We just keep growing.

Part humor and part seriousness, I came across this at the Montpelier High School the other day.

Call it as it is.

Something I have been thinking about and has come up with more frequency recently is the importance or shunning of negative emotions such as anger, pain, and sadness in the context of our environmental situation. 

There is a notion proposed and supported by many that as a society, and even individually,  we should not linger on the unpleasant aspects of environmental destruction. I have been told that I shouldn't make my work sad or "depressing" because people already feel helpless about the plight of the natural world. 

"People don't want to feel sad and helpless." 

"There is so much negativity in the world already."

This opinion has come up in the context of art for adult audiences and children of all ages. Although I think there are certain situations where you may not want your audience to feel  negative emotions around the state of the world, they are few. 

Excluding the very young and projects with a fundamental focus of celebration and hope, I do not see the benefit of excluding sadness from the discussion about environmental issues and our situation. We, as a species, as certain cultures, have caused incredible harm on our planet and the other living beings we share it with, let alone what we have done to each other. One might argue that through technological advances, our society has improved the lives of humanity over our species' existence however, the overall impact we have had on the stability and strength of Earth's ecosystems has been disruptive and degrading. 

Our human population has shot up at an astounding rate and within our current framework, improvements in our standard of living requires more and more resources. We have polluted our lands and waters, stripped land of forests and mountains, spilled toxic waste into sensitive ecosystems, systematically killed species for "our safety" and trophies, and other's by mistake,  we have altered the very make-up of our atmosphere, and have initiated the sixth mass extinction. 

We live in the Anthropocene, which really says it all. We are as powerful as a geologic force.

For humanity, we have done amazing things. We have created beautiful art, loved each other, mastered incredibly complicated intellectual subjects, and discovered so much it boggles the mind, but for the rest of life, we have, and continue to through human-caused climate change, decimate our one and only home. And this, is incredibly sad. 

If one allows themselves to really let the fullness of this sink in and meditate on its implication for a while, t is painful and difficult, and can easily leave them with a feeling of helplessness.

When we do stop to think about all this, and feel the heavy truth, it can be very hard. If you let it, it can bring you to tears. I think it should, and I think we should let it.

Far too often people are afraid of feeling the pain and sadness to actually let themselves feel it, or even anything at all. They numb themselves with distractions and apathy, throwing their hands up renouncing their ability to improve our situation. 

This numbing and refusal to allow ourselves to really, fully sit in the depth of sadness that is our situation, is just as dangerous as continuing to burn fossil fuels at present-day rates. If we do not allow ourselves to feel fully, how could we, why would we, ever make the difficult changes to our society to solve our problems?

In The Greatest Danger -- The Deadening of the Heart and Mind chapter from Coming Back to Life a book by Joanna Macy and Molly Brown, the authors speak about refusing to feel the sadness and anger about our world's situation and the repercussions from that numbing. Below are a few passages I particularly appreciate:

"We may try to protect ourselves from feeling pain for the world, but that very effort costs us a great deal. We pay a high price in diminished awareness, understanding and authenticity. 

"Repression takes a mammoth toll on our energy and dulls our perceptions of the world around us. It is not a local anesthetic. If we won't feel pain, we won't feel much else either -- loves and losses are less intense, the sky less vivid, pleasures muted. 

"The instinct for self-preservation, recognized as the most powerful drive in the biological realm, is essential to the preservation of our species and the ongoingness of life. In the ancient Hindu chakra system, this drive is identified with the base chakra or muladhara. It represents and feeds our instinctual nature, source of our claim on life itself. 

"To be afraid to look at and respond to that which threatens all life constitutes a blocking of the muladhara, cutting off primal intelligence and energies essential to survival. This chakra not only represents a last line of defense in the protection of life, but it also feeds the erotic currents of our days and years. Opening the base chakra __ and thereby our full will to live __ means opening ourselves to the repressed tears and rage of our pain for the world.

