From Here to There in Bloomington

Or How to Avoid This

The transportation plan for Bloomington is quite in-step with the city’s ideas regarding peak oil and climate destabilization. Even though it is a small city, geographically and population wise, Bloomington has some very lofty ideas and goals. Since the city has made a clear acknowledgement of the issues it will face due to peak oil, it is imperative to consider alternate transportation means. Bloomington plans to do this via a well planned bicycle and pedestrian transportation network, along with well implemented public transportation. The Bloomington Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation and Greenways System Plan addresses the issues and implementation of non-motorized transit. The plan addresses some of the concepts visited in Bicycling Renaissance in North America (Pucher et al. 1999), such as expanding bicycle facilities and making all roads bikeable. In a town where the majority of traffic occurs in a centralized area, this seems like a well thought out response towards decreasing private vehicle traffic.

Bloomington is already ahead of the curve in terms of sustainable transportation thinking around the country. The city has a centralized and rural bus system, sidewalks on almost all of the streets near and in downtown and the campus, as well as the B-line bike trail, which only continues to expand. In addition Bloomington makes good use of one way streets, and many streets are one lane, with ample street trees, and stop signs, which are all good tools towards creating “visual barriers that encourage cautious driving”, some of the techniques which are used to create street calming. However, there are some factors, which induce weaknesses to Bloomington’s transportation sustainability. The number one issue at hand here is the use of motor vehicles by the student population. Since most of the students that attend the university live nearby, it creates traffic issues when the majority use cars to get to class instead of walking or taking the bus. The streets nearby campus are continuously blockaded by cars, at times before and after class, with most of the impact around “rush hours”.

If I were to make additions to the current transportation system/planning there would be a few additions. The largest problem I see everyday is the vehicle traffic through campus, most notably on 10th street. If the campus became a car-free zone, and only allowed bus traffic, it would greatly increase the hospitability of campus to bicycles and pedestrians as well as reduce traffic and noise pollution. 3rd street and 17th could absorb much of the traffic that makes its way through 10th street, and since most of that traffic is going to points on campus, it would not be a significant burden for those people to park off campus or not drive at all, while instead taking one of the many busses available or riding a bicycle. The next change necessary would be to address more issues, which could aid in street calming. Changing the texture of some of the busier roads to brick or slate would slow the traffic, since there is already an abundance of street trees, stop signs, and traffic lights, this change could only work to enhance street calming, another measure which would influence an increase in bicycling. Since, many of my aims here are to increase bike use, another change would be adding cover to the many bicycle bays around town and campus.
The weather in Bloomington does not exactly behoove bicycle transport, since the cold and precipitation hinders the comforts of being open to the surroundings, however if there were ample awnings where bike lockups were located, it would make the transition off of one’s bicycle and into class/work that much easier during unpleasant climate. One final feature that would make life easier for bicyclists and pedestrians would be to separate lanes for the two. Both bikes and walkers create hazards for each other and well deliminated space for the two would create an easier trip for both to any destination.

The Living Building

With the adaption of the USGBC Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards in 1998, there became the first scalar measurement for sustainable buildings. The concept of a living building has stemmed from another rating system, The Living Building Challenge, put forth by the International Living Building Institute. The Living Building Challenge is the most advanced metric of sustainability in the built environment, and is viewed in six areas of performance; site, energy, materials, water, indoor quality, and beauty and inspiration. Living buildings can be comprised of a single building, park, college campus, or even a community. The Omega Center for Sustainable Living was the first building in America to gain both LEED Platinum status and Living Building Challenge Certification (link to article). The Living Building Challenge essentially takes the LEED certification to a new level, and it is no coincidence that the first building to achieve these lofty reccognitions was designed by Kansas City-based BNIM Architects, the firm led by Bob Berkebile.

