Like many environmental writers, I dash off the occasional rant against excessive materialism. That’s because part of my job is to track the numbers that show how our apparently insatiable desire for more and more stuff is degrading the environment.

The numbers are depressing. By every measure — deforestation, species lost, soil degradation, rare metal depletion, fishery collapse — human consumption is outstripping the planet’s capacity to sustain itself and support us. But while most people are at least marginally aware of these facts, consumerism, which should be held in check as a matter of human self-preservation, is on the rise in most countries.

Why?

In a phrase: the growth paradigm. That is, the belief that incessant economic growth (driven by consumption) is the only path to general prosperity and well-being.

The growth paradigm is so deeply entrenched in our increasingly global culture that almost everyone accepts the idea that “growth is good” without question. Listen to any newscast: “…there was good news for the economy today, as growth in the output of…” Or, any politician: “…we must grow our economy by…” Or, almost any economist: “…the economic growth engine…” But in the near future we’ll see that growth will not make us richer if we deplete the resources upon which growth depends — if we kill the goose that lays the golden egg. If we want long-term general prosperity, we must redefine prosperity, and discover another path to achieving it.

Gross National Happiness

A possible path has been illuminated by the concept of Gross National Happiness (GNH) used by the government of the Himalayan country Bhutan to inform its economic and social policies. Coined when Bhutan’s government opened the country to modernization in 1972, the term “gross national happiness” has been intentionally contrasted with Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a standard measure of economic activity.

GDP is defined as “the total value of goods produced and services provided in a country in one year.” The rate of GDP growth, or contraction, is presumed by economists (and journalists, politicians, educators and the business community) to measure the overall health of a country’s economy and, by extension, the well-being of its people.

However, by indiscriminately including “negative,” or non-productive economic activity in their totals, GDP assessments fail to account for important factors that influence human and environmental health. For example, the cost of incarcerating criminals and cleaning up toxic spills is added to GDP as “growth,” but the human cost of crime and the environmental damage of spills are not subtracted. In fact, the impact of economic activity on the environment is simply not measured.

By contrast, GNH is intended to overcome these shortcomings of GDP while also redefining the purpose of an economy — a human creation — as serving the best interests of people. Underlying GNH is the assumption that a growth in well-being does not necessarily correlate with growth in “product.” GNH economic and social policies designed to promote well-being — providing adequate and satisfactory employment for everyone who wants to work; a clean, safe environment; educational opportunity and so on — take precedence over policies designed to increase or concentrate the accumulation of capital.

Measuring Gross National Happiness

How is happiness measured? Whereas GDP can be measured by tallying cash flows, GNH must be measured by surveying people’s self-assessment of their physical and psychological health, level of security and satisfaction, interpersonal relationships and so on. Bhutan has taken two major surveys (2007 and 2010), asking hundreds of questions of thousands of its citizens.

The survey information is correlated with social and demographic statistics such as crime rates, mental health issues, and longevity. (For example, low rates of infant mortality correlate positively with subjective expressions of well-being.) Combining this information, the Bhutanese government crafts policies that preserve the country’s traditional Buddhist culture while selectively allowing modernization that improves the general welfare.

While the U.S. cannot directly export “happiness indexes” from small, rural Bhutan, we can learn from its experience and develop our own indexes. Like the Bhutanese, we are generally healthier and happier if we have strong social ties, satisfying employment, adequate leisure time and a nurturing environment. If you think about it, simply acquiring more stuff might not be the ticket to happiness at your ecological house.

~PSW

This post originally appeared as a syndicated column in the Your Ecological House series in several newspapers around the U.S.

Relevant Reading:

(Buy a book and help Ecotecture! If you liked this article and want to learn more, we invite you to buy a book from our affiliate through these links. A small portion of the book’s price will be returned to us as an “advertising” fee which we’ll use to expand our efforts to empower our readers to solve environmental problems.)