"Silencing our deepest responses to the condition of our world not only fosters a sense of futility, but also mires us in it. Each act of denial, conscious or unconscious, is an abdication of our power to respond. It relegates us to the role of victim, before we even see what we can and want to do.

"Our pain for the world, including the fear, anger, and sorrow we feel on behalf of life on Earth is not only pervasive. It is natural and healthy. It is dysfunctional only to the extent that it is misunderstood and repressed."

So yes, shedding the veils of illusion and looking at our very difficult situation with courage and honesty is incredibly hard. It is hard to be honest with ourselves sometimes. It is hard to open ourselves up to the the feeling of helplessness, guilt, and despair. Yes, that is hard, but no one said we lived in an easy time. No one said righting our wrongs and solving our complicated challenges would come smoothly and naturally, but that should not hold us back. 

Call it as it is, and lets get on with it.

"I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear." 

-- Nelson Mandela

"He who is not courageous enough to take risks will accomplish nothing in life" 

--Muhammad Ali

Climate Optimism

Al Gore, former U.S. Vice President and long time climate activist, made his first Ted Talk ten years ago. Also in 2006, Gore released his book, and the very influential documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Far from being his first work on the global climate crisis, An Inconvenient Truth served as a prominent punctuation in Gore's 40+ year career working to raise awareness about, and find solutions to anthropocentric climate change. You remember the terrifying movie, right?

I remember when I first saw An Inconvenient Truth. Already studying climate change in the middle of falling down the rabbit hole of discovery and finding my career path within the field, the documentary solidified my conviction. It also made me quite deeply sad. It is a scary movie, if you let the information sink in.The truth is all that needed to be said. 

A decade later, Al Gore returned to the Ted stage with a slightly different tone. In February, 2016 Gore gave a talk titled "The case for optimism on climate change." Similar to talks he has given in the past, Gore, who has moved from politics into the business field, covers the tragedies that climate change incites, bringing the viewer up to date with events over the past ten years and giving an overview of the lengthy list of things that climate change is and will affect in our natural environment and human society. In the second half of his most recent talk however, Gore takes a turn and talks about why we should be optimistic about our situation and our future. He talks about the changes to industry, and innovations in technology that will help us break our reliance on fossil fuels. With a stable hold of reality and our dire situation, Gore still has an optimistic view and reminds us that there is reason for hope and continued targeted climate action. 

There is a good message in this talk. Climate change is terrifying, dangerous, and sad. What human's have done to the planet and ourselves is justifiable cause for some deep soul searching, as well as financial investment towards finding a better way of living on Earth. We could allow climate change to be the end of us. We could stick our heads in the sand and wait it out. However, if we allow it, climate change can be our largest spark of inspiration and ingenuity. If we allow it, climate change can be the one issue that we all unite around, know that it affects us all indiscriminately. It is not a partisan or national issue, despite some's effort to frame it as such, it is a universal issue. It is also an issue that has rallied people around the world at formal events and small gatherings, in board rooms and science labs, in places of worship and at city hall. Climate change could be our end, but as Gore points out, there are many signs that humanity is not complacent enough to let it. 

Two Young Musicians for a Future in Balance

A beautiful, strong voice far beyond her years, Takiya Blaney speaks for a revolution to improve our relationship with Mother Earth. Ta'Kaiya is from the First Nation tribe of Tla A'min in British Colombia, Canada. She has been active over the past four years as an activist, speaker, and musician. She has won a number of awards for her leadership and inspiring message as an environmental advocate and for honoring her culture and upholding the traditions of the First Nation peoples. 

Here is an example of her message as well as one of her songs at the end. 

This video has better sound for her voice, which is magically haunting.

To learn more about Ta'Kaiya Blaney

This young man has also been active for a number of years spreading a similar message. Xiuhtezcatl Martinez ask us all, especially the young people of his generation, to revolutionize our way of life to create a better future. He visions a future where humans are good stewards of the planet where we have clean healthy thriving ecosystems. He ask for climate action from individuals as well as decision makers like the United Nations General Assembly on Climate Change.

