reflection two

It was Saturday and I was sitting at work, I am a lab monitor in room 311. Most of my job is just to sit and occasionally let people in the door. There was no one in the lab so I started reading the third chapter in Cradle to Cradle. The first section about re-designing the concept of books didn’t really interest me that much and I considered to put the book away and do something else but then I started to read the next section and the concept of designing buildings “that gave the workers the feeling that they’d spent the day outdoors” and it really interested me. While I was reading this I was in a room that only had windows on the one wall and has light blocking blinds that are always down. All the light is artificial and comes from the eleven fluorescent lights and the 30 computer screens. There is no airflow in the room either; being in that environment for eight hours is exhausting. Even just reading about the giant windows, skylights, and tree lined interior of the building made me feel better. If that was the working environment for everyone I cannot image how productivity wouldn’t go up. It would energize people, instead of exhaust them.

Green for Green?

What price do we put on the environment? Do we give the environment a limit of money that we are willing to spend? A limit on the time and effort that we are willing to invest into the environment?
I thought that some of the so called "green" initiatives that DePaul is trying to put forth were very admirable. The fact that the McGowan building received a "Gold" rating is great.... but what does that really mean? I have seen huge signs congratulating DePaul on receiving this gold rating for the new building all over the school. (Are these signs “green”? We may never know.) What is the point of these signs? To advertise DePaul as an environmentally friendly school? The signs are definitely not there to help save the trees. It seems to me that DePaul is contradicting itself in their actions and goals.
When Bob Janis came in to talk to this class I felt as though he was doing all within his capabilities to help make DePaul environmentally friendly. He is doing all within his capabilities but that does not mean that DePaul is doing all that it can be doing as such a large institution.
If we did have someone in charge of sustainability at DePaul I believe that things could be a lot different. It would help orient all of the collective efforts in this movement and create a more efficient system in implementing policies and solutions. It was kind of a cop out for Bob to say that he thought it was a waste of money to pay someone 180k to be in charge. Who is to say that we are not wasting that much money in non-cohesive efforts to change DePaul right now because there is not a head person evaluating all efforts and looking into projects for the future? Having someone is charge of sustainability at DePaul would make DePaul accountable for their actions and I believe in the long run would really help synthesize “green” efforts.

Bob Janis and other thoughts

I really enjoyed the talk with Bob Janis this week but a C+ for DePaul’s rating I would go more with a D- and a D for effort. Bob Janis said that next time he would include composting in the report he fills out. I know of one composting bin on campus, it is extremely small, and more of a personal composter than an industrial sized needed for DePaul University. This statement shows he is more worried about the rating than actually making a difference. I feel that all the “behind the scenes changes” is just a crowd pleasing statement, because he only listed changing out the light bulbs and a few changes that he breezed over, I admit I should of asked him to describe each change, maybe this would of changed my reflection. The point is we are not a composting campus and barley a recycling campus. Even the changes that DePaul has made can be questioned, Chart wells who recently switched to corn based biodegradable cups as a step in greening DePaul, may have took a step back. I have haven’t researched this point as much as I would like to have to make this statement but, some research suggests that Greenware’s corn cups are only biodegradable if composted in an industrial strength composter and if they are mixed in during the recycling process they will ruin the whole batch of plastic that is being recycled. DePaul should have done a little more research before allowing Chartwells to switch to corn based products.
If DePaul would hire a Green Consultant, questionable environmental efforts could be researched before implemented. I also do not agree that Janis opposes a green consultant because of money; 180,000 a year is not that much for DePaul. I think that he opposes because he would have to answer to an environmentally educated committee that would insist on changes that he is able to avoid. I do feel that I just attacked Bob Janis and the administration, which is not the way to make changes and create a sustainable relationship.
Here are a couple other topics that bother me,
DePaul re sods around the quad’s sidewalks at least two times a year, Once when classes start in fall, and once before graduation in the spring.
For every DePaul catered meeting and or event 20oz bottles of pop and water are provided along with cups.
Education is the key to sustainability. DePaul should quit saying they would like a required sustainable class for freshman and “just do it”.

Sustainably Publicity

As Bob Janis was talking to our class, I couldn’t help but think about how DePaul’s “green initiatives” are not primarily to make the campus sustainable. I think that the primary objective is to gain a positive image and good publicity for DePaul. While I don’t think that this is a necessarily a bad thing, I do think that DePaul should be a little more transparent about it.

Recently, DePaul University received a low rating from an article published by the Sierra Club. Because of the low grade, DePaul felt the need to spring into action. A sustainability committee was formed and has grown, and many “green initiatives” were instated. The question I kept asking myself was, “If DePaul had not received a low rating, would any of this exist?”

I’m very suspicious that a lot of the things DePaul has done lately in regard to sustainability are more for publicity than actually doing something “good” for the environment. Solar panels in the quad may be something “good” that the university is doing. But they’re also something else. They’re giant signs, showcasing that, yes, DePaul is green. Even more pronounced is the giant “We’re Golden” sign in the entrance to the quad on Fullerton. What’s the point of getting LEED certified gold if you can’t show it off? And the “hybrid public safety cars”, which are actually SUVs that proudly announce that DePaul is “going green.” I’m sorry, but putting “going green” on the side of an SUV is absurd and laughable.