The Godfather of Green Building Soul

(Berkebile center in signature Bow-tie)

Bob Berkebile has been one of the foremost proponents and developers of green architecture. In the late 1980’s he lobbied the American Institute of Architects (AIA) to create a committee to study how buildings could be designed with a more environmentally friendly goal. He took an organization that was reducing its environmental research efforts, and brought them into a mindset where that trend was reversed. However, Berkebile’s most important contribution may be how in 1993, he helped to create a new group, not restricted to just architects, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). In addition to being one of the pioneers of the green building movement, Berkebile also worked with greening the White House, during Clinton’s presidency, and worked with the National Science Foundation in making the McMurdo Research Station in the Antarctic more environmentally sound.

Sustainable Communities as a Function to Combat Air Pollution

Air pollution is having drastic effects on climate change. The current air pollutants designated by the EPA are particulate matter, ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitric oxides, and lead, also known as POCSNL. Each of these pollutants contributes in some manner to climate change. In addition carbon dioxide is the most well known of the climate change pollutants, however air pollution manipulates atmospheric temperatures and light adsorption, as well as causes smog and acid rain.

There has been much debate over the proper options for mitigation of the effects of air pollution and climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) believes that “technologies that exist in operation or pilot stage today” will be sufficient to tackle the current trajectory of air pollution over the next hundred years. In contrast, a current review in Science believes that acertation to be false, and feels that revolutionary technological changes need to be attained to combat these problems. Regardless of which view is correct, it may be far more pertinent to view sustainable practices as a greater cure for these ailments.

Besides not requiring a vast array of technological breakthroughs there is a great deal of mitigation for air pollution and by default climate change, than can be brought about by buying into the concept of sustainable communities. 80% of today’s global carbon dioxide output is due to fossil fuel consumption; in the United States that figure is 98% (EIA 2002). Fossil fuels are consumed in a plethora of everyday activities, but most greatly in energy use and transportation. Sustainable communities, which are more efficient at using energy and reduce the need for petroleum-based transportation, will greatly reduce the flux of carbon dioxide to the Earth’s atmosphere. Sustainable communities will aid this problem by decreasing the need for energy through having smaller homes, being placed on a grid pattern as opposed to the “dead worm”, using more efficient heating and cooling methods, utilizing alternate energy sources where possible, and reducing water consumption through concepts such as rain water harvesting and grey water use. In addition the planting of urban street trees will have a positive impact on net carbon flow by assimilating carbon dioxide and exuding oxygen.


View Larger Map
In thinking about the previous paragraph and the ways in which sustainable communities can help aleviate air pollution, I was reminded of a neighborhood, from my hometown of Tucson, called Rita Ranch. This neighborhood is an excellent example of how a community should not be set up. The neighborhood had a distinct "dead worm" pattern to the streets, so ridiculously convoluted that from entering the community to making it to one of my friend's homes there could take up to 20 minutes. Now keep in mind there are no services in the community except on the outside edges, and with the design, the majority of the homes are located in the center. The fuel cost of living in this moderately priced suburb of Tucson would quickly equal the housing price difference of living. In addition to the horrid street set up, the neighborhood also boasts only "cookie-cutter" houses, with poor insulation and a roof structure which inhibits rainwater harvesting. The one saving grace of this community is a fairly large park in the center, but with a neighborhood teeming with sidewalks, there are no street trees. Future planners could take good note not to copy this design, based solely for fitting the most homes in the cheapest, quickest manner.

Is Your Job a Green Job?

The US Department of Labor had the Bureau of Labor Statistics create a formal definition to determine what are green jobs and what are not. See the article here: How the Government Looks at Green Jobs

Build them to last, build them to fulfill a purpose, build them green

We as humans really require few things, food, water, air, and shelter, are enough for an individual to survive. However, with food being produced on clear cut forest land, and shipped across nations, water being produced with petroleum products, air throughouly polluted through everyday human practices, and shelter being the number one user of energy, the very things needed for us to survive are slowly becoming our civilization's downfall. Luckily we have not reached the tipping point, and through sustainable practices life's essentials can become more of a benefit and less of a bane to our future.



