Home

Right Action

Being Good

Presumption

Consequences

Urban Ecology: Building Green

For many the phrase “urban ecology” is an oxymoron, as urban development disrupts and destroys ecosystems. Yet, with more than half the world’s population living in cities,1 we must learn to live more ecologically in urban environments.  Solving urban problems begins with seeing each city, with its suburbs and surrounding countryside, “as a single, evolving system within nature.”2 This means that: “Nature in the city must be cultivated, like a garden, rather than ignored or subdued.”3

"The city is a granite garden, composed of many smaller gardens, set in a garden world. Parts of the granite garden are cultivated intensively, but the greater part is unrecognized and neglected.  To the idle eye, trees and parks are the sole remnants of nature in the city. But nature in the city is far more than trees and gardens, and weeds in sidewalk cracks and vacant lots. It is the air we breathe, the earth we stand on, the water we drink and excrete, and the organisms with which we share our habitat. Nature in the city…is rain and the rushing sound of underground rivers buried in storm sewers. It is water from a faucet, delivered by pipes from some outlying river or reservoir, then used and washed away into the sewer, returned to the waters of river and sea. Nature in the city is an evening breeze, a corkscrew eddy swirling down the face of a building, the sun and the sky. Nature in the city is dogs and cats, rats in the basement, pigeons on the sidewalks, raccoons in culverts, and falcons crouched on skyscrapers. It is the consequence of a complex interaction between the multiple purposes and activities of human beings and other living creatures and of the natural processes that govern the transfer of energy, the movement of air, the erosion of the earth, and the hydrologic cycle."4

A more ecological view of cities requires a new approach to urban planning. “Nature’s own ecosystems have an essentially circular metabolism in which every output which is discharged by an organism also becomes an input which renews and sustains the continuity of the whole living environment of which it is a part. The whole web of life hangs together in a ‘chain of mutual benefit,’ through the flow of nutrients that pass from one organism to another.”5

Unfortunately, the “metabolism” of most cities now “is essentially linear, with resources being ‘pumped’ through the urban system without much concern about their origin or about the destination of wastes.”6 Food is imported into cities, “consumed, and discharged as sewage into rivers and coastal waters. Raw materials are extracted from nature, combined and processed into consumer goods that ultimately end up as rubbish which can’t be beneficially reabsorbed into the natural world. More often than not, wastes end up in some landfill site where organic materials are mixed indiscriminately with metals, plastics, glass, and poisonous residues.”7

Therefore, our goal for urban life is to create “an adaptive, resilient, evolving, self-organizing” system that provides “a sustainable livelihood, whose ecological footprint is minimal, and which interfaces with natural systems in a way that promotes ecological integrity.”8

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

In 1993 the International Union of Architects and the American Institute of Architects at their joint World Congress issued the “Declaration of Interdependence for a Sustainable Future.” This declaration begins by recognizing that: “A sustainable society restores, preserves, and enhances nature and culture for the benefit of all life, present and future,” and that “today’s society is seriously degrading the environment and is not sustainable.”9

Recognizing that buildings and “the built environment play a major role in the human impact on the natural environment and on the quality of life,” the World Congress of Architects pledged to promote “sustainable design” that “integrates consideration of resource and energy efficiency, healthy buildings and materials, ecologically and socially sensitive land-use, and an aesthetic sensitivity that inspires, affirms and ennobles.”10 The declaration also affirms that a sustainable design would improve the “quality of life and economic well being” as well as “significantly reduce adverse human impacts on the natural environment.”11

Standards

In 1990, in the United Kingdom, the Building Research Establishment published a set of guidelines known as the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM).12 In 1996 the US Green Building Council launched the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)13 standards, and two years later countries supporting the Green Building Challenge14 began to promote the Green Building Assessment Tool (GBTool).15

These standards are important because buildings consume about “40 percent of all of the raw materials and energy used on the planet.”16 In the United States, buildings use about 65 percent of the electricity consumed, produce around 30 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions, consume almost 12 percent of the potable water used, and generate approximately 135 million tons of construction and demolition waste per year.17

In the United States, “LEED promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality.”18 The US Green Building Council19 promotes the LEED standards and seven federal agencies (including the army, navy, and air force) have adopted these standards for new building projects,20 as have several state and municipal governments. 

Green standards are being incorporated in municipal building codes. In Santa Monica “the most recent ordinances require building design features to produce 20 to 25 percent more efficiency than California’s fairly strict state wide regulations.”21 In Boulder, Colorado, residential construction has to earn twenty-five “green points” for approval. “Green points are earned according to the amount of insulation (for example, R-24 wall insulation would earn 3 points), the type of windows (high performance glazing would earn between 2 and 8 points), the kind of heating system (radiant floor heating, for example, would earn 5 points), and by positioning new construction so that it has enhanced access to solar heat (2 points).”22

San Francisco is imposing “the country’s most stringent green building codes, regulations that would require new large commercial buildings and residential high-rises to contain such environmentally friendly features as solar power, nontoxic paints and plumbing fixtures that decrease water usage.”23 This plan has the support of the San Francisco Building Owners and Managers Association, because it makes sense and will be phased in gradually over four years.

Industrial Ecology

Industrial systems should be modeled on ecosystems, so that excess energy and waste from some manufacturing activities “serve as inputs for industries requiring energy and which can use the waste in their production systems. After their ‘birth, life, and death’ at one scale, the products of industry would ultimately be metabolized and reutilized at another scale, mimicking the closed, waste-free cycles of natural systems.”24 This ethical presumption represents a new way of looking at economic development.