Gross National Happiness of Bhutan, Wangchuk and Muller
Gross National Hapiness: Why it Matters for America, Arthur Brooks
Bhutan Gross National Happiness, Frank Ra
Gross National Happiness versus Predatory Capitalism, Norbert Braun
Prosperity Without Growth, Tim Jackson
Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up, Stiglitz, Sen and Fatoussi
Managing Without Growth: Slower by Design, Not Disaster, Peter Victor

Related Posts on Ecotecture:

Eco-nomics: Modeling a Sustainable Economy onEcosystems
Visualizing a Sustainable Economy: How Much is Enough?

Introduction: The Sustainable Economy Discussion Group (SEDG) 

Part of Ecotecture’s eco-nomics discussion will be reports on the ongoing meetings and activities of the Sustainable Economy Discussion Group (SEDG) of Corvallis, Oregon. The Group, which began its informal monthly meetings at a local coffee house in October, 2011, grew out of an earlier discussion group based on the study of the book “Prosperity Without Growth” by Tim Jackson. (That group was organized by the Corvallis branch of The Natural Step of Oregon.) 

 The purpose of SEDG is to explore issues in sustainable economics. SEDG’s members are not professional economists, but ordinary citizens who bring a variety of perspectives to economic issues: a farmer/agronomy student, a retired forester, a retired USDA rural infrastructure development specialist, a high school science teacher, a school psychologist, an ecologist, a Corvallis City Council member, Ecotecture’s editor and others. 

 SEDG is thus a “peer learning group” focused on macroeconomics and local economic vitality and sustainability. Since its discussions cover conditions and developments relevant to people and economies everywhere — globalization, the limits to growth, consumerism, steady-state economics, community economics — Ecotecture finds them relevant to its goal of empowering our readers to solve environmental problems. 

 We invite you  join SEDG’s conversations by posting comments or by sending us guest blogs about your own community’s economic discussions or initiatives — if your experiences inform our readers, we’ll publish them. 

~PSW

(Note: Corvallis, Oregon is a college town (Oregon State University) with a population of about 55,000 including 20,000 students. Corvallis’s economy, like that of most American towns, has declined since its peak in the pre-2008 era.

These notes are an edited version of the SEDG monthly meeting minutes sent to the membership. Some the SEDG members quoted or mentioned in these notes are given pseudonyms to protect their privacy. Pseudonyms will be noted: otherwise, assume the name is real.)

 SEDG Meeting Notes #1- December, 2011: — Main Topic: “What is Enough?”

The first event of the evening was the presentation by Maegan Prentice of a video she made of a talk given at the University of Oregon (Eugene) by Rob Dietz. The contents of the video are not summarized here, but Dietz is the Executive Director of the Center for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy (CASSE), and information about his work work may be found on CASSE’s web site.

Maegan would like to make a new video of several SEDG members having a group discussion about “What is Enough.” (I call it “sufficiency” in these notes.)  The three-point framework for that discussion is as follows:

1) We would discuss sufficiency in the context of psychologist Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs.” The Hierarchy, (from my notes) is as follows:

• physiological needs — breathing, food, water, sleep, etc.
• safety or security — employment, property, etc.
• love and belonging — family, friendship, romantic attachments, etc.
• self-esteem — confidence, self-respect, respect of others, etc.
• self-actualization — acceptance of reality, morality, creativity, etc.

2) Why do we give more value to power than compassion?

3) The Buddhist concept of the Hungry Ghost . From Wikipedia: “Hungry ghost” is a Western translation of the Chinese “èguǐ,” a concept in Chinese Buddhism and traditional Chinese religion representing beings who are driven by intense emotional needs in an animalistic way. … ƒƒ.)

Other Thoughts on a Sustainable Economy

Following the discussion of the “What is Enough” and the new video, a number of other topics were touched on. Here is a (mostly unannotated) list:

• The Global Footprint Network was mentioned.  It will be discussed more in subsequent meetings.

