| In this series
on sustainability, we should be aware of how it came about so
that we can be more able to discriminate between the good and
bad science that brought it about.
The sustainable or “green” movement began in
1980 when the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) developed the World Conservation Strategy (WCS). This
strategy initially set forth the idea that development and conservation
of the environment can co-exist.
In 1981, this concept of sustainability appeared
again in two books.
The first book was “Building a Sustainable Society”
by Lester R. Brown, who founded the Worldwatch Institute in
1974. This organization attempts to effect environmental change
by being an information source to decision-makers of the world.
They claim to be non-partisan and independent, getting most
of their funding from private foundations and individuals.
The second book was “Gaia: An Atlas of Planet
Management in 1984”, written by Norman Myers. (Gaia is defined
in the dictionary as “the earth personified as a goddess”.)
In an article for the National Wildlife Federation he wrote
“We are into the opening stages of a human-caused biotic holocaust--a
wholesale elimination of species--that could leave the planet
impoverished for at least five million years.” Myers believes
that five million years is the minimum amount of time required
for evolution to re-create all of the species we have today.
Furthermore, he believes that natural catastrophes, or biotic
holocausts, as he calls them, have already occurred five times.
He believes that humans are causing the sixth biotic holocaust.
Then, in 1992, the United Nations sponsored
the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,
otherwise known as the Earth Summit. It was held in Rio de Janiero.
The message of the Earth Summit included this one – that “poverty
as well as excessive consumption by affluent populations place
damaging stress on the environment”.
The Earth Summit in 1992 addressed that message
with several objectives. First, the “patterns of production”
would be scrutinized by the UN and “Governments”. Second, that
alternative energy sources be found, so that the global climate
change caused by fossil fuels could be stopped. Third, we should
rely on public transportation in order to reduce pollution,
and fourth, we should become more aware of the scarcity of water.
During the Earth Summit of 1992, the UK Royal
Society and the US National Academy of Sciences wrote a joint
communique that concluded that our “development process was
unsustainable” and that “the future of our planet is in the
balance”.
One year later, the World Congress of Architects
met in Chicago, where they wrote the “Declaration of Interdependence
for a Sustainable Future”. It says, “that buildings should have
a benign environmental impact, that buildings should be minimal
consumers of energy and other resources throughout their life
cycle, should have healthy and pleasing internal environments,
foster community, be arranged with accessible green spaces in
urban areas, and that they should enable a kind of transport
infrastructure to be developed around them in a way that would
discourage the use of the automobile”.
That same year (1993), the US Green Building
Council (USGBC) was formed. Their mission statement is “The
U.S. Green Building Council is the nation’s foremost coalition
of leaders from across the building industry working to promote
buildings that are environmentally responsible, profitable and
healthy places to live and work. ”
The USGBC had slow beginnings, but according
to the February ’05 issue of Architectural Record (which has
been a source of information in this article), in just the last
four years its membership has grown from 600 members to 6,000,
and their membership is currently growing by 150 per month.
More than 25,000 architects have taken the LEED (Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design) accreditation exam that
USGBC offers.
Clearly, this is not a movement that is going
away, and there is substantial merit to some of the things it
espouses. It is doing something that war and the space program
have traditionally done – inspiring the creation of new products
and greater innovations.
However, we need to be careful not to fall for
junk science (global warming for example) or wealth distribution
schemes, one of which was the Kyoto Treaty that President Bush
wisely rejected. More next week.
|