“Industrial ecology is taken to be the activity of designing and managing human production-consumption systems, so that they interact with natural systems, to form an integrated (eco)system which has ecological integrity and provides humans with a sustainable livelihood.”25

Traditional “waste” is seen as a resource.26 Every ton of metal “that is reused, remanufactured, or recycled—or whose use is avoided by more efficient design—replaces a ton that would otherwise have to be mined and smelted, with all of the intermediate energy and material requirements associated with those activities.”27 It also “eliminates at least a ton of carbon dioxide pollution and significant additional pollution of air and water from coking, pickling, and other associated activities.”28

This view of industrial ecology “requires a major change in some of the ways in which science and decision making are conducted. Traditional reductionistic disciplinary science and expert predictions, the basis for much of the advice given to decision makers, have limited applicability. Narratives about possible futures . . . [should] capture the richness of possibilities.”29

Ecological Benefits

Green buildings are rich in ecological benefits. First, a green building uses less fossil fuel than a standard building. “Large reductions can be made to conventional energy use by using the tried and true techniques of increased insulation, better windows, passive solar heating, daylighting, and natural cooling. Further reductions to carbon-based energy can be made by using more benign sources of energy, including solar water preheating, photovoltaic panels, wind power, geothermal heat exchange, local microhydro, or fuel cells.”30

The goal of ecological design “is to eliminate the need to adjust temperatures with fossil fuels or electricity. We avoid this by allowing Nature to do the work of creating the desired temperature. Our job is to create [building] designs that exploit temperatures or temperature differences that naturally occur in various media such as air, earth, and even water.”31

Second, a green building conserves water. “Reductions in water use can start with installing water conserving fixtures, but can also include using biological waste water treatment systems for gray and blackwater; using waterless toilets or urinals; using composting toilets; or capturing on-site rainwater. It can also mean planting a landscape that is native and does not require watering.”32

In 2000 the American Institute of Architects recognized a building constructed at the University of British Columbia (UBC) that significantly reduces water use. “Its nine composting toilets and three urinals require no water. Gray water and rainwater are used for irrigation. The various water-saving devices save about 1,500 gallons of potable water every day.”33 Construction costs were comparable to a similar building, moreover the operating and maintenance costs of the UBC building are lower.

Third, a green building creates less waste. It should “filter water pollution before it leaves the site, recharge groundwater, preserve and encourage biodiversity, and use integrated pest management techniques. It should use materials that are not only durable but salvaged and salvageable, recycled and recyclable.  It should make it easy for occupants to recycle and compost, reuse construction and demolition waste, and avoid air pollutants.”34

Fourth, a green building is not only efficient, but maximizes the effective use of energy. “This distinction emphasizes the amount of energy required to perform a particular service, rather than the efficiency with which energy is converted from one form to another.”35 For example, if the waste heat from turbines generating electricity is used to heat a building or, “through the absorption cycle, to cool the building in the summer, the gain from using the waste heat will not show up in the efficiency calculation but will show up in an effectiveness calculation.” 36 Also, buildings that “capture heat generated during the day by workers and machines etc. and store it for use to heat the building at night do not have any advantage from an efficiency point of view, but do from an effectiveness perspective.”37

Sustainable Construction

Building green is a way of recovering our relationship with nature, as these design standards “use only as much energy and resources and create only as much waste as can be sustained by the environment.”38 This is why the emerging discipline of “industrial ecology” has, as its first presumption: “View the human system under consideration as part of its ecosystem and large natural systems.”39 The Calvert Fund and the Institute for Responsible Investment recently ranked US builders “based on their environmental and sustainable practices.”40 Summing up, the objectives of “building green” standards, industrial ecology, and sustainable construction are to:

1.   Reduce resource consumption.

2.   Reuse resources to the maximum extent possible.

3.   Recycle built environment end-of-life resources and use recyclable resources.

4.   Protect natural systems and their function in all activities.

5.   Eliminate toxic materials and by-products in all phases of the built environment.

6.   Incorporate full-cost accounting in all economic decisions.

7.   Emphasize quality in all phases of the life cycle of the built environment .41

These principles embrace the three Rs, internalize as economic costs the social and environmental consequences of construction (externalities), and protect as well as mimic natural systems.42

“[E]thics and values must be incorporated into any discussion of industrial ecology, if for no other reason than the trade-offs between sustainable livelihoods and ecological integrity [that] will have to be made.”43 Scientific reasoning and best practices must be accepted by the public, which requires a decision-making process like adaptive management. Industrial ecology is “another stage in a process of never-ending change in which human-designed systems ‘naturally’ evolve in a manner similar to natural ecosystems.”44

“After more than a decade of tightening guidelines, Europe has made green architecture an everyday reality.”45 In the United States, however, “the federal government has yet to establish universal efficiency standards for buildings.”46 This should be a priority, as “buildings consume nearly as much energy as industry and transportation combined. And the average building in the United States uses roughly a third more energy than its German counterpart.”47

TRANSPORTATION

Economic interests that have persuaded Congress to keep gasoline taxes low and to support federal subsidies for highway development are largely responsible for the urban-suburban sprawl of most US cities. Few of these cities have energy-efficient mass transportation systems, and most have substantial traffic congestion that increases travel time, causes a greater consumption of gasoline, and adds to urban air pollution.

Mass Transit

There are, however, more sensible cities. Curitiba, Brazil, a city of 2 million in a metropolitan area of 3.5 million, relies for mass transit on buses that are used by 85 percent of the population.48 Moreover, “more than a quarter of Curitiba’s automobile owners take the bus to work.”49 Why is Curitiba’s bus system so effective?

·        Buses travel on a dedicated track, like a train, so they are not held up by auto traffic.

·        Passengers board through a raised tube bus stop, which allows rapid wheelchair access.

·        Passengers pay as they enter the tube, reducing the time required for loading a bus.

·        Buses can carry 270 passengers, more than three times the ordinary bus.