• Capital Limitations: The need to distinguish between natural capital (the capital provided by the earth and ecosystem services) and financial capital. Natural capital circumscribes and limits financial capital. Within the context of that topic we discussed:
- sustainable scale
- the limits to growth
- equitable distribution

• Someone suggested that we should abandon Gross National Product (GNP) as a measure of prosperity and substitute Gross National Happiness (GNH). GNP measures negatives as well as positives — virtually all recorded economic transactions. Therefore the cost of incarcerating a felon is part of the nation’s “product.” So is the cost of cleaning up the environment after a toxic spill. In other words, GNP confuses unproductive and productive, wasteful and regenerative economic activity, and gives the impression that the growth of GNP is always good, and the more growth the better, but doesn’t reflect how economic activity affects people’s well being.

Gross National Happiness measures the quality of life. From Wikipedia: The term “gross national happiness” was coined in 1972 by Bhutan’s then King Jigme Singye Wanchuck, who has opened Bhutan to the age of modernization… He used the phrase to signal his commitment to building an economy that would serve Bhutan’s unique culture based on Buddhist spiritual values…ƒƒ)

• It was also mentioned that there are two types of sustainable economic models: Steady State vs. Sustainable Development. Evolving toward a steady-state economy is an appropriate goal for developed economies, whereas sustainable development is appropriate for less developed countries.

-PSW

Related posts on Ecotecture:

Eco-nomics: Modeling a Sustainable Economy on Ecosystems 

Can Gross National Happiness Lead to An Economic Revival? 

Relevant Reading:

Prosperity Without Growth, Tim Jackson
The End of Growth, Richard Heinberg
Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development, Herman Daly
Steady State Economics, Herman Daly
Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update, Meadows, Randers and Meadows
Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up, Stiglitz, Sen and Fatoussi
Managing Without Growth: Slower by Design, Not Disaster, Peter Victor 

Attic Hatch Insulation?

I am thinking of gluing rigid foam polyisocyanurate insulation to the back of our upstairs attic hatch access panels. Any feedback or suggestions?

Bob K.

Polyisocyanurate insulation is eco friendly

First, let’s consider the environmental aspects of the material. Polyisocyanurate (called “polyiso”) is a rigid foam insulation panel that usually has at least one heat-reflective foil face. Although polyiso’s very name sounds as anti-environmental as “clear cutting,” and as toxic as “carcinogen,” it is in fact rather benign.

Virtually all polyiso foam has some recycled content, mostly discarded plastic bottles, and the recycled content of the aluminum foil facing varies between 80 and 100 percent. While the foam was once expanded by blowing ozone-depleting CFC’s through resin, it is now produced with zero-ozone-depleting blowing agents.

With higher R-values (insulating values) than any other readily-available insulation, polyiso’s superior insulating qualities far outweigh its environmental negatives. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Green Building Council, a non-profit industry group that promotes sustainable building practices, have recognized polyiso products as beneficial to the environment.

Polyisocyanurate insulation R value

A 1.5 inch thick polyiso panel is rated R-9 —that’s almost double the rating per inch of typical attic insulations. Ideally, your attic hatch insulation will match roughly the R-value of the rest of the attic insulation, so the “almost double” value provides a handy guide to the thickness of your polyisocyanurate insulation.

For example, if you have standard 6.5 inch-thick fiberglass insulation in your attic (R-19), you would want to install 3 inch-thick polyiso (+ /- R-18) on your attic hatch. Polyiso is available in half-inch-increment thicknesses, so for the example above you could either buy a three-inch thick panel or stack two layers of 1.5-inch thick foam, depending on the panel’s price and availability in your area.

Planning the Installation

Which brings me to polyisocyanurate insulation’s main drawbacks: price and flexibility. Typically available in 4×8 sheets, polyiso is at least twice as expensive as standard insulation, so you don’t want to use it for your (usually small) attic hatch and throw the rest of the sheet away. (That’s an environmental “no-no” anyway.) Try to find a use for the polyiso scraps, or perhaps go in on one sheet with a neighbor who also needs attic hatch insulation.

Polyiso is easy to cut with a hand saw (wear a dust mask), and because of its closed-cell foam structure, it will maintain its structural integrity in a seldom-used opening such as an attic hatch — that is, you shouldn’t have to put a wood frame around it to keep it from disintegrating at the edges. (Wrapping the edges with some reflective metallic tape might be a nice touch, however.)