One of the new concepts to emerge from the concept of sustainable living is green building. The US Green Building Council(USGBC) is working towards making green buildings available to everyone. A green building is a structure wherein the process of its construction and its life-cycle are resource efficient, and environmentally responsible. A green building is rated based on the LEED scale, and is given points for using sustainable sites, being water efficient, having no negative effects on energy and the atmosphere, using renewable materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, and bonus points for innovative design and regional priority. The scale is based on 100 points (+10 bonus points) and ranges from Certified (40 points) to Platinum (80 points). Indiana had it's first platinum rated home early this year in Franklin. From "Principles of Green Architecture" (Vale 1991), similar standards are addresed for defining green building. They submit principles of conserving energy, working with climate, minimizing new resources, having respect for users, and having respect for the site.

Understanding the concept of green building is one thing, but it is another task to implement these practices. There are many policy options in place to facilitate the amount of green building being pursued. Offering financial incentives would be paramount to attracting builders, corporations, and homeowners into looking to build green. By giving them tax credits or money back for using sustainable building practices, many entities would be driven to build green. Also by spreading information and educating people, they can understand that over the term life of a building, green building will make it more affordable, by lowering energy costs, requiring less inputs, and serving its purpose for a longer amount of time. Cities could also encourage green building practices by requiring all building projects to offset that buildings effect on climate by planting the equivalent amount of forest. An idea offered up by William McDonough when offering to construct a green building in Poland. This could be applied to all buildings, and the less sustainable buildings will be far greater penalized in costs to plant forest. Perhaps not the most feasible idea, but not only would it encourage people to build green, but it would also have a positive net effect on energy by planting the trees.

Hi, my name is America, and I'm addicted to Energy

The United States uses more energy per capita than any other nation. This is no secret, and it is not information kept behind closed doors. In fact, statistics and analysis of energy use for the United States is well documented and open source for the people. This "addiction" to energy has been around since the lightbulb, and only increased with the innovations that followed. However, not much attention was paid to this as a problem until recently, when it became clear that we were using energy at a rate, which would leave us writhing for another jolt as the supply dried up.

Our energy addiction has created many problems in this country, and the negative outcomes continue to amass. The rising costs of petroleum alone have led to increased taxes, which in turn has weakened our economy, which is inherently dependent on oil. Since so much of our daily lives revolve around petroleum, the fluctuations and increases seen in the price per barrel have a direct effect on weakening the value of a dollar. In turn, many people in power feel that the availability of oil must be protected, and this leads to military defense of this precious commodity, which many blame for the current war in Iraq. In addition to these issues, energy addiction also has a profound effect on the environment. Until there is 100% clean source of energy, any use, especially a drastic overuse, of energy will have some spillover into the environment. Besides the negative by-products in the production and consumption of energy, there are also many detrimental environmental impacts from the extraction fo energy. Most noteably for this country would be coal, but the mining of coal, tears apart landscapes, destroys watersheds, and alters soil regimes. A long or short term coal operation will leave the area barren.

So, how do we end this addiction.

How To End the Addiction to Oil

Hopefully, we have not yet reached the tipping point for energy use, and a move towards more sustainable communities can turn this effect around. One of the first things that must be done is an increase in capital, and not in a traditional sense, such as economic capital, but an increase in social and community capital will be necessary to evoke change. To truly reduce energy addiction the movement must start at a person by person and community by community level. With this thinking, it will require strong community cohesiveness, because in a sense weaning ourselves off of non-sustainable energy will be a drastic change for many people. It will be integral to advance technologies dealing with renewable energy; such as light volitics/solar energy, hydroelectric energy, and wind power. In addition it will be important to increase the efficiency of energy delivery systems, which will require retrofitting old plants, and building more efficient and sustainable new plants. From a policy perspective the best way to move information through a community will be to increase awareness and offer eduction, so that those dealing with the changes will be best informed. Regulation will also be needed at the community level, which along with increasing community/social capital will best allow for communities to become civic minded and aimed at a sole goal, reducing energy consumption.