These innovations have enabled the city to realize most of the benefits of subways at less than 5 percent of the cost of building an underground train system.

There is only one low price for a bus ticket, no matter how far a passenger travels. Also, the city has contracts with ten private companies for bus service, pays according to the length of a route rather than the number of passengers carried, and buys old buses from the companies to ensure that new buses are regularly brought into service. Finally, the city has not widened highways to facilitate travel by motorized vehicles, and has set aside streets for pedestrians.50

There are many other efforts worldwide to reduce the use of cars. In Freiburg, Germany, residents in a new ecological district pay the equivalent of about $1,300 for a space in a nearby parking garage, and “car-free” estates are being created in the Netherlands. London has a traffic-congestion zone and charges motorists driving in the city center between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. a daily fee of around $16.51 Stockholm imposes a congestion tax for vehicles entering the city center,52 and Singapore has an electronic road-pricing system that charges motorists using the city’s roads during peak hours.53

Bicycles and Pedestrians

To promote bicycle use European cities have increased bike lanes and made other significant changes. “These include separated bike lanes with their own signaling, separate signaling and priority at intersections, signage and provision of extensive bicycle parking facilities (e.g. at train stations, public buildings), and minimum bicycle storage and parking standards for new development. Many cities are gradually converting spaces for auto parking to spaces for bicycles.”54

Copenhagen now makes available more than two thousand public bicycles that can be used by depositing a coin.55 “Paris now has some 20,000 bikes available for rental by credit card, scattered around the city at strategic sites. Six million people used the new rental program during the first three months after it was launched last year.”56

The United States “lags far behind this emerging trend, with less than 1 percent of workers commuting by bicycle. Overall, bike ridership has dropped by 32 percent since the early 1990s.”57 In the United States and Canada, cyclists generally must ride on busy streets and give way to cars. To encourage cycling, laws need to support the moral presumption that cyclists have precedence over motor vehicles “where both are vying for the same road space and neither clearly has the right of way over the other.”58 As bicycling in the United States will require using city streets for the foreseeable future, municipalities should widen curbside lanes and shoulders, replace drain grates, patch potholes, mark lanes, and install bike-activated traffic signals.59

The suburbs, too, need to be redesigned, with pedestrians rather than automobiles in mind. “The alternative to sprawl is simple and timely: neighborhoods of housing, parks, and schools placed within walking distance of shops, civil services, jobs, and transit—a modern version of the traditional town.”60 Realizing this new form of community life will require “fundamentally changing our preconceptions and local regulatory priorities, as well as redesigning the federal programs that shape our cities.”61

WATER AND WASTE

Cities consume enormous amounts of water. Greater London, with a population of about seven million, uses over one billion tons of water per year, which is about 100 gallons per person each day. In the United States it is estimated that cities use about 150 gallons of water per person each day.62 Much of this water is used to carry waste away from the city, and only a small fraction of the water treated for city use is consumed as drinking water.

Water Use

A more cost-effective and sustainable way of using water in cities involves “dual-use systems” that deliver drinking water separately to homes and businesses and utilize an alternative system to provide lesser-quality water for manufacturing, urban farming, landscaping, firefighting, and carrying away wastes. This approach can be combined with water quality treatment at the neighborhood level, which minimizes the length of the dual-use delivery system.63

Also, recycled water that is not suitable for drinking can be used for watering lawns, gardens, and flushing toilets. A building can be plumbed to collect and use its gray water for these purposes. At least one water district in California now delivers recycled water and drinking water to commercial users that have installed dual-use systems.64

As the water pipes in our cities deteriorate, the water pumped from central water treatment systems will decline in quality. Installing a dual system with satellite treatment facilities located in neighborhoods would be most cost effective, if done as deteriorating pipes are replaced. Cleaner drinking water can be provided immediately, however, by installing in-home and workplace water treatment systems. Governments could provide financial incentives for this investment by offering low-interest loans, tax credits, and rebates, as is being done for building renovations that save energy.65

Therefore, our ethical presumptions for conserving water in the city include: installing dual-use delivery systems with satellite water treatment facilities, providing recycled water for uses that do not require drinking water, and offering financial incentives for in-home and workplace water treatment systems.  These changes increase short-term costs, but are probably cost effective in the long term. Moreover, using less drinking water and recycling gray water not only lowers the demand for water, which reduces the rate at which we are consuming nonrenewable groundwater, but also reduces the need for water treatment facilities.

Natural Wastewater Treatment

Natural wastewater treatment systems should be a priority. In these systems, “The sewage water travels slowly among the roots and stems of aquatic plants, which take up some nutrients and other materials from the water in the process of supporting their own growth. However, the bulk of the work is done by bacteria and other microorganisms living on the roots and stems. Plants and microorganisms are capable of taking almost any materials out of the water, including nutrients, metals, and pathogens.”66

The system in Arcata, California, “begins with primary settling after which 2 to 3 million gallons of sewage move into three oxidation ponds each day and an equal amount moves out. After that, a 5.3 acre intermediate marsh, planted mostly with the hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus), reduces suspended solids. Mosquito fish control mosquito populations. Chlorination and dechlorination follow the intermediate marsh; then the water moves into the 154-acre Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary and from there into Humboldt Bay [the Pacific Ocean].”67

An aquatic system occupies more land than mechanized systems, but in an urban plan natural wastewater treatment facilities can be developed with satellite and dual-use water delivery systems. “Aquatic treatment concepts are not limited to municipal or industrial facilities but can be applied in myriad ways at any scale in any situation where purer water or a richer aquatic environment is desirable.”68 These systems “do not use fossil fuels or pollute the air. Finally, they cost far less than do mechanized systems.”69