The foils side should always face toward the living space. You can use contact cement to attach the panel to your hatch. (Be careful to keep the cement away from the polyiso core which might react with it.)

~PSW

In a subtext of his Dot Earth blog on the sale of Australian coal to China, Andrew C. Revkin of the NY Times outlined his overall assessment of the global climate crisis and his strategy for stopping it:

“To me, choosing a number — 350, 450 or 550 parts per million [of atmospheric CO₂],[or a] 2 or 3 degrees (F. or C.!) [rise in global temperature] — is essentially meaningless for our generation, especially given the trajectories for [CO₂] emissions in China and India.

The task on emissions is twofold — to bend the curve of [greenhouse] gas releases using regulations, incentives, education and standards, but (more importantly, to me) also to build the intellectual infrastructure and innovative, globally-collaborative culture that will be required for the next generation to take that curve down toward zero even as humanity’s energy needs continue to rise. …”

The night before reading Revkin’s blog, I had the privilege of attending a lecture by Bill McKibben at Oregon State University. McKibben is the author of numerous books on global warming and the founder of an international movement to reduce the ratio of atmospheric CO₂ to 350 parts per million (ppm) (The current ratio is 394 ppm and rising about 2ppm per year).

Most recently, he has lead the successful fight to stop or at least delay the construction of Keystone xl pipeline that was to carry tar sands oil from the Canadian border to American refineries along Gulf of Mexico (which would sell the refined oil on the international market). McKibben’s strategy was one of non-violent civil disobedience consisting of a month-long sit in at the White House, where he was joined by thousands of others. “We’ll never have as much money as the fossil fuel industry,” he told the Oregon State audience, “but we do have our bodies.”

Here’s a somewhat altered version of a comment I posted on Revkin’s blog:

How can we stop global warming? Tough call.

I went to a Bill McKibben lecture last night, and he’s certainly picked a number (350 ppm). Based in part on your [Revkin’s] writeup of last week’s International Energy Agency (IEA) report, which, for all practical purposes says we’ll be locked into a 450 ppm scenario in five years (unless the powers that be “drive investment in clean energy” — Ha!), I asked McKibben the following question(s):

“Do you think it’s too late for renewable energy development to slow global warming, and shouldn’t we be focusing on a massive program of biogenic carbon sequestration? Along with a crash program of energy conservation to buy us some time?”

McKibben’s response is that energy conservation and biogenic sequestration would help, but the only real way to stop global warming was to engage in non-violent resistance to force governments to put a very high tax on carbon pollution.

The Future is Now 

I, and apparently you [Revkin] think it’s too late to hold the line to a specific number — certainly to revert to 350 ppm.

But the quandary of your approach is that building intellectual infrastructure and globally-collaborative culture for the next generation assumes that there will be a next generation capable of using those gifts. Look at the havoc already raised by a 350+ ppm-induced 1ºC temperature rise.

Then consider the fact that the historic CO₂ emissions curve is going almost straight up — and that 2010 was the worst year on record for carbon pollution.  And the five-year sword of Damocles described the IEA report.

The droughts, famines, floods and general economic chaos induced by the climate crisis threatens to be so disruptive to global civilization that it could be hard for people stay connected, nonetheless collaborate. Scarcity and chaos can lead to wars, which can lead to nuclear discharges, which will put a serious damper on the proliferation of knowledge.

So although I have little hope for McKibben’s overall strategy —  I don’I think civil disobedience can stop global warming in a timely fashion, if at all — I do agree with him that future is NOW.

 We Must Sequester Existing Atmospheric CO₂ — ASAP 

There is already too much CO2 in the atmosphere, we’re rapidly adding more, and there is a very real danger that we could trigger a methane release that would cause runaway global warming.

How can we stop global warming? Embark on a crash energy-conservation program to buy ourselves time, and initiate a massive biogenic carbon sequestration program.

What’s biogenic carbon sequestration? Essentially growing terrestrial plants — mostly trees, billions of trees  — to store carbon. As those trees die  — in two to 10 human generations — their stored carbon can be turned into “biochar” (charcoal) and buried in the earth, enhancing soil productivity.