Here he is in 2015, at age 15 speaking at the 

Xiuhtezcatl is also a talented musician and along with his little brother, Itzcuauhtl, perform their original hip hop music for a better future and relationship with the Earth. 

Another of their songs, at Bioneers.

And here he is, as a younger boy, speaking about how climate change is already affecting his home in Colorado. 

The pine beetles have wreaked havoc on western North America. Climate change has been a significant part of encouraging this destruction. This is a little more about that, from my project We are all in this together.

Mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae) are native to western North America, covering a swath of land from Mexico to British Columbia. With a black exoskeleton, pine beetles only measure about half a centimeter long. Pine beetle’s first three life stages, egg, larva and pupa occur under the bark of a pine tree. During the last life stage, as an adult, they can be seen flying around in the air.

When a female pine beetle burrows into a new tree to lay her eggs, she exposes the tree to blue stain fungus. This fungus inhibits the tree’s natural defense mechanism against more beetles, as well as its ability to transport water and nutrients within the tree. When a tree is infected, pine beetle larva and blue stain fungus spread throughout the tree, eventually inhibiting the tree’s ability to take up water. Eventually the pine tree will die of thirst. From the time the fungus is introduced, it may only take a few weeks for a tree to be incapable of taking up water.

A native to North America, pine beetles are not new to their ecosystems and when conditions are right they infest a new tree, killing it, but continuing its own life cycle. With climate change large areas of pine beetle’s native habitat are warming, experiencing milder winters and hotter summers. This shift in weather affects both pine trees and pine beetles. Unusually warm seasons can stress a tree and make it less robust at fighting off parasites. On the other hand, warmer weather is beneficial for pine beetles, allowing them to reproduce with a higher success rate and giving them more time and opportunity to inhabit more trees. Pine beetles have in fact doubled their reproductive rate. They used to go through one life cycle in a year and can now complete two full cycles each year. In recent years the absence of cold snaps has allowed beetle populations to explode, causing an epidemic in forests dominated by or wholly made up of pine trees.

This explosion of pine beetle populations has resulted in allowing the beetles to expand into more northern territory.  As the beetles moved north, they caused a mass dying off of forests throughout 19 US states, British Columbia and Alberta. Destruction to the forests is on the order of 10 times worse than previously recorded. Around 80 million acres of pines have been decimated and left dead. These tracks of dead trees have repercussions on all other species in the area, including humans. Stands of dead trees cater to raging forest fires. Dead trees are also not as good at holding soil to prevent erosion, slowing water flow and absorbing snow melt into the earth. These forests, which are usually a carbon sink when their trees are healthy, may easily, become a carbon source by releasing stored CO₂ and furthering global warming.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you Ta'Kaiya and Xiuhtezcatl,

----------------

Pangolin Clothing Company

Justin Allen is a friend of mine who lives in Western Massachusetts. He has started a clothing company that raises awareness about endangered species as well as helps contribute to their conservation.  Justin and his co-founder, Craig Velozo, are building their company and starting to work with other artists as well, to design more work and help protect some of our most endangered animals. 

Some Pangolin models getting their wild on!

Currently they have a small collection of designs, which are consciously made and sourced. They buy their shirts from American Apparel, ensuring the socially-just production of their products. Each of the shirts cost a mere $25 and they donate at the minimum of 50% of their profits to conservation of the animals they highlight. 

A happy Pangolin T-shirt owner

In their own words: "Founded in July 2014 by Justin Allen and Craig Velozo, Pangolin launched with a few simple goals in mind: Create unique clothing that stands on its own, provide support and protection to endangered animals, and raise awareness about what’s being done to help."

Red panda design from Pangolin

Check it out and support them here: http://www.pangolinclothingcompany.com

What is useful anyways?

Although I understand why it happens, I frequently find myself asking "why?" Why are humans so self centered? Why does nature have to benefit humans to be valuable to us? Why is the anthropocentric world view so common and socially acceptable? 

"Oh, it is just human nature." "All species worry about themselves first." "That's natural." 