Such a system can be combined with techniques to separate sewage, before purifying it, and then drying and converting it to fertilizer. The city of Bristol in the United Kingdom has invested in this process. “The annual sewage output of 600,000 people is turned into 10,000 tons of fertilizer granules.”70

Solid Waste

Burial and burning have been the most common ways of “treating” solid waste, but burial results in contaminants seeping into the soil and groundwater, and incineration releases dioxins and poisonous gases into the atmosphere. Also, research has shown “that incinerators compare badly with recycling in terms of energy conservation. Because of the high energy content of many manufactured products that end up in the rubbish bin, recycling paper, plastics, rubber and textiles is three to six [times] more energy-efficient than incineration.”71 Therefore, solid urban waste should be largely recycled or reused—or tapped for methane gas as a source of energy. In 2007 the EPA reported that “about 425 US landfills tap gas for power and an additional 560 dumps hold promising supplies of the fuel.”72

In Curitiba, The Garbage That Is Not Garbage initiative has drawn more than 70 percent of households to sort recyclable materials for collection. The Garbage Purchase program, designed specifically for low-income areas, helps to clean up sites that are difficult for the conventional waste-management system to serve. More than 34,000 families in 62 poor neighborhoods have exchanged over 11,000 tons of garbage for nearly a million bus tokens and 1,200 tons of surplus food. During the past three years, students in more than 100 schools have traded nearly 200 tons of garbage for close to 1.9 million notebooks.”73

Generally, effective recycling requires financial incentives. Arguments that may help to persuade businesses to recycle include:

·        Separating wastes, once institutionalized, can be cost effective.

·        Recycling removes any liability for waste that may be hazardous.

·        Increased competition for usable waste makes recycling convenient.

·        Businesses can receive media attention for their recycling efforts.

Employees and customers respond positively to corporate responsibility.74 In construction, contracts should ensure that a subcontractor is responsible for disposing of any waste that is the result of his work. Research has shown that waste reduction on the job site may reach 80 percent with such “supply-install-dispose” contracts.75

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

A 1993 report of the US National Commission on the Environment (NCE) asserts that sustainable development requires “living within the earth’s means.”76 The report offers an economic argument for why we should be “living off interest rather than consuming natural capital,” but also affirms our ethical duty to future generations. “Sustainable development mandates that the present generation must not narrow the choices of future generations but must strive to expand them by passing on an environment and an accumulation of resources that will allow its children to live at least as well as, and preferably better than, people today.”77

Indicators

In the United States the federal government has been slow to act, but many cities are addressing this challenge by identifying “indicators” of sustainability and measuring progress toward realizing these goals.78 For example, Seattle’s indicators include:

Environment

·        Wild salmon runs through local streams.

·        Number of good air quality days per year.

·        Percentage of Seattle streets meeting “Pedestrian-Friendly” criteria. 

Population and Resources

·        Total population of King County.

·        Gallons of water consumed per capita in King County.

·        Tons of solid waste generated and recycled per capita per year in King County.

·        Vehicle miles traveled per capita and gasoline consumption per capita.

·        Renewable and nonrenewable energy (in BTUs) consumed per capita.

Economy

·        Percentage of employment concentrated in the top ten employers.

·        Hours of paid work at the average wage required to support basic needs.

·        Percentage of children living in poverty.

·        Housing affordability for median- and low-income households.

·        Per capita health expenditures.

Culture and Society

·        Percentage of infants born with low birth weight.

·        Juvenile crime rate.

·        Percent of youth participating in some form of community service.

·        Percent of population voting in odd-year (local) primary elections.

·        Adult literacy rate.

·        Library and community center usage rates.

·        Participation in the arts.79

The citizens of Seattle understand sustainability as involving quality of life concerns as well as conservation. Some communities express this understanding of sustainability as three Es: environment, economy, and equity.80

Cities committed to sustainability promote recycling and the reuse of solid wastes. Household recycling is measured by the proportion of households that put recycle bins out for collection, and many city governments set targets to reduce the amount of waste going to landfills and incinerators.81 By promoting recycling Jacksonville, Florida, “decreased its per capita solid waste from 1.63 tons per person in 1987 to 0.96 tons per person in 1998.”82

Plans

A sustainable city plan will need support from business and civic organizations as well as government agencies, and also decision-making procedures, like adaptive management, that are responsive to local concerns. Business leaders or a civic organization may initiate a planning process, but to be effective it must be institutionalized in the municipal government.

Portland, Oregon, has incorporated its sustainability goals into the city’s Comprehensive Plan and charged a single municipal agency (the Office of Sustainable Development) with implementation.83 Austin, Texas, owns its electrical generating company, so it is offering residents the option of receiving energy generated by renewable resources.84

Chicago, which hopes to be “the most environmentally friendly city in the world,”85

·        Has planted over 400,000 trees since 1989, removing the pollution of 31,000 vehicles.

·        Has invested in clean-burning fleet vehicles, including 45 hybrid cars.

·        Has created 250 miles of bicycle lanes and installed 10,000 bicycle racks.

·        Operates nine free trolley routes using bio-diesel fueled trolleys.

·        Purchases 10 percent of the energy used in its facilities from renewable sources.

·        Replaces every year approximately 50 miles of old leaking water mains.

