The Chicken or the Egg?

Thierry posted this question in his comments on my February post:

Is there anyone out there modeling for us the goal in a manner which is compelling and attractive on a number of levels? Jim, can you introduce us to communities which already exist and are thriving?

Unfortunately Thierry, at this time, my answer is “No.” In the US there are plenty of cities and larger towns where one can live low-emissions. But my target audience—folks now living in suburbia—clearly are not attracted to either cities or larger towns. I’ve heard there are multi-family PassivHaus dwellings in Germany, but I don’t have any info on them yet. I just e-mailed Katrin Klingenberg at passivehouse.us asking for leads to research this.

Wendy posted a number of challenging comments recently:

Give up their cars? Are you kidding? It's not going to happen until people, again the vast majority, are forced by circumstances beyond their control. Who is going to have the money to buy the places you want to see built?


Wendy, I have no hopes of reaching the vast majority now. What I’d love is to reach a handful of folks who want to share a multi-family dwelling and live without adding to Earthocide. I’m talking about some very, very low-hanging fruit. Some early, very early adopters. Folks who know they don’t want a big car, a big house, and a lot of stuff. I’m envisioning compact, connected dwellings selling in the $90,000 USD range. I know quite a few singles in their 40s, 50s, 60s (me), and 70s who would adore to buy into a sweet little community like that. How about you?


I agree that suburbanites are not going to demand affordable, sustainable homes. US suburbanites are so intimidated by government backed fear-mongering that they won’t even demand good health care, an end to the oil wars, just consequences for Wall street bankers, the truth about 9/11, or good leadership. They’re too scared to demand anything. They’re afraid of losing their jobs, the repo man grabbing their cars, the banker foreclosing their ticky-tacky box. This is the chicken.


There’s yet another reason they remain so docile. They know intellectually that life on Earth is in grave danger and worsening every day. It’s all over the medias. Hard to avoid. They know too that their daily acts—driving their car, heating their home, using electricity, buying all those consumer items, is part of the problem. But they have no idea how to deal with the guilt and grief their actions engender. Andrée Zaleska, writing in Energy Bulletin , Mar 12 2010, nails it: “If we are clinging to trying not to feel bad, then there’s no possibility of real transformation.” The chickens are numb.


So, no, they’re not going to lead the way to sustainability. And no, they’re not going to budge until the dollar cost of gasoline, heating fuels, electricity, food and taxes puts them out in the street. Before that time comes, I want to build some examples of my vision. I want to build and sell sustainable dwellings to folks while they can still sell the sprawl house they now own, before it’s too late. I want their friends and acquaintances to notice the change: their energy security, their food security, their community circle, their entire not-harmful-to-Earth existence. This is the egg. Then there will be demand for more eggs.


Sure there are a lot of other obstacles. Most suburban zoning regulations prohibit healthy diversity; prohibit the sort of multi-family connected dwellings that can be easily powered by renewable energy. But there are a few exceptions. For example, Portland, Maine’s zoning ordinance includes:


R-7 Compact Urban Residential Overlay Zone


. . . to encourage and accommodate compact residential development. Sites suitable for in-city living should be within walking distance of downtown or other work places, shopping and community facilities and have access to public or private off-site parking or transit service. The intent of this zone is to foster increased opportunities for compact in-city living for owners and renters representing a variety of income levels and household types.


OK, it may be too urban to appeal to sprawl-dwellers. Maybe I’ll have to keep looking. But it’s a start. I’ll be visiting Portland soon researching available properties.


I have a hunch that big-time organizations like the National Association of Home Builders, while still focused on sprawl housing, know that for the dead end it is. You’ll find this on their current web page:


Foreclosures Weigh on Builder Confidence in March - 3/15/2010


Once there are successful examples of sustainable communities, NAHB will jump on the bandwagon. There’s plenty of money to be made in sustainability! I’ll end with Wendy’s ending:


May our culture awaken to the many ways in which we can ease our inevitable transition out of hyper-industrialism, hyper-consumerism, and into a sustainable, vibrant, healthy and prosperous in-the-true-sense-of-the-word, economy and society.
Wendy

Wendy's Comment

I liked Wendy’s comment on my first post so much I decided to respond here rather than in the comment area. (Wendy’s question was: I recently read--wish I could find the citation--that it takes 35 years for newly built "green," "sustainable"--and by that I think the writer did mean zero-carbon footprint--houses to "payback." Now of course without more detail, it's not worth arguing with such a claim. But it does suggest to me important questions about the feasibility--economically at the very least--and desirability (EROI?) of building these sustainable dwelling areas you describe.)