All other approaches to “geoengineering” are fraught with the possibility of dangerous unintended consequences, but nature’s carbon storage machines — plants — can save us from global warming and restore our earthly garden.

And while Revkin and McKIbben’s approaches, along with the accelerated development of renewable energy are all part of the solution, only energy conservation can be implemented cheaply, quickly and reliably, and only biogenic carbon sequestration can restore the earth.

We’ll explore these solutions in upcoming posts on Ecotecture.

~PSW

Relevant Reading:

The Rough Guide to Climate Change, Robert Henson (2011 ed.)
The Atlas of Climate Change, Kirstin Dow and Thomas Downing (Nov. 2011 ed.)
The Great Disruption, Paul Gilding
Eaarth: Making Life on a Tough New Planet, Bill McKibben
The Biochar Solution, Albert Bates 

Related Posts on Ecotecture:

Is It Too Late For Renewable Energy to Slow Global Warming?
Man-Made Global Warming: It’s Real, Get Over It!

Comments are welcome and generally will be posted if they are on topic and inoffensive. However, Ecotecture does not post comments to the effect that global warming is a hoax. Read our position on global warming here.

The IEA’s Stark Warning

In its annual World Energy Outlook report released last week, the International Energy Agency (IEA), one of the world’s premier sources of predictive energy analysis, issued a stark warning: we have only until 2017 to avoid being on an irreversible course that will push us past the 450 parts per million (ppm) atmospheric CO₂ level that the majority of the world’s climate scientist believe will lead to catastrophic and irreversible global warming.

“As each year passes without clear signals to drive investment in clean energy,” said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol at a press conference observing the release of the report, “the ‘lock-in’ of high-carbon infrastructure is making it harder and more expensive to meet our energy security and climate goals.”

In his Dot Earth environmental blog, Andrew C. Revkin of the New York Times thus interprets Birol’s remarks and the report: “The [World Energy Outlook] presents a 450 Scenario, which traces an energy path consistent with meeting the globally agreed goal of limiting the temperature rise to 2°C [by limiting carbon pollution to 450ppm]. Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permitted to 2035 in the 450 Scenario are already locked-in by existing capital stock, including power stations, buildings and factories. Without further action [to develop renewable energy] by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place would generate all the CO₂ emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035.”

Revkin goes on to say, “Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.”

Is It Too Late?

Ecotecture’s position is that the needed renewable energy investment is simply not going to be made. There is far too little economic incentive, and thus political will to reverse the trends of dirty energy development in the world’s developing or developed countries within the next five years.

But even if the investments were made, it is probably too late for renewable energy to keep us from going beyond the 450ppm or 2ºC point. Because of the persistence of atmospheric CO₂ — it stays in the atmosphere for at least several centuries — and the fact that our existing energy, manufacturing, agriculture and transportation sectors are already producing 80% of the allowable CO₂ “budget” — even a perfect renewable investment scenario would only delay the “locked in” condition for a few years beyond 2035 because there will be ongoing investment in polluting industries as well.

Eventually, the polluting industries will “use up” the remaining 20% of the below-450ppm carbon budget. (Unless we abandon and dismantle the polluting industries — unlikely on a planet with an exploding population.)  (See Fiona Harvey’s excellent analysis of the 450ppm threat in the Guardian.)

Additionally, we are currently seeing the early results of disruptive climate change due to the relatively modest, approximate 1ºC  rise in global temperature that has already occurred. We clearly need to move beyond believing renewable energy can slow climate change and start thinking about removing the existing excess CO₂ from the atmosphere. Meanwhile, we can buy ourselves a little time by enacting a crash energy conservation program.

Ironically, climate change might slow itself by disrupting the global economy in ways that will delegate the Great Recession to the status of a minor and mostly forgotten inconvenience. But that’s NOT how we want to reverse climate change.