·        Recycles about 25 percent of the waste that previously went to landfills.86

In addition, Chicago maintains a garden of twenty thousand plants including more than a hundred species on the roof of its city hall. “The garden’s plants reflect heat, provide shade and help cool the surrounding air through evapotranspiration, which occurs when plants secrete or ‘transpire’ water through pores in their leaves. The water draws heat as it evaporates, cooling the air in the process. Plants also filter the air, which improves air quality by using excess carbon dioxide to produce oxygen.”87

This rooftop garden “mitigates the urban heat island effect by replacing what was a black tar roof with green plants. The garden absorbs less heat from the sun than the tar roof, keeping City Hall cooler in summer and requiring less energy for air conditioning. The garden also absorbs and uses rain water. It can retain 75 percent of a 1 inch rainfall before there is storm water runoff into the sewers.”88

CONSEQUENCES

What would be the likely consequences of acting on these ethical presumptions to make our communities more sustainable? In the short term, the costs might outweigh the benefits. Furthermore, if future benefits were discounted, as is often done in cost-benefit analysis, the high front-end costs of investing in long-term economic and environmental sustainability might not seem justified.

Yet, the 1993 report by the US National Commission on the Environment (NCE) requires that we consider long-term consequences without discounting them. The report says we have an ethical duty to pass on to future generations an environment and an accumulation of resources that will allow them to live at least as well as we have. The NCE report also requires that the loss of natural capital be included in any cost-benefit analysis.89

The costs of losing natural capital are immense, for this includes “all forms of resources from the environment, including minerals, water, air, sunlight, heat, plants, animals, and other organic matter.”90 The 1993 NCE report asserts that we should be “living off interest rather than consuming natural capital,” 91 which is a way of reminding us, by using an analogy, that we know it is best to preserve our financial capital by living off its returns. Natural capital does not literally have “interest,” but preserving the environment (natural capital) allows us to benefit from its ecosystem functions (benefits analogous to interest) even as we sustain natural capital so it that will also provide these benefits for future generations.

Long Term

The major principles of the Netherlands National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP) offer a summary of the ethical presumptions required for sustainable urban life:

·        Intergenerational equity: The current generation is responsible for providing a sustainable environment for the next generation.

·        The precautionary principle: In light of uncertainties, it is best not to make decisions that may involve serious environmental risks.

·        The standstill principle: As an absolute minimum, environmental conditions shall not further deteriorate.

·        Abatement at source: Harmful environmental actions should be prevented at their source.

·        The polluter pays principle: Internalization of environmental costs through such means as licensing fees, environmental taxes.

·        Use of the best applicable technology to control pollution and other environmental harms.

·        Prevention of all unnecessary waste.

·        Isolation, management, and control of wastes that cannot be processed.

·        Internalization: Environmental considerations are to be integrated into the actions of all responsible groups.

·        Integrated lifecycle management: Manufacturers are responsible for all environmental impacts of their products, from manufacture to use to disposal. Waste flows and pollution should be reduced at all stages.

·        Environmental space (footprint): Recognizes a limit to the level of resources each person can consume if society is to be environmentally sustainable.92

Do the likely consequences of acting on these presumptions call them into question? The standstill and polluter pays principles, as well as the presumptions that it is best to abate pollution at its source and to prevent unnecessary waste (rather than having to clean it up), are easily justified by cost-benefit analysis, even if the focus is only short term.

The ethical principle of intergenerational equity, which means accepting a duty to preserve natural capital for future generations, may be criticized as being “too expensive.” From an ecological perspective, however, this objection seems largely self-serving. Certainly, using a utilitarian standard and considering the greatest good for the greatest number over more than one generation would require limiting our consumption of natural capital, so it can continue to provide its life-sustaining ecosystem benefits.

What about requiring use of the best applicable technology? Saving money in the short term, by using less expensive but less effective technology to clean water, will likely not be cost effective in the long run. Internalizing environmental and social costs, rather than ignoring these as externalities, will increase the cost of doing business and the prices on goods. Yet, ignoring these real costs is foolish, and simply passes them on to the next generation.

Isolation, management, and control of wastes that cannot be processed and reused would seem, on its face, to yield better consequences than dumping these wastes into the environment. Moreover, assigning this responsibility to manufacturers, along with responsibility for all the likely environmental impacts of their products, gives them a financial incentive to reduce, recycle, or reuse waste in every possible way. Those who argue that governments should be responsible for all these costs, rather than manufacturers, bear the burden of demonstrating that this would be more effective.

The Precautionary Principle

German law adopted this ethical principle in the 1970s, in a provision known as the “foresight” principle, which states that natural resources should be protected and that demands on them should be made with care.93 This duty extends beyond the responsibility to act (with “hindsight”) after environmental damage has taken place, in order to prevent future occurrences, and even beyond acting to prevent an imminent hazard. The ethical presumption is that “the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.”94

The strongest argument against the precautionary principle is that it reduces innovation and raises costs.95 Yet, all the precautionary principle does is shift the responsibility for assessing risks and costs from government regulators to the manufacturer of a product, which must verify that a product is safe before it is used or sold. Imposing this principle on all industrial innovation does not disadvantage any particular business.

Corporations are beginning to adopt the precautionary principle, at least for activities that directly affect environmental integrity or human health. JPMorgan Chase applies the principle in its investment activities that may impact climate change. The Body Shop International, a cosmetics company based in the UK, has included the precautionary principle in its chemicals policy.96 The World Trade Organization has not recognized this principle, but changes in WTO policies are being demanded by many countries and this change, too, should be made.

Some cities have also adopted the precautionary principle. In 2003 San Francisco passed an ordinance that reads: “The Board of Supervisors encourages all City employees and officials to take the precautionary principle into consideration and evaluate alternatives when taking actions that could impact health and the environment, especially where those actions could pose threats of serious harm or irreversible damage.”97 Two years later the city began to consider the environmental and health costs of every item purchased in its $600 million annual budget.98

Nature as Our Model

These ecological policies for urban living embody the ethical principle of internalizing the environmental costs of our consumption. Implementing these policies requires research that reveals the loss of natural capital involved in making a product, the environmental impact of using it, and the disposal costs of each item. Combining this with the integrated lifecycle management of products by manufacturers and with supply-install-dispose construction contracts would help cities be more environmentally sustainable.