First a comment on EROI. Isn’t it peculiar that many folks demand to know the ROI on investments that are vital to survival on Earth, but utterly ignore the ROI on less crucial purchases? People almost always ask me about the ROI on solar systems. But they never think to ask about the ROI on their new couch, new shoes, or new granite countertops. None of those save them money and produce income after the payback period elapses. Not that there is any payback period.


I used to offer a workshop called “Greening Your Suburban Lifestyle”. After a PowerPoint that detailed the energy consumption of the case study suburban house, I divided the participants into two-person teams, giving each team a workbook. The goal of the exercise was for each team to select, from a menu of energy upgrade options, ones that would reach or approach zero emissions, at a cash cost they would be willing to pay in their own lives. Each upgrade option listed its cash cost to implement and its tonnage reduction in carbon output.


To give the exercise powerful impact, there was a third component in scoring this exercise: EROI. Well, sort of. I didn’t actually calculate the energy to produce each upgrade. What I did was look at energy costs of the case study house in 20 years. How many of us ever give a thought to how much we will have to pay for energy in 20 years? Obviously I had to plug in a rate of inflation. In the PowerPoint I showed the 2030 energy costs--for the case study house—inflated at 5, 10, 15, and 20%. To keep the scoring simple, I wanted to use only one rate of inflation. I would ask the participants if they agreed 15% was reasonable, if not actually conservative. I always got agreement.


The energy cost of the case study house was $26,132 in 2010. This includes space heat, hot water, electricity, food energy, 3 cars, trucking, and roads. Running that out 20 years at 15% inflation yields an energy cost of $371,904 in 2030. That was the “Do Nothing” default in the scoring. By the way, do you think you will be able to pay that kind of energy cost in 20 years? Do you see your income going up at 15% annually?


You might ask about my including food energy. I’ve heard the average food item in the supermarket has traveled 1500 miles. I don’t know if that includes those New Zealand organic apples I love or those toxic strawberries from Mexico that glow in the dark. Can this be sustainable? Enjoy ’em while you can folks, peak oil will soon move them to the luxury gourmet aisle.

Or you might question my including roads and trucking. Think about it. We can't live in suburbia without roads to drive our cars on. Building and maintaining pavement, bridges and so on of the 4 million miles of roads in the US has a high dollar and carbon output cost. And we can't live in suburbia without the national fleet of 2 million 18-wheelers rolling 24/7 delivering goods via those roads. So any analysis of greening your suburban house that excludes all that is required to live there is not the whole picture.


OK. The teams could choose upgrade options that would reduce that cost to almost zero in 2030. How? By selecting to move from that suburban sprawl house to a zero-emissions mixed-use congregate living community in a nearby walkable town. By growing a lot of their own food. By owning no cars, using instead a ZipCar for trips unreachable via public transit. And so on.


Back to EROI. By selling the sprawl house for $350,000 and buying the zero-emissions dwelling for $200,000, they saved $2.7 million over 20 years in energy costs alone, not to mention a lowered mortgage payment, and enjoyed the rewards of an extended family of choice. I don’t know how to calculate that ROI, but I know it’s gigantic!


Here’s a story of what happened at my workshop at a UU church in Duxbury, MA. One of the upgrade options was to grow some percentage of your own food: 25, 50, 75 or 100%. One team selected the 100% option twice. Now, it had never occurred to me that anyone would select an option twice, so there was no rule against it. In the closing discussion I asked them what was up with that? The woman replied, “Oh, we’re going to grow food for our neighbor too.”