Maybe to a certain respect it is natural, or at least makes sense on some primal level. It makes sense that someone will worry about their daughter more than an insect, and how a flower may cure their cancer more than a "useless" minnow swimming in a stream. But shouldn't what sets humans apart from other animals allow us to think more deeply and broadly about the value of nature?

I can't help wondering why our consciousness, our understanding of how the world works, and our ability to flourish on this earth rather than just survive doesn't leave room in the human mind to appreciate and value all living things for their innate worth. Let things live for their own sake. Attempt to protect living things for their own right to live. Do we really need more than we already have, more space, more water, more forests, more resources? Or can we understand that our ingenuity is all we need to be perfectly satisfied with what we have and still continue to raise our standard of living in order to leave plenty of space and resources for other life. 

We have all we need in intellectual capitol to live amazing and beautiful lives today without taking away from other living things. Yet, somehow, we still have to convince people to care about the natural world only through describing how the natural word will benefit them in some tangible and utilitarian way. 

Below is an article from New York Times blogger Richard Conniff addressing just this issue. I really appreciate this article and the questions that it brings up. For my last project, that involved raising awareness about 50 species affected by climate change, I thought about this a lot. I chose some species that conjure up sympathy from people, such as the panda bear and the holy cocoa tree. Since I feel pretty passionate about all living things being equally important in the unbelievable complex network that is the biosphere, I consciously chose other species that people usually don't recognize like zooplankton, chytrid fungus, and pine beetles. 

With regards to environmental art, the idea of how to frame environmental conservation and how to get people's attention are central to how to be effective. What do you want your main message to be? Do you want to "market" the environment in order to "sell it better?" Or, do you want to be more raw, crunchy and lean towards deep ecology? Maybe the inherent worthiness of nature doesn't quite sell as well to society. 

Life on earth and all her interconnections are too complex for us to fully understand. Who are we to judge what is important and more worthy of life? Given that we all evolved here together shouldn't the miracle that life is, be enough?

Useless Creatures
By Richard Conniff

September 13, 2014

This article contains no useful information. Zero. Nada. Nothing. If usefulness is your criterion for reading, thank you very much for your time and goodbye, we have nothing more to say. The truth is that I am bored to tears by usefulness. I am bored, more precisely, of pretending usefulness is the thing that really matters.

I mostly write about wildlife. So here is how it typically happens for me: A study comes out indicating that species x, y and z are in imminent danger of extinction, or that some major bioregion of the planet is being sucked down into the abyss. And it’s my job to convince people that they should care, even as they are racing to catch the 7:10 train, or wondering if they’ll be able to pay this month’s (or last month’s) rent.

My usual strategy is to trot out a list of ways even the most obscure species can prove unexpectedly, yes, useful. The first effective treatment that turned H.I.V. from a death sentence into a manageable condition? Inspired by the biochemistry of a nondescript Caribbean sponge. The ACE inhibitors that are currently among our most effective treatments for cardiovascular disease (and which have lately been proposed as a treatment for Ebola)? Developed by studying the venom of the fer-de-lance, a deadly snake found from Mexico to northern South America. The new medical bandage that’s gentle enough for the delicate skin of newborns and the elderly? Modeled on the silk of spider webs.

Every time I begin this line of argument, though, I get the queasy feeling that I am perpetuating a fallacy. It’s not that I’m telling lies; these examples are entirely real. But given, for instance, that three-quarters of our farm crops depend on insect pollinators, or that more than 2.6 billion people rely directly on seafood for protein, it seems a little obvious to be reminding people that wildlife can be useful, or, more to the point, that human survival depends on wildlife. Without saying so out loud, the argument also implies that animals matter only because they benefit humans, or because just possibly, at some unknowable point in the future, they might benefit humans.