How are we to prevent all unnecessary waste? We should produce more consumables that, “when eaten, used, or thrown away, literally turn back into dirt, and therefore are food for other living organisms. This means that shampoos should be in bottles made of beets that are biodegradable in your compost pile.  It means carpets that break down into carbon dioxide and water. It means furniture made of lignin, potato peels and technical enzymes that look just like your manufactured furniture of today except it can be safely returned to the earth.”99

To eliminate waste in using products that are not consumables, but instead provide a service (cars, computers, etc.), these durables should be licensed rather than sold, giving the producer a duty to disassemble, recycle, and reuse the components of the product.100 “Customers may use them as long as they wish, even sell the license to someone else, but when the end-user is finished with, say, a television, it goes back to Sony, Zenith, or Philips.”101

Toxins and other hazardous products should not be made at all, and unmarketables that have already been made should be stored safely “until we can figure out a safe and non-toxic way to dispose of them.”102

Keeping these principles in mind, McDonough and Braungart modeled a new building for Oberlin College in Ohio “on the way a tree works. We imagined ways that it could purify the air, create shade and habitat, enrich soil, and change with the seasons, eventually accruing more energy than it needs to operate.”103 In its first summer, “the building began to generate more energy capital than it used.”104

Features include solar panels on the roof; a grove of trees on the building’s north side for wind protection and diversity; an interior designed to change and adapt to people’s aesthetic and functional preferences with raised floors and leased carpeting; a pond that stores water for irrigation; a living machine inside and beside the building that uses a pond full of specially selected organisms and plants to clean the effluent; classrooms and large public rooms that face west and south to take advantage of solar gain, special windowpanes that control the amount of UV light entering the building, a restored forest on the east side of the building, and an approach to landscaping and grounds maintenance that obviates the need for pesticides or irrigation.105

Cities can adopt the circular metabolism of nature. Our built environment can become a “granite and green garden.”

NOTES

1. Aaron Glantz, “In Historic First, World Population Now Majority Urban,” OneWorld.net (May 30, 2007), online at http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/149798/1/2091.

2. Anne Whiston Spirn, “City and Nature,” in Stephen M. Wheeler and Timothy Beatley, eds., The Sustainable Urban Development Reader (London: Routledge, 2004), 115. 

3. Ibid., 114.

4. Ibid.

5. Herbert Girardet, “The Metabolism of Cities,” in Stephen M. Wheeler and Timothy Beatley, eds., The Sustainable Urban Development Reader, 125.

6. Ibid., 125–126.

7. Ibid.

8. James J. Kay, “On Complexity Theory, Exergy, and Industrial Ecology,” in Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy, eds., Construction Ecology, 96. 

9. “Declaration of Interdependence for a Sustainable Future,” UIA/AIA World Congress of Architects (Chicago, June 18–21, 1993), Peter Yost, “Construction and Demolition Waste: Innovative Assessment and Management,” in Charles J. Kibert, ed., Reshaping the Built Environment: Ecology, Ethics, and Economics (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1999), 199.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid. For more about green designing, see Michael Kimmelman, “The Accidental Environmentalist,” The New York Times (May 20, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/ magazine/20shigeru-t.html.

12. The Environmental Assessment Consortium, online at http://www.breeam.com.

13. US Green Building Council, online at http://www.usgbc.org. 

14. International Green Building Challenge, online at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ highperformance/gbc.html.

15. Raymond J. Cole, “Environmental Performance of Buildings: Setting Goals, Offering Guidance, and Assessing progress,” in Charles J. Kibert, ed., Reshaping the Built Environment, 283. See Krishnan Gowri, “Green Building Rating Systems: An Overview,” (Nov. 2004), online at http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/pdfs/Sustainability.pdf. 

16. Jessica Woolliams, “Designing Cities and Buildings as If They Were Ethical Choices,” in David Schmidtz and Elizabeth Willott, eds., Environmental Ethics, 427. 

17. Andreas R. Edwards, The Sustainability Revolution (Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2005), 97.

18. “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,” US Green Building Council, online at http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19.

19. US Green Building Council, online at http://www.usgbc.org. Hotels in the United States are also beginning to use this standard. Gregory Dickum, “Pleasure Without Guilt: Green Hotels With Comfort,” The New York Times (Dec. 28, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/travel/escaes/28greenhotels.html.

20. See Andrea Takash, “New Buildings Must Follow ‘Green’ Construction Standard,” Environmental Update, US Army Environmental Command, online at http://aec.army.mil/usaec/publicaffairs/update/sum07sum0720.html.

21. Kent E. Portney, Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003), 97. See also Cecilia M. Vega, “San Francisco Moves to Greenest Building Codes in the US,” San Francisco Chronicle (Mar. 20, 2008), A-1, online at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/20/MN7QVMJ5T.DTl.

22. Ibid.

23. Celia M. Vega, “SF Moves to Greenest Building Codes in US,” San Francisco Chronicle (Mar. 20, 2008), A-1, online at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/20/MN7QVMJ5T.DTL.

24. Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir and G. Bradley Guy, “Defining an Ecology of Construction,” in Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy, eds., Construction Ecology, 16. 

25. James J. Kay, “On Complexity Theory, Exergy, and Industrial Ecology,” in Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy, eds., Construction Ecology, 82. 

26. “People who earn their living by sorting through and reselling municipal waste have reasserted their role as garbage recyclers and productive members of the global economy at an unprecedented event here this week. The First World Congress of Waste Pickers, which closed Tuesday after four days of discussions among delegates from over 40 countries, included proposals about how waste pickers can form strong associations and even access funds through carbon credits. . . . Although there is no official estimate of the number of waste pickers worldwide, delegates from Colombia, Turkey, and China estimated that their national totals are around 300,000; 200,000; and 6 million respectively.” Henry Mance, “World’s Garbage Recyclers Meet in Columbia,” OneWorld.net (Mar. 5, 2008), online at http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/158501/1.