Here is an shortened version of the comment I posted on the NY Times article about the World Energy Outlook report, which bases its energy-use projections on population and economic growth scenarios:

 Few of these reports discuss the very real environmental and economic consequences of global warming. How will China continue to grow, for example, when the Himalayan glaciers that supply much of its water melt away in the next 10-15 years? How will [the] American [agricultural sector remain viable] when the drought afflicting Texas and the South spreads throughout the midwest, parching farmlands?

 How many more Katrina’s can we afford, and where, in our “austerity economy,” will governments find the money to protect New York and London from rising tides that flood their respective subways and sewer systems?

 The [NY Times] article ends by saying that delaying investment in green energy beyond 2020 will be costly. One could also argue that it will simply be too late. The money won’t be there then, any more than it is here now. We’re already beyond the tipping point of global warming and carbon pollution — and we’re becoming more, rather than less locked into polluting energy sources. It’s likely to be “game over” by 2025 at the latest.

 Our only  hope is instituting emergency programs of both energy conservation and biogenic carbon sequestration. These can be implemented relatively cheaply and quickly, and don’t require rebuilding our electric grid, chiding a recalcitrant Congress into funding green energy R&D or enacting any other policies that can’t be implemented before the end of this decade.

~PSW

Relevant Reading:

The Rough Guide to Climate Change, Robert Henson (2011 ed.)
The Atlas of Climate Change, Kirstin Dow and Thomas Downing (Nov. 2011 ed.)
The Great Disruption, Paul Gilding
Eaarth: Making Life on a Tough New Planet, Bill McKibben
The Biochar Solution, Albert Bates 

Comments are welcome and generally will be posted if they are on topic and inoffensive. However, Ecotecture does not post comments to the effect that global warming is a hoax. Read our position on global warming here.

In the introduction to his excellent book How to Cool the Planet, environmental author Jeff Goodell writes:

“By 2006, the major scientific uncertainties about whether or not the planet was warming — and why it was warming — had been long settled. (I won’t bother rehashing the evidence. If you still think global warming is a myth or unrelated to human activity, you’re reading the wrong book.)”

That was music to my ears, because it’s also true that if you don’t believe in man-made global warming, you’re visiting the wrong web site. You are unlikely to benefit from reading many of our articles because they are based on the premise that the so called “global warming debate” is settled, and move on from that position to exploring solutions to the global-warming crisis.

(If you’re unsure about the reality or causes of global warming, please keep visiting our site. Many of our articles could be of interest to you, our bookstore will carry a number of excellent titles on the subject, and we always welcome those with an open mind.)

I want to be clear that while Ecotecture’s content presupposes the reality of man-made global warming — and considers it a serious threat to global civilization — we do not claim to understand or be able to predict all of its manifestations. This is in keeping with the scientific “debate” on the topic. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists recognize the reality of man-made global warming — there is no debate there. But there is considerable debate about its possible effects, especially when it comes to the exact details.

We know the general scenario — that global warming will cause a dangerous rise in sea levels and massive storms and droughts capable of decimating entire regions and displacing their populations — but we don’t know exactly when or where those events might occur. However, we’ve been getting an inkling of that in the past few years, and it doesn’t look good. Climate-induced problems are occurring much sooner than expected, and we are already paying a heavy price for dumping too much carbon into our atmosphere.

Also, the warming that has already occurred could trigger the rapid release of massive amounts of more potent greenhouse gases such as the billions of tons of methane stored deep in the ocean and the arctic tundra, causing a “sudden,” catastrophic and irreversible spike in global temperatures.

Because of the persistence of atmospheric carbon — it remains airborne for several hundred years and the oceans have already absorbed as much of it as they can — Ecotecture takes the position that we have passed the tipping point and entered a true climate crisis. Even if we could somehow magically stop outgassing carbon dioxide tomorrow morning, there is already enough of it in the atmosphere to cause global temperatures to continue to rise for decades to come.

Therefore, much of our content will be based on reducing carbon loading through energy conservation and alternative energy production; reducing current atmospheric carbon levels though “biogenic carbon sequestration” (capturing and storing atmospheric carbon in living matter and burying some of it in the earth in the form of “biochar;” and adaption and mitigation strategies for local populations.