You don’t have to look too far to see how silly this can get. In truth, I don’t have to look at all, because university press offices fill my inbox with examples every day: The Harvard scientists who hope their study of cuttlefish skin will “inspire improved protective camouflage for soldiers on the battlefield.” The Berkeley team that thinks studying the genetics of blubber-eating polar bears could help us learn to live with our bacon-wrapped, wide-load lifestyle. And the wonderful folks at Nanyang Technological University, in Singapore, who believe “Squid sucker ring teeth material could aid reconstructive surgery, serve as eco-packaging.” (And you thought they were good only for calamari.)

I don’t entirely blame the scientists. Their research often depends on taxpayer funding, and their dreams are haunted by the ghost of United States Senator William Proxmire’s Golden Fleece Award. That award garnered headlines by ridiculing outlandish-seeming items in the federal budget, and animal behavior studies were a juicy target. So now people doing that kind of research all feel obliged to imply that they are two steps away from a cure for the common cold. No basic research here, Senator, sir, no idle curiosity. Useful “R” Us. (They also delight in pointing out that one of Mr. Proxmire’s targets — a $250,000 investigation into the sex life of the screwworm fly — has yielded $20 billion in benefits to American cattle farmers by enabling control of a major insect pest.)

Improbably, wildlife conservationists now also often hear the call of the useful. Along with a large contingent of eco-finance bureaucrats, they try to save threatened habitats by reminding nearby communities of all the benefits they derive from keeping these habitats intact. Forests, meadows and marshes prevent floods, supply clean water, provide habitat for species that pollinate crops, put oxygen into the atmosphere and take carbon out, and otherwise make themselves useful. In some cases, conservation groups or other interested parties actually put down cash for these ecosystem services — paying countries, for instance, to maintain forests as a form of carbon sequestration. The argument, in essence, is that we can persuade people to save nature by making it possible for them to sell it. They can take nature to the bank, or at least to the local grocery. They can monetize it. (The new revised version of Genesis now says, “God made the wild animals according to their kinds, and he said, ‘Let them be fungible.’ ”)

I understand the logic, or at least the desperation, that drives conservationists to this horrible idea. It may seem like the only way to keep what’s left of the natural world from being plowed under by unstoppable human expansion and by our insatiable appetite for what appears to be useful. But usefulness is precisely the argument other people put forward to justify destroying or displacing wildlife, and they generally bring a larger and more persuasive kind of green to the argument. Nothing you can say about 100 acres in the New Jersey Meadowlands will ever add up for a politician who thinks a new shopping mall will mean more jobs for local voters (and contributions to his campaign war chest). Nothing you can say about the value of rhinos for ecotourism in South Africa will ever matter to a wildlife trafficker who can sell their horns for $30,000 a pound in Vietnam.

Finally, there is the unavoidable problem that most wildlife species — honey badgers, blobfish, blue-footed boobies, red-tailed hawks, monarch butterflies, hellbenders — are always going to be “useless,” or occasionally annoying, from a human perspective. And even when they do turn out, by some quirk, to be useful, that’s typically incidental to what makes them interesting. Cuttlefish do not fascinate because their skin may suggest new forms of military camouflage, but because of the fantastic light shows that sometimes play across their flanks. Spider web silk doesn’t intrigue because somebody can turn it into bandages, but because of the astonishing things spiders can do with it — stringing a line across a stream and running trotlines down the surface to catch water striders, for instance, or (in the case of the species named mastophora dizzydeani) flinging a ball of silk on a thread like a spitball to snag moths out of the air.

Wildlife is and should be useless in the same way art, music, poetry and even sports are useless. They are useless in the sense that they do nothing more than raise our spirits, make us laugh or cry, frighten, disturb and delight us. They connect us not just to what’s weird, different, other, but to a world where we humans do not matter nearly as much as we like to think.

And that should be enough.

Built Green Space: The Future of Land Trusts?

The lapse in time from my last post is not due to lack of inspiration. On the contrary, the post that I started over a week ago just won’t end. There has also been a town-wide Nemo-induced lack of power… As I continue working on it in its fleshed out form, I want to give a shortened version here. Since it is an on-going and evolving project, I welcome your input and critiques.