27. Robert U. Ayres, “Minimizing Waste Emissions from the Built Environment,” in Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy, eds., Construction Ecology, 165. 

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid., 428. See also Timothy Gardner, “Cheaper Solar Power Heads Mainstream,” Reuters (May 22, 2007), online at http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2241870 420070522, and Matt Richtel and John Markoff, “A Green Energy Industry Takes Root in California,” The New York Times (Feb. 1, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/technology/01solar.html.

31. Jürgen Bisch, “Natural Metabolism as the Basis for ‘Intelligent’ Architecture,” in Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy, eds., Construction Ecology, 257.

32. Ibid.

33. Jessica Woolliams, “Designing Cities and Buildings as If They Were Ethical Choices,” in David Schmidtz and Elizabeth Willott, eds., Environmental Ethics, 428. For another award winning building, see David Rosenfeld, “Now This Will Be Life at Sustainable Edge,” The Oregonian (Dec. 20, 2007), online at http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/portland_news/119750737913900.xml.

34. Ibid.

35. Garry Peterson, ““Using Ecological Dynamics to Move Toward an Adaptive Architecture,” in Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy, eds., Construction Ecology, 144.

36. James J. Kay, “On Complexity Theory, Exergy, and Industrial Ecology,” in Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy, eds., Construction Ecology, 100. There are already such buildings. Timothy F. H. Allen, “Applying the Principles of Ecological Emergence to Building Design and Construction,” in Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy, eds., Construction Ecology, 119.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid.

39. Ernest A. Lowe, “Sustainable New Towns and Industrial Ecology,” in Charles J. Kibert,ed., Reshaping the Built Environment, 332.

40. Sarah Yaussi, “Fund Ranks Builders by ‘Greenness,’” Tools of the Trade (May 6, 2008), online at http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/industry-news.asp?articleID=700353&sectionID=1519.  41. Quoted from Charles J. Kibert, “Introduction,” in Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy, eds., Construction Ecology, 2.

42. It is encouraging that home insurance is beginning to provide for the costs of meeting green standards. Ilana DeBare, “Fireman’s Fund Offers Green Rebuilding Option,” San Francisco Chronicle (Jun. 6, 2008), C-1, online at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/06/BUTT11JJOU.DTL.

43. James J. Kay, “On Complexity Theory, Exergy, and Industrial Ecology,” in Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy, eds. Construction Ecology, 100. This includes designing clothing and all kind of consumer products as well as buildings. See Chelsea Emery, “Designers Say ‘Green’ Fashion Sustainable,” Reuters (Sep. 10, 2008), online at http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentalNews/idUSN0930626120080910.

44. Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir and G. Bradley Guy, “Defining an Ecology of Construction,” in Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy, eds., Construction Ecology, 18.  Schools are building green to save money and to improve learning. Ian Shapira, “Titans of Ecology,” The Washington Post (Sep. 11, 2007), B01, online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp=dyn/content/article/2007/09/10/AR2007091002310.html.

45. Nicholai Ouroussoff, “Why Are They Greener Than We Are?” The New York Times (May 20, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/magazine/20europe-t.html. 

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. “Curitiba,” online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curitiba.

49. Jonas Rabinovitch and Josef Leitman, “Urban Planning in Curitiba,” in Stephen M.  Wheeler and Timothy Beatley, eds., The Sustainable Urban Development Reader, 246. More recently, car traffic is increasing. Arthur Lebow, “The Road to Curitiba,” The New York Times (May 20, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/magazine/20Curitiba-t.html. 

50. Ibid.

51. Tom Hundley, “London Widens ‘Congestion Tax’ Area for Cars,” The Seattle Times (Feb.  24, 2007), online at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003586878_london 24.html. See also Caitlin G. Johnson, “London, Paris Honored for Greening Transit Systems,” OneWorld.net (Jan. 18, 2008), online at http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/156966/1. 

52. “Stockholm Congestion Tax,” online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_congestion_ tax. Economists differ over the use of such a tax. See “Stockholm’s Congestion Tax,” Economist’s View (Oct. 10, 2006), online at http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/10/stockholms_cong.html.

53. “Electronic Road Pricing,” Land Transport Authority, Singapore Government, online at http://www.lta.gov.sg/motoring_matters/index_motoring_erp.htm.

54. Timothy Beatley, “Planning for Sustainability in European Cities: A Review of Practice in Leading Cities,” in Stephen M. Wheeler and Timothy Beatley, eds., The Sustainable Urban Development Reader, 253.

55. Ibid. “The bikes are geared in such a way that the pedaling is difficult enough to discourage theft.”

56. Allison Raphael, “Pedaling toward Cleaner Cities,” OneWorld.net (May 13, 2008), online at http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/160534/1.

57. Ibid.

58. John Pucher, Charles Komanoff, and Paul Shimek, “Bicycling Renaissance in North America?” in Stephen M. Wheeler and Timothy Beatley, eds., The Sustainable Urban Development Reader, 108. Portland, Oregon has a higher percentage of people bicycling to work than any other large city in the United States. William Yardley, “Portland, Ore., Acts to Protect Cyclists,” The New York Times (Jan 10, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/us/10bike.html. 

59. Changes are happening. Robin Shulman, “NY Hopes to Ensure Smooth Pedaling for Bike Commuters,” Washington Post (May 25, 2008), A02, online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/24/AR2008052401457.html.

60. Peter Calthorpe, “The Next American Metropolis,” in Stephen M. Wheeler and Timothy Beatley, eds., The Sustainable Urban Development Reader, 76. 