We consider that facing and addressing global warming — not debating its well-established realities — to be the proper function of our Journal which is devoted to “empowering our readers to solve environmental problems.”

~PSW

Relevant Reading:

The Rough Guide to Climate Change, Robert Henson (2011 ed.)
The Atlas of Climate Change, Kirstin Dow and Thomas Downing (Nov. 2011 ed.)
The Great Disruption, Paul Gilding
Eaarth: Making Life on a Tough New Planet, Bill McKibben

Related Posts on Ecotecture:

Is It Too Late For Renewable Energy to Slow Global Warming?
Man-Made Global Warming: It’s Real, Get Over It!

Comments are welcome and generally will be posted if they are on topic and inoffensive. However, Ecotecture does not post comments to the effect that global warming is a hoax.

We miss you Steve! Here’s the comments we sent to Apple and the NY Times.
~ Ecotecture Staff

Remembering Steve Jobs

Your light has gone out in our world but it shines on under my fingertips in the dark, rows of lit keys like a bank of votive candles. Your gifts grace and inspire my life and my work. Thank you Steve, you have my undying gratitude. I imagine you’ll carry on as always, making things different, from where you are now. Say hello to John.
~ Annie

I like to think that Steve’s not “dead” — he’s passed on to bigger and better things. And as long as there are people taping keys and staring at screens on this planet, he’ll certainly never die.

Still, I have a lump in my throat and wet eyes as I write this on my sixth MAC. Without Steve’s vision, gumption and integrity, where would I be? Where would we all be?

RIP Steve, and good luck with your next launch.
~ PSW

What is “eco-nomics?” It is a term comprised of the prefix of “ecology” (and “economy”) and the suffix of “economics” — implying that the two fields are closely intertwined.

Environmental writers often note that “ecology” and “economics” have the same prefix, “eco,” derived from the Greek oikos, meaning “house.” The suffix of ecology, “-logy,” means “knowledge,” so ecology literally means “the knowledge of the house.” The suffix of economics, “-nomics,” means “management and measurement of,” so economics literally means the “management and measurement of the household.”

Of course “house” (eco), in both words carries the connotation of “earth” — the house we all dwell in. Both the knowledge and management of our earthly house is implied by eco-nomics.

Ecology is the study of ecosystems, and economics is the study of the production, distribution and consumption of commodities. The two subjects are generally studied separately.

Furthermore, the growth and health of  “the economy” is usually seen as unrelated to, or even in conflict with the health of the planetary ecosystem, or ecosphere. This is an artificial distinction, because the human economic system is entirely dependent upon the ecosphere to sustain it.

Designing an ecology-based economy requires a completely rethinking our current economic models. Ultimately, for the human economy to be sustainable, it must be functionally integrated with the ecosphere and obey the natural laws that govern ecosystems.

Eco-nomics is the art and science of modeling economies on the principles by which ecosystems function and sustain themselves. Although the specific organisms living on the earth during any given geological time period have changed, the basic principles by which ecosystems function and sustain all life have remained essentially the same since they evolved 3.6 billion years ago. (That’s roughly 3,600 times longer than humans have inhabited the earth.)

Ecosystems are sustainable because:

1) They use the virtually limitless renewable energy from the sun to photosynthesize molecules that function as both the basic building blocks and the energy sources for living tissue. (This “value-adding” — turning simple, non-living molecules into more complex molecules usable by living systems — is called “primary production.” )

2) Through myriad chemical reactions they cycle and recycle those basic building blocks throughout an ecosystem until all the usable energy is extracted from them and they are broken down into their original non-living molecular components; after which the remnant molecules are recycled back into the tissue of energy gathering sub systems (usually green plants) where, using more energy from the sun, they are again synthesized into biomass building blocks.

Ecosystems do not waste materials – the waste of one organism is the food of another in an endless cycle of regeneration. 

 3)  The biomass (total living tissue) of an ecosystem is limited by the resources – sunlight, water, minerals – available in its locale. Generally, resources are not concentrated in specific locales by the actions of living agents – certainly not on a scale remotely comparable to the concentration of resources by human agency. Ecosystems are sustained by maximizing the use of local resources.