In Duxbury, MA, that’s the deeper meaning of sustainability!

How Much Must We Reduce Carbon Emissions?

Among my greenish friends and acquaintances, this is a question none agree on. There are numerous opinions floating around:

• 5.2% below 1990 (Kyoto Protocol)
• 20% by 2050 (Step It Up 2050)
• 350 ppm (by unstated time and means) (350.0rg)

I think it’s fair to say that most, if not all of my friends and acquaintances, are undecided, and as a result, none are doing anything significant to reduce their carbon emissions. An unclear goal results in inaction, or avoidance actions.


If you are unclear and undecided about what your carbon emissions goal should be, I’d like to offer some information. The SEED website (http://www.seed.slb.com/subcontent.aspx?id=4120) offers a fun (water flowing into and out of a bathtub), interactive graphic simulator that enables you to try three different options for carbon emissions. There’s also an 8-minute video in which Drew Jones explains the simulator. Watch it first, then play with the simulator.


There are some drawbacks to the simulator. First, the upper limit is set at 450 ppm. That’s obsolete. James Hansen (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/) says the upper limit is somewhere between 300 and 350 ppm. Above that, sudden and catastrophic climate events are likely. We’re at 387 now. How would the simulator behave if revised to show we’re already above the safe level? For levels to drop to 300-350 in a reasonable length of time, say ten years, I believe the simulator would demand zero emissions immediately.


Second, the simulator offers no information on what would need to happen to reach that goal. The simulator combines carbon inputs from burning—burning gasoline, fuel oil, natural gas, coal, wood, bio-fuels, etc., with carbon reductions by plants and sea water. But currently plants (tropical rainforests, temperate forests, etc.) are being destroyed at an incomprehensible rate, and sea water is diminishing in its capacity to absorb carbon.


I’d love to see the simulator revised to enable it to predict what would happen if worldwide carbon emissions dropped to zero and destruction of the biosphere stopped. How many years would it take for Mother Earth to lower carbon to a safe, stable level?


The USA generates about 25% of worldwide carbon emissions. Presumably that can be controlled by the USA. But the USA cannot control the remaining 75% of worldwide emissions. The USA has set the lifestyle example much of the world is now trying to emulate: living in a McMansion in suburban sprawl, one car per driving-age person, a high rate of consumption of short-lived consumer products (http://www.storyofstuff.com/) , an unhealthy diet high in meat and HFCS, cut off from non-human nature, a bubble economy based on debt, and supporting military force to take “resources” from the rest of the world.


I think the USA must now set a new, sustainable example. We need to admit that our current lifestyle is destroying the ecosphere and bringing us little, if any joy. We need to get curious about what other ways to live might be in harmony with Mother Earth and might bring us joy. Might reconnect us with each other and non-human life. There are lots of options available.


I just watched a brilliant talk by Paul Hawken given in 2007 at the Long Now Foundation (http://fora.tv/2007/06/08/Paul_Hawken_New_Great_Transformation#fullprogram). It’s a 45 minute talk followed by 30 minutes of Q & A. Watch it! In this talk Paul shows a film that is simply a list of environmental/social justice groups—available options. The list rolls up the screen like movie credits. Then he says it would take a month to view the whole list at that speed! There are over 100,000 such groups!


He says folks ask him if he’s optimistic about what will happen on Earth vis-a-vis these groups. He replies:


“If you look at the data and you are optimistic, I don't think you are looking at the data. The data is terrible and you know it. I feel like if you look at these people, if you meet them, if you go to WiserEarth, you look at these organizations one by one by one as my staff has done and you are not optimistic about who we are, then you don't have a pulse, so it's both are true, right.”

What Happened To Me

This story happened to me in Massachusetts in the year 2000. I’d been practicing architecture for almost 30 years, always hoping for clients who wanted highly energy-efficient, solar powered buildings. Only a handful came to me over the years. In 2000 I made the decision to refuse projects that would cause an increase in carbon emissions, adding to global climate disruption and contributing to the death of the biosphere.