The United States is projected to be a minority-majority population by the year 2042, meaning that there will be as many minorities as non-hispanic whites. This, along with changes in socio-economic demographics and increased urbanization create a dynamic and ever-changing nation. What will these changes mean for the future of the land trust movement that traditionally has been lead by and served white, fairly well off, educated, middle-aged, land owning populations?

It is important to note that segregation in the land trust movement has been more a function of form and default practices rather than a systematic elitist approach to improving quality of life for the privileged. Maybe it was easy and even acceptable to work in and with a small slice of the population in the past, but today it is counter-productive and irresponsible for the land trust movement not to involve and serve a wider audience.

Considering demographic shifts and the changing priorities of land trusts, eventually moving towards decreased acquisition responsibilities and increased stewardship responsibilities, how will trusts remain effective and meaningful? Who will fill the shoes of today’s conservationists and stewards? Who will care for the ever-growing acreage protected in perpetuity? If we do not evolve our methods today, can we rely on individuals who have been left out of the conversation to take up the cause or even care?

One strategy to diversifying the movement is to get involved in built green space. Built green space is the combination of land conservation, urban open-space, and roof-top gardens. The concept is that land trusts become involved in the multi-faceted work of conserving “built land” or “created land”, bringing land conservation into the urban environment in a new way to serve and engage a more diverse population.

Built green space is essentially green roofs, land that is anthropogenically constructed on a structure or building including gardens, parks, sports fields, and outdoor meeting areas. The “land” could be treated similar to real land in that: its protection could initiate tax breaks; it could be subject to conservation easements; it would benefit biodiversity and help create wildlife corridors; it would lessen the heat island effect and increase permeable surface area in urban settings; it would improve the quality of life for local communities by increasing access to green space, urban garden space, and outdoor recreation opportunities; and it would increase exposure to, and benefits of, land conservation to a more diverse population.

Critics may be quick to point out what they consider insurmountable challenges to a built green space initiative. They might site issues like the legal limitations of our current system to conserve and place an easement on built green space; that it is not true land, and therefore should not concern land trusts; the new set of management and stewardship strategies needed would be cumbersome; etcetera. It is true that new initiatives often come with new challenges and issues to be addressed, but there is so much more to gain than loose from the inclusion of built green space in the land trust movement and our portfolios.

As a system designed and expected to last in perpetuity, the land trust movement must evolve to remain financially and functionally strong, relevant, and meaningful. Built green space embodies many of the values that trusts generally uphold and work for: preservation of green space for the benefit of humans, wildlife; improving ecological functions such as water flow and climate systems; connecting people to the land and creating opportunities for environmental education; and encouraging sustainable and healthy agriculture. With a dynamic future in mind, let’s take the initiative to serve, benefit, and connect to a wider slice of society, benefiting citizens of all kinds, trusts, and the environment.

Living art: Flora for beauty and sustainability

This post was inspired by a dream I had last night. I was flying over a cityscape that was blanketed and dripping with lush vibrant gardens. The tops of all the buildings were cultivated into beautiful gardens, and the foliage spilled over their edges and created a city fully alive as a forest.

Incorporating plants into architecture and sustainable design is not just a dream, but reality. Rain gardens, green roofs, and natural filtration systems are an integral part of sustainable and responsible water use and management in our built environment. Plants are also beautiful and can be found in more and more art.

The use of plants in sustainability and art is much too large to talk about in just one post, but here is a whirlwind tour of the possibilities:

Cover it in green:

Mud Maiden
Lost Gardens of Heligan in Cornwall, UK
Susan & Pete Hill

Write and draw in green:

Moss Stencil
Brooklyn, NY
edina tokodi & józsef vályi-tóth

Anna Garforth

Incorperate green into sculpture:

Arbor Lace: 2002
Rockland Center for the Arts, NY
9’ x 4.5’ x 18’
Michele Brody

Make a green wall:

Green your roof:

Green-filter your water:

Rain Garden

John Todd Ecological Design

More to come!