61. Ibid.

62. Herbert Girardet, “The Metabolism of Cities,” in Stephen M. Wheeler and Timothy Beatley, eds., The Sustainable Urban Development Reader, 126.

63. Patrick J. Sullivan, Franklin J. Agardy, and James J. J. Clark. The Environmental Science of Drinking Water, 216.

64. Ibid., 217.

65. Ibid., 224.

66. John Tillman Lyle, “Waste as a Resource,” in Stephen M. Wheeler and Timothy Beatley, eds., The Sustainable Urban Development Reader, 139.

67. Ibid., 140.

68. Ibid., 139.

69. Ibid.

70. Herbert Girardet, “The Metabolism of Cities,” in Stephen M. Wheeler and Timothy Beatley, eds., The Sustainable Urban Development Reader, 127.

71. Ibid., 128. The US Postal Service is testing a free recycling program that “provides courtesy envelopes with pre-paid postage for patrons to deposit their unwanted digital cameras, printer cartridges, MP3 players, cell phones, and PDAs. International recycling company Clover Technologies Group processes the devices in its United States and Mexican facilities and then refurbishes and resells them if possible.” Ben Block, “US Postal Service Begins E-Waste Recycling,” Worldwatch Institute (May 21, 2008), online at http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5750. 

72. Timothy Gardner, “Waste Management taps clean power from garbage,” Reuters (Jun. 27, 2007), online at http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2625324820070627. See also David R. Baker, “Methane to Power Vehicles, Not Pollute Air,” San Francisco Chronicle (Apr.  30, 2008), C-1, online at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/30/BUTS10DSNP.DTL.

73. “Another initiative, All Clean, temporarily hires retired and unemployed people to clean up specific areas of the city where litter has accumulated.” Jonas Rabinovitch and Josef Leitman, “Urban Planning in Curitiba,” in Stephen M. Wheeler and Timothy Beatley, eds., The Sustainable Urban Development Reader, 245.

74. For a more detailed explanation see Peter Yost, “Construction and Demolition Waste: Innovative Assessment and Management,” in Charles J. Kibert, ed. Reshaping the Built Environment, 185–186.

75. Ibid., 186.

76. Kent E. Portney, Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously, 8.

77. Ibid.

78. See Nicholai Ouroussoff, “Why Are They Greener Than We Are?” The New York Times (May 20, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/magazine/20europe-t.html, and Carolyn Jones, “It Won’t Be Easy Being Green,” San Francisco Chronicle (May 24, 2007), online at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/24/MNGJSQ0N671.DTL. 

79. Virginia W. Maclaren, “Urban Sustainability Reporting,” in Stephen M. Wheeler and Timothy Beatley, eds., The Sustainable Urban Development Reader, 208. 

80. Andreas R. Edwards, The Sustainability Revolution, 20–23.

81. Ibid., 87.

82. Ibid.

83. Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir and G. Bradley Guy, “Defining an Ecology of Construction,” in Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy, eds., Construction Ecology, 208.  84. Andreas R. Edwards, The Sustainability Revolution, 97.

85. “Conserve Chicago Together,” online at http://egov.cityofchicago.org. See “Chicago Ranked Capital of Sustainable Design,” Reuters (Jun. 27, 2008), online at http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN2747409620080627. 

86. Ibid. These accomplishments are listed on submenus of this main page. 

87. “About the Rooftop Garden,” online at http://egov.cityofchicago.org.

88. Ibid. William McDonough and Michael Braungart helped create the garden on the roof of Chicago’s City Hall. See William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle, 83.

89. Choosing a Sustainable Future: The Report of the National Commission on the Environment (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1993).

90. “Natural Capital,” The Dictionary of Sustainable Management,” online at http://www.sustainabilitydictionary.com/n/natural_capital.php.

91. Ibid.

92. See Patricia Scruggs, “A Summary of the Dutch NEPP (National Environmental Policy Plan),”online at http://greenplans.rri.org/resources/greenplanningarchives/netherlands/netherlands_1993_nepp.html.

93. Andreas R. Edwards, The Sustainability Revolution, 55.

94. Wingspread Statement, in Andreas R. Edwards, The Sustainability Revolution, 56.  95. “Precautionary Tale,” Reason Online, online at http://www.reason.com/news/show/30977.html.

96. The Body Shop, online at http://www.thebodyshopinternational.com.

97. Andreas R. Edwards, The Sustainability Revolution, 58.

98. “Precautionary Principle,” online at http://www.answers.com/topic/precautionary-principle.

99. Michael Braungart, an ecological chemist from Germany, first suggested seeing products as consumables, durables, and unmarketables. See William McDonough, “Design, Ecology, Ethics and the Making of Things,” in Stephen M. Wheeler and Timothy Beatley, eds., The Sustainable Urban Development Reader, 184. See also Penelope Green, “Biodegradable Home Product Lines, Ready to Rot,” The New York Times (May 8, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/garden/08biodegrade.html.

100. William McDonough has characterized “things as either being part of nature—biological nutrients—or being part of technology, which we call technical nutrients. We look at the world through these two lenses and we say, let the things that are designed to go back to soil, like textiles and clothing, be designed in order to be returned safely to soil, to restore it. But the cars and the computers . . . [should be]designed to go back into closed cycles for technology.” William Mc - Donough, “Buildings That Can Breathe, Newsweek (Aug. 18, 2008):38. 

101. Ibid. The German government already requires “manufactures to create products that are taken back by their producers to become raw materials for new products.” Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir and G. Bradley Guy, “Defining an Ecology of Construction,” in Charles J. Kibert, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy, eds., Construction Ecology, 14. 

102. Ibid., 185.

103. William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle, 138.

104. Ibid., 139.

105. Ibid., 138–139.