Suddenly I had a lot of time on my hands! I began reading books on deep ecology, ecopsychology, and some fun, sustainable-vision novels including Ernest Callenbach’s "Ecotopia" and Starhawk’s "The Fifth Sacred Thing". Then I read Joanna Macy’s "World As Lover, World As Self". I felt something move in my core being. Immediately thereafter, I 'just happened' to run across a notice that Joanna was offering a 5-day workshop at the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies in Barre, MA. I registered that day.

Joanna calls her workshops ‘The Work That Reconnects’. Here’s how she describes it on her website (joannamacy.net):

“The Work That Reconnects is a pioneering form of group work that began in the 1970s. It demonstrates our interconnectedness in the web of life and our authority to take action on its behalf. It has helped many thousands around the globe find insight, solidarity, and courage to act, despite rapidly worsening conditions. Based on systems theory, spiritual teachings, and deep ecology, its methods are described in Coming Back to Life, the book I wrote with Molly Young Brown.”


Before long I found myself in a beautiful dharma hall with about 25 others. Maybe it was the second day of the workshop, I’m not sure. What I do recall vividly is Joanna had divided us up into pairs. We sat yoga-style on the floor, facing our partner, knees almost touching. Joanna said, “Tap your partner’s knee. Whoever taps first is partner A, the other B. The exercise is called ‘Open Sentences’. The facilitator speaks the first part of a sentence, and A completes the sentence, speaking to B, making eye contact. A then continues to expand upon the thought for about two minutes, speaking extemporaneously. This continues for three more sentences, and then it’s B’s turn to complete the same four sentences.


I was sitting with a man named Ray. I was A. I had completed the first open sentence, speaking from my intellect, altho I didn’t realize I was doing that. The hall was relatively quiet, with a low murmur of voices all around me. I think the second sentence was: “The way I feel when I imagine what the world will be like for my grandchildren is . . . . . .”


I found myself unable to speak, choked up. I felt tears welling up in my eyes. Suddenly I began sobbing very loudly, over and over, uncontrollably, weeping profusely. I couldn’t stop. I think I scared Ray with my outburst. Then someone else in the room, in the midst of completing that sentence, hearing me, began sobbing along with me! Then another. The memory of what I felt then remains part of my heart, bringing tears to my eyes as I write this.


What happened to me? Joanna had broken my heart open is what happened. All the feelings I had been blocking for so many years, had been numbing myself to, had been afraid of and unwilling to let myself feel, came tumbling out of wherever they were stuffed and flooded into and through my heart. Later Joanna spoke about letting ourselves feel our grief over what we see happening all around us. She said we cannot numb our feelings selectively. If we numb ourself to grief, then we numb ourselves to joy, to love, to all feelings. She spoke about the many reasons we have for not letting ourselves feel our grief about species extinction, nuclear waste, toxins in our food, water, soil, and air. So much to grieve in our world now! Including suburb an sprawl.


At the end of the week I left the workshop with an open heart, willing to feel my part in destroying the biosphere. Whenever I drive my car, I admit to myself I’m part of the problem. Every time I burn fossil fuel to heat my home, I admit I’m part of the problem. Every time I turn on the lights, I think about carbon emissions and nuclear waste at the power plants. Well, not every time. I still numb out a lot. But I do think we need to let these feelings into our hearts to motivate ourselves to stop being part of the problem. If we’re totally numbed out to the consequences of our seemingly benign daily acts, then we won’t become part of the solution. We’ll go on believing that changing a few light bulbs, buying a Prius, recycling our plastic water bottles is all we need to do.


If only everyone in this country, in the whole world, could do a Joanna workshop! Even though Joanna has trained hundreds of facilitators in this work, it’s not enough. My own experience has been that without Joanna, my teacher, I’d still be numbed out and unwilling to step into sustainable territory. I don’t have any answers to how enough folks can have a deep enough change of heart to reach a tipping point, to stop the destruction of this beautiful blue-green biosphere. But answers are needed. Surbrban sprawl is destroying the biosphere one day at a time, relentlessly.


This is what is happening to me in Massachusetts in the year 2010.