Sustainable by Design: The Bullitt Center

One of the most inspiring, and at times frustrating, aspects of moving towards sustainability is that we already have so much of what we need to achieve it. Globally, our knowledge about, and technology for a sustainable world is immense and growing all the time. Implementation is the key to real change. I recently learned about the Bullitt Center, which is a globally significant example of this change.

The building sector, which is usually divided into two categories: residential and commercial,  is responsible for a large section of energy and fossil fuel consumption. It is also considered by some specialists, a sector with significant possibility to reduce consumption and move towards sustainability. S. Pascala and R. Socolow, in their article Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies says, “when energy is examined comprehensively from the end-use perspective, the buildings sector stands out as particularly promising.” (The abstract of this article can read at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/305/5686/968.abstract) What makes the building sector so promising is that much of the technology for improvement already exists.  

In the building industry there are guidelines for green building standardizations that help guide and track the sustainability of structures. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) “is a voluntary, consensus-based, market-driven program that provides third-party verification of green buildings” (http://new.usgbc.org/leed). LEED has been the leading example of green building verification for many years and has been widely successful in creating standards for sustainability and raising awareness and providing opportunities for education on these issues.  More recently, the Living Building Challenge has been introduced. The Challenge is a certification program that is even more stringent than LEED. The Challenge “is comprised of seven performance areas, or ‘Petals’: Site, Water, Energy, Health, Materials, Equity and Beauty.”The idea of petals stems from the living building concept coined by Jason McLennon, CEO of the Cascadia Green Building Council and leader in the green architecture field, who described the operation of living buildings “as elegantly and efficiently as flowers.”

And now back to the wonderful example of the implementation of existing technology and methods for a sustainable future: the Bullitt Center. The Center has been called the “worlds greenest building”, one reason being that not only does it meet the Living Building Challenge (along with a select few, globally), but it is the largest building ever to achieve such a high standard of sustainability. Most structures to attempt sustainability are relatively small, but the Bullitt Center is a six-story, 50,000 square-foot office building. The extended roof is filled with enough solar panels that it will ideally capture enough sunlight, even in cloudy Seattle, during the summer to fuel the building through the winter. The design also focuses on minimizing electricity use, abundant natural light for inhabitants, geo-thermal heating, rainwater storage, grey water filtering, composting toilets, and a centrally located staircase to encourage a healthy life style.

These are the kind of buildings for a better future: places to live and work that do not harm the environment and irresponsibly use nonrenewable resources, but serve as models of a way forward to a smarter, healthier, and more sustainable world.

The Self-Sufficient Office Building, The New York Times October 4, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/realestate/commercial/seattles-bullitt-center-aims-to-be-energy-self-sufficient.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Seattle’s Silver Bullitt: A New Office Building Goes Untra-Green, Time Magazine Science & Space June 20, 2012

http://science.time.com/2012/06/20/silver-bullitt/

World’s Greenest Building, Bullitt Center, Opens in Earth Day in Seattle, Triple Pundit, January 16, 2013

http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/01/worlds-greenest-building-bullitt-center-opens-earth-day/

The Bullitt Center

http://bullittcenter.org/

Living Building Challenge

http://living-future.org/lbc

LEED

http://new.usgbc.org/leed

SHFT: Curating the Culture of Today’s Environment

SHFT, in their own words, “is a multi-media platform founded by film producer Peter Glatzer and actor-filmmaker Adrian Grenier. Our mission is to convey a more sustainable approach to the way we live through video, design, art and culture”. Their website includes a wide selection of topics including art, energy, architecture, fashion, conservation, food and business. SHFT is a fabulous resource of new and hopeful ideas for the future. It is also the best all-encompassing website I have found yet on these topics.

The philosophy behind SHFT is that sustainability should be incorporated into our everyday lives and into our culture, art, design, and music. “As filmmakers who are concerned with climate change, we felt that we could bring something creative to express the changes we wanted to see and were, gratefully, starting to observe. We feel that video, art and design are powerful and inspiring ways to