planners, and everyday citizens encourage our neighbors to care about and personally invest in a place?

Where is the sustainable ghetto?

A chain of thoughts has been developing in my mind, so thought I'd share them here before polishing them up into some cleaner form. I began research and note-taking for a term paper in which I wanted to dispel the values of territorialism in urban ecological planning, as applies to New York and how working locally might not always be the best solution. My mind keeps returning to the fact that community participation can only work within an educated and informed community.

Beyond this barrier is the concept of resources - resource sharing, distribution, pooling, management. Herein, I find territorialism's weakness - by limiting a resource base, inequalities and disparities between neighboring communities are inherently made more obvious. Territorialism might be nice for communities trying to preserve tradition, but it can not work to bring disparate communities together.

My thoughts keep returning to Long Island City and the transformations I saw underway there. There is such a huge difference between the rent/apartment prices in the new buildings popping up along the river and the rest of (/former residential) LIC, breeding new demographic shifts. Over the two years I lived there, I saw the two small commercial areas becoming more and more distinct from each other - and holding very specific segments of the small area. The new towers claim 'sustainability' while bringing luxury to (part of) the area, creating new social boundaries. The rent of the new buildings has to be inflated to balance the greater initial investments by 'green market' seeking developers. Incoming residents of these towers do not join those living in their shadows shopping at the budget C-Town grocery, even though the 4 or 6 block walk is convenient.

Many people overlook or seem to forget it, but sustainability has a social component, a component of equity which seems to fight with economics. It's great if the costly solar panels on a new building contribute to its electricity usage, but what about the neighbors - the existing communities - who might be forced to move and dissipate in order to continue to afford their meager existence living on the grid?

Subtle Sustainability

Sometimes I am afraid that I have become too comfortable in Norwegian, as I begin to realize all that I have been taking for granted which is going on around me. For instance, I have realized there are a whole host of sustainable (and sometimes not completely sustainable but interesting) implementations and infrastructure here which I use on a daily basis, but have yet to share with many potentially interested parties back home. The more I have thought about it recently, the more bits come to mind, so I thought I'd share a bit of a list of sustainability related 'facts' I have come across in the past 8 or so months here.

*Disclaimer - many of these simply were derived from casual conversation and I have not done all the background research, so the range of specific accuracy may vary here.

One big one, which I was reminded of by a news article referring to Denmark - but Trondheim burns its trash for electricity and heat. The District Heating System is pretty interesting and quite large - covering (at minimum) the heat of all municipal buildings in the city. This is greatly minimizing the ventilation requirements of included buildings. Many buildings I've encountered (including my student apartment building) operate via passive/natural ventilation.

Some side notes with this... By trash, I mean 'avfall', or items not recycled in paper/plastic/glass/metal. I have further heard that all packaging plastic allowed in Norway is required to be of a certain compound which can be burned without releasing toxins into the air.

Also, building demolition and construction waste is highly regulated in Norway - 60% of materials removed from buildings are required to be reused or diverted from landfill, and localities commonly have centers for building material reuse/resale. These centers often employ people for sorting and cleaning materials on an hourly basis, creating laborious, but paying jobs for those with drug addictions and other problems hindering regular work.

Norway produces more electricity through hydropower than they use on an yearly basis. While commendable, there is a small catch to this.. Through the summers, a great surplus of energy is produced and exported through Northern Europe, but hydropower cannot be produced in the winter months, when rivers have frozen over. It is also during the winter that Norway consumes the most electricity for heating - this is purchased back from, sometimes unclean, sources in continental Europe. I have heard that in the 1980s or early 1990s, an ad campaign ran on the national television station actually encouraging Norwegians to use more electricity, because it is clean. The other concerning downside to this is that many appliances here, heaters and stoves in particular, run off of electricity, which is less than efficient.

To be fair, the (very progressive) building code in Norway is forcing incredible amounts of insulation and high R-values, and has planned for zero-emission buildings level requirements for the near future.

I am sure there is plenty more which will come to mind to be shared later.. But today, in the shadow of clouds of volcanic ash, one must recognize the shear power of nature - with or without humans and their destructive habits. I'm finding the flight groundings a bit refreshing in an ironic way.. The last time this Icelandic volcano erupted in the 1800s, it kept going for a full year - I cannot personally remember the last time in my life I went an entire year without taking a fuel guzzling flight, just imagine the environmental implications of grounding entire countries for any period of time.

Maybe we should litter..

I've been reading Paul Shepard, "Where We Belong", and wanted to share some of his thoughts that I found striking. There has been a building aggression in my mind, the more I hear about recycled content and sustainable materials, and building - when the obvious contradiction that no one seems to admit is that the most sustainable building practice is to not build at all. To make his point, the words are strong and ideas provocative, even if disturbingly so. I find myself wondering why sustainability has taken the market driven course it has when there were scholars publishing such words as early as the 1960s..

"If you must have some symbolic actions, I recommend the following: throw your wrappers, papers, butts anywhere, beer cans in the streets, bottles on the berms and terraces; uproot and cut down all ornamental trees and replace them with native fruit-bearing trees and bushes; sabotage all watering systems on all lawns everywhere; pile leaves, manure, and garbage among growing things; return used oil, tires, mattresses, bedsprings, machines, appliances, boxes, foil, plastic containers, rubber goods, and all other debris to their origins - seller or manufacturer, whichever is easier - and dump them there; unwrap packages in the place of purchase and leave the wrappings.

When this has gone on long enough, some tokens of the glut of overconsumption will at least be evident. Equally important, there will be less refuge from the countryside with its regimented monocultures, scalped slopes, poisoned rivers, and degraded rangelands. Our society goes for letting it all hang out, so let's do it. Are encounter groups in? Let's raise the encounter a whole octave and confront the real human ecosystem that we live in. Some great Avon lady keeps rouge on the cheeks of the middle-class neighborhood, the industrial park, and the college campus; the same tinsel earth mother in whose name the slaughterhouse is hidden, the zoo's dead are unobtrusively replaced, and the human dead are pseudo-fossilized." (Shepard, 'Ugly is Better')

Granted, any "civilized" place would never act by these measures, but a point still stands.. If we all had to live in the refuse which we produce, perhaps everyone would be forced to second think their habits?