And while I can personally assert that DePaul’s intentions may not be sustainability, their results are, which, in the end, isn’t so absurd and laughable.

Sustainable University?

I thought Bob Janis brought an interesting point of view to our class discussion on Monday. I thought it was both intriguing and important that Mr. Janis mentioned several DePaul buildings have had a lot of “behind the scenes” eco-friendly renovations such as, replacing mechanics. However, I also believe that maybe too much stock has been placed in these renovations; listening to Mr. Janis talk it seems like that was his response to any question regarding what the university has actually done to become more eco-friendly. I agree with Dominic when he said he believes that in order for large institutions to be motivated about sustainability that there had to be some form of profit. People always want to know “what’s in it for them?”.

Although Bob Janis brought up a few eco-friendly options that the university is pursuing, I feel after reading Cradle to Cradle that many more steps are going to need to be taken in order for DePaul to really be creating an more eco-friendly environment. One example that came to mind while we had our discussion with Mr. Janis was how the public safety officers now drive “eco-friendly” hybrid SUV’s. To me this statement is clearly contradictory. Although I think it was a step in the right direction to realize that using less fuel is more environmentally friendly, there are way more fuel efficient/ alternative fuel vehicles available rather than Escape Hybrids. For example, public safety would get around fine in a compact hybrid, or a car that runs on propane, or even a bike (probably a long shot).

I agree with Bob Janis that perhaps DePaul should have been assessed at a C+, but this grade still allows a lot of room for the university to grow as a more sustainable environment.

Here is a really unattractive website, with an awesome message “use less stuff”

http://use-less-stuff.com/index.htm

The more I read Massive Change by Bruce Mau, the more I enjoy the ideas he brings to the table.  I really like the way that he is trying to integrate ideas in environmental design from around the world into a package that can appeal to everyone.  The book does not read like the course materials I have become accustomed to and it is a welcome change. 

            I was very pleased to come upon the section about dense cities.  I have been toying with the idea of high density urban areas as being the most environmentally sound option for a little while now, so it is good to see it in print.  Many countries, aside from North America, have been building up their city centers for quite some time so as to preserve more open space around them.  This not only is good for the more aesthetic reasons that Mau sites, like keeping the country and opening up more rural space, but also for peace of mind and for the environment and ecosystems in general.  Michael McDonough goes a bit more in depth with the kind of interests I have by acknowledging that cities, suburbs, rural areas and so on are not separate pieces to a puzzle.  It is impossible to know how valuable they all are with out breaking down each pieces’ “ecosystem” services, what they bring to the table.  For example, the city brings housing and jobs and culture, but outputs pollution; while the rural or forested areas do not give humans much as far as shelter and money (ideally, anyway), but they do provide a valuable service as a sink for all of the carbon dioxide and other pollutants that the city centers are pumping into the air.  Having one without the other at this stage in human development is not only unsustainable, but also unrealistic. 

            Unfortunately, this idea is a bit unrealistic in itself for the United States at the current time.  It will be next to impossible to eliminate suburban sprawl without giving incentive, and even if we could eliminate it, it would take years and years before those suburban areas would return to something resembling their natural state.  I do feel like if even one city in the U.S. would try to implement a program to do this; that is all it would take.  The United States is often too proud to take its cues from Europe and other countries, but if just one city could get the ball rolling perhaps the others could follow.

the environment and its economies

One question that stands out in my mind from the question and answer session with Bob Janis is whether or not DePaul’s campus is being ‘greened’ out of concern for sustainability or because it just so happens that construction needs to happen on certain buildings and, hey, we might as well get our new building LEED certified while we’re doing this new construction.

This question directly relates to the Massive Change readings for this week, which break down certain economies- urban, market, and manufacturing- and discusses how each of these can be rethought to better suit the need for sustainability. DePaul’s role as a consuming institution can easily fit into any of these economies. Markets such as the manufacturing economy seem to be easier to navigate as an environmentally conscious institution or individual because we consume manufactured objects on a daily basis, and can choose to buy or not buy certain items. This idea is the mentality that leads to Bob Janis replace all the light fixtures at DePaul.

But other locations for sustainability such as ‘urban economies’ seem a little harder to navigate. Particularly with regard to building efficiency, how can we create an efficient urban economy without tearing everything down and starting over? I suppose that the answer comes in the interrelatedness of all economies, but complicating this is a need for a sense of urgency and the extent that reforming tangent economies can have on an urban economy. Without infrastructure, urban economies will continue to be detrimental to the urban environment.

I thought Bob Janis was well spoken an engaged in the subject of sustainability and reducing the environmental impact of DePaul, but it seems that large institutions like DePaul will have little patience for making changes unless there is an opportunity to profit. Whether this profit comes in the form of increased enrollment or favorable reviews, it is to be expected that large institutions will not change without a profit motive in mind. The question then becomes how can we put pressure on our institutions to see the urgency of these issues, or how can we create a way for them to create sustainability in a profitable fashion without using the usual annoying self-promotion tactics that we normally see. The relationship between consuming institutions’ need for economic sustainability and society’s need for environmental sustainability is a slippery slope but is one that can be navigated if we understand the needs of both.