Waste Not, Want Not

"The US alone produced 483 million tons of solid waste in 2002 and per capita municipal solid waste rates are still climbing, despite the fact that more than 100 million Americans now recycle... Recovery and recycling are ranked as the lowest priorities, yet energy recovery and recycling programs have blossomed across the continent, while little has been done to promote source reduction or material reuse."
-Roseland "Waste Reduction and Recycling"

This is one of the first problems addressed in Towards Sustainable Communities where community capital is already a positive for this problem. Individuals and communities have become increasingly conscious towards recycling thanks in part to strong eduction movements and economic incentives in some areas. However, recycling only attacks part of the waste problem in this country. As Giradet points out in "The Metabolism of Cities", a natural ecosystem has an "essentialy circular metabolism", where in the output of one organism is an input for another and this becomes a cycle for birth and rebirth. Whereas, in a city "metabolism is esentially linear", resources come into the city and vast amount of waste are released, and although a growing proportion of that waste is recycled, the resources being consumed are only increasing, countering the positive effects of recycling.

So, how can it be that we as a society have become more conscious about recycling materials, but waste continues to grow. Roseland lends much of that blame to the production cycle of many consumable goods. "Most waste production originates in the manufacturing and distribution phases of production of consumer products."

Shipping, manufacturing, and distribution have led to ridiculous practices, which only increase the amount of waste flowing into our urban ecosystems. As a society, "We are far better at making waste than at making products. For every 100 pounds of products we manufacture in the United States, we create at least 3,200 pounds of waste."-Hawken 1997. These practices however, are not economically stable for the businesses that promote these ridiculously wasteful schemes. With the rising cost of fossil fuels; paper products, shipping costs, and plastics will all increase, forcing industry to change practices, and in effect reducing waste and creating a more sustainable environment. Luckily however, there are many people already working on waste reduction even in some of the simplest everyday packaging/delivery methods; pizza.


A green pizzabox may not seem like a big deal, but the fact that numerous chains are considering or have adopted this technology shos the direction in which industry is heading, and with many foreign cities, like Cairo, searching for methods to become zero waste environments, hopefully it will not be long until the vast majority of everyday materials we use do not need to be disposed of, but simply transferred to some other use.

Themester Event 9/30

Redefining Prosperity: The Economics of Sustainability
Heather Reynolds Department of Biology

This talk, presented by Heather Reynolds was part of the themester lecture series. The lecture was broken into three distinct sections; "Conventional Economics and Prosperity as Growth", "Abundance or Limits", and "Ecological Economics and Redefining Prosperity". In discussing conventional economics, and prosperity as growth, Reynolds emphasized limits to growth and highlighted weaknesses to the conceptual and conventional economic model currently in use; such as a lack of equity, ignoring non-monetary aspects of life (such as natural, human, and social capital), and the model does not take into account external costs such as environmental depletion and degradation. The points that were raised here were interesting because they mirrored the concepts of capital which we discussed from the Roseland readings, and pointed out similar weaknesses to conventional economic theory which were discussed in class.

The abundance or limits to our current patters of consumption discussed ideas such as; The Next Industrial Revolution, causes and impacts of invasive species, the impact and function of natural and human capital, ecological footprint, and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment put together by the United Nations. This section of the lecture focused on more issues with the current way we as a society look at being prosperous and how we have made detrimental impacts to our planet in the efforts to be prosperous in growth and development.



In discussing ecological economics and redefining prosperity Reynolds how we should be concerned with appropriate sustainable economic scale of growth. She proposes that to achieve sustainable development we must adopt/strive for a steady state economy, where in growth is not beyond the Earth's capacity and we "must thrive within our means". She argues that growth and development are inherently very different, where in growth is a quantifiable aspect, and development is a qualitative aspect. Therefore, development does not have to be growth and our society can be developing in a more sustainable manner. One example of this which she provided was for transportation, building/construction of new roads would be growth, where as increasing public transportation would be development, which in this example is far more sustainable. Other examples would be expanding size and distribution of a food processing center would be growth, where as creating more community based agriculture is development.

In concluding her lecture, Reynolds espoused the efforts of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, whose mission states that "Perpetual economic growth is neither possible nor desirable. Growth, especially in wealthy nations, is already causing more problems than it solves."