4) Evolutionary mechanisms generate diverse subsystems (species) until all or most of the available niches within an ecosystem are filled. Diversity and functional overlap between species (many types of spiders eating the same insects, for example, and one type of spider eating many types of insects) assures that overall ecosystem function will continue – energy flows will not be catastrophically disrupted – in the event that a particular species is reduced in numbers or goes extinct.

These four mechanisms – reliance on renewable energy; reusing and recycling materials; limiting biomass production to locally available resources; and optimizing diversity to ensure continuity of energy flow – have underpinned ecosystems since they evolved as life’s supporting structure 3.6 billion years ago.

Modern human economies, by contrast, rely almost entirely on:

1) non-renewable energy sources

2) energy that flows in primarily linear, as opposed to circular pathways, leaving dissipated energy and degraded matter that has no possibility of timely regeneration at the end of the path

3) long-distance rather than local or bioregional resource bases

4) movement toward centralization and monopolization, as opposed to the diversification of the means of production and exchange.

Clearly our economic models are not sustainable. The planet-wide depletion of basic resources such as potable water and fertile topsoil, the inability of the ecosphere to absorb more of our atmospheric, terrestrial or aquatic waste and the rapid loss of life-supporting ecosystem services such as pollination and flood prevention have all reached critical thresholds. Those factors, combined with the incessant and accelerating growth in our demand for resources, sinks and services are clearly bringing us to the brink of an environmental catastrophe of unprecedented scale.

It is imperative that we rapidly restructure our economic activities so they begin to regenerate, rather than continue to debase the ecosphere. Rather than fostering the independence (and temporary dominance) of one species, homo sapiens, we must develop a sustainable economy that fosters the interdependence of all living beings and enhances rather than degrades the health of the ecosphere. We must study Eco-nomics, and create a sustainable economy modeled on the structure and function of ecosystems.

The creation of those new models will require the meeting of many minds, and open exchange of ideas from all over the planet and all walks of life. I invite you to share your thoughts in the comment section below.

~PSW

Hi Philip,
Our home has a crawl space underneath it with deteriorating fiberglass insulation that needs to be replaced. Can we use a “green” insulation in the crawl space?
— Geoff & Barbara, Oakland, California

If your fiberglass insulation is deteriorating, make sure you have adequate crawlspace ventilation. Mold and bugs do not eat fiberglass, so the deterioration is likely caused by moisture accumulation that has collapsed the air spaces between the fibers — your insulation is probably getting wet. If that’s the case, your new insulation will soon deteriorate as well.

Building codes require that you have a certain number of square feet of ventilation for every square foot of crawlspace. Find out what the code ratio is for your area by calling your local building department.

Then measure your basement vents and compare them to the square footage of your crawl space. You should have at least as much ventilation as is required by code, and ideally more — especially if you live in a moist climate.

Cutting holes into an existing house to add ventilation can be expensive. One easy trick is to replace your crawlspace hatch door with a screened door. (Double screen layers work best —one based on _-inch wire mesh to keep animals out, and one regular window screen to keep bugs out .) Building and hanging a new hatch door is simple and cheap compared to cutting in vents, and a typical hatch door is as big as four to six typical foundation vents.

Also, it’s a good idea to place a heavy layer of black plastic on the floor of your crawlspace to reduce moisture and make it easier to crawl .

One “green” insulation that would work in a crawlspace is made from remnants of the blue jean manufacturing process — parts of the cloth that can’t be used to make clothes. Although the cotton from which the product is made is water-and-pesticide-intensive, the insulation itself is made from a “post-industrial” scrap that would wind up as landfill if it weren’t used as insulation. Also, it’s 100 percent nontoxic — you can put your toddler in a pair of blue jeans.

Blue jean insulation is available in batts, so it is appropriate for installation in crawl spaces. (Cellulose “powder” insulation won’t stay in place, and although foam insulation will stick to the subfloor and joists, it is very expensive.) To find out more, google “green insulation.”

Do you have a question about Your Ecological House? Send it to our editor .