Problems

From thesisWIKI

Contents 1 PROBLEMS: Social 1.1 Suburban space 2 PROBLEMS: Economic 2.1 (un)sustainable economics 3 PROBLEMS: Environmental 3.1 Carbon emissions

PROBLEMS: Social

Suburban space

Suburban space is a 1950's interpretation of the nomad space. Without the virtual connectivity that we experience today, suburban space is a physical solution to those seeking the in-between space. In the post World War II context, balance between work and retreat was found in the suburbs - a physical space in-between urban and rural. This lifestyle is enabled by mobility (primarily the automobile in American culture).

PROBLEMS: Economic

(un)sustainable economics

As consumers’ income levels rise, so do consumption demands. Consumption and production increase to serve demands beyond those of food and basic necessity. With affluence, a greater percentage of income becomes available for travel and leisure pursuits (and leisure products). Because of this direct relationship, a goal of ‘no.D’ is to decrease product redundancies that consumers own to increase their mobility. One example might be to reduce materials and products in a second home by taking more primary home living necessities with. Another strategy includes a product sharing mechanism where a ‘no.D’ service entity manages shared components (furniture, appliances). No direct product ownership occurs and consumption theoretically decreases.

To analyze and test these hypotheses, full extraction, manufacturing, and life-cycle demands for redundant products must be compared to the demands of increased mobility. Both environmental and economic demands will be considered for this analysis. As an economic strategy, decreasing manufacturing no doubt opposes many current models for prosperity. Despite this, the proposed ‘no.D’ mobile model recognizes that because of environmental concerns of climate change and limited resources, policy change needs to and is going to happen. Therefore, economies need to adapt. The ‘no.D’ model is a design solution that proposes a labor and resources shift from a raw material supply and manufacturing emphasis to an innovation and mobility service economy.

"It is only when we blatantly and obviously waste resources that we can, with a large degree of security, claim that it is possible to have your cake and eat it, a so-called 'no-lose' situation…the challenge lies in transferring the economy to a non-cake and eat it situation - in other words, to a situation where increase in activity in one sector takes place at the expense of another." (TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY, 29-30)

The goal of 'no.D' is to affect methods of production by changing consumption patterns with design and mobility.

"One of the core themes of our understanding of the functions of the economy is that our total resources are limited and that we must priorities between them" (TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY, 29)

PROBLEMS: Environmental

Carbon emissions

In addition to architectural concerns of building efficiency and ecological footprints, 'no.D' will quantify and propose alternative transporation methods to address mobility demand. One way to quantify and compare the ecological impact of our lifestyle decisions is with carbon emissions. To understand the scale of carbon reduction necessary, Pacala and Socolow of Princeton (August 13, 2004 issue of Science) have proposed a program to reduce CO₂ emissions by 1 billion metric tons per year − or 25 billion tons over a 50-year period. This is level of reduction they have determined necessary to avoid climatic disaster. To organize a global strategy, they have proposed 15 different programs, any combination of 7 could achieve the goal.

1. efficient vehicles − increase fuel economy from 30 to 60 mpg for 2 billion vehicles,
2. reduce use of vehicles − improve urban design to reduce miles driven from 10,000 to 5,000 miles per year for 2 billion vehicles,
3. efficient buildings − reduce energy consumption by 25%,
4. improve efficiency of coal plants from today's 40% to 60%,
5. replace 1,400 gigawatts of coal power plants with natural gas,
6. capture and store carbon emitted from 800 gigawatts of new coal plants,
7. capture and reuse hydrogen created by #6 above,
8. capture and store carbon from coal to synfuelsconversion at 30 million barrels per day,
9. displace 700 gigawatts of coal power with nuclear,
10. add 2 million 1 megawatt windmills (50 times current capacity),
11. displace 2,000 gigawatts of coal with solar power (700 times current capacity),
12. produce hydrogen fuel from 4 million 1 megawatt windmills,
13. use biomass to make fuel to displace oil (100 times current capacity),
14. stop de-forestation and re-establish 300 million hectares of new tree plantations,
15. conservation tillage − apply to all crop land (10 times current usage).

Although this list outlines global scale strategies, the perspective helps to define how the smaller scope of the 'no.D' project fits in. 'no.D' strategies will be quantified and compared to present consumption to explore how they can contribute to the above and other global goals.

Anticipated regulation on carbon emissions appear to oppose the idea of increased mobility. In the present model, increased mobility has a linear relationship to carbon emissions--although the constant in the formula is different depending on modality. Thus one could choose to be 'less bad' (per William McDonough) by choosing a mode that produces less carbon per person or distance traveled. Ultimately, regardless of mode, more travel still equates to more carbon. The 'no.D' project will not solve this equation directly. 'no.D' accepts that more travel with today's technology produces more carbon. Clearly, if carbon output was the only variable and today's modes and technology were assumed to be constant, then the solution is no travel. However, the 'no.D' project recognizes that there is far more complexity to this problem and proposes that design and innovation in both housing typologies and transport modes will have a more dramatic effect than conservation of existing methods. Through innovation, the mobility necessary to meet our economic and leisure demands will be available and responsible. As McDonough explains:

"As long as human beings are regarded as 'bad', zero is a good goal. But to be less bad is to accept things as they are, to believe that poorly designed, dishonorable, destructive systems are the best humans can do. This is the ultimate failure of the 'be less bad' approach: a failure of the imagination. From our perspective, this is a depressing vision of our species' role in the world. What about an entirely different model? What would it mean to be 100 percent good?" (CRADLE TO CRADLE, 67)

Because of this stance towards faith in innovation, regulation and other environmental policy restrictions and taxations (related to carbon or other indicators) are beneficial to the 'no.D' strategy as they will increase demand and funding for research and design.

"Use of such financial measures as price mechanisms would appear to be appropriate, since these would make metals and other materials and services which cause emissions much more expensive, signaling to consumers that they should begin to consider other materials or other ways of thought. It will scarcely be possible for governments to achieve regulation without taxation of fossil fuels and other harmful materials." (TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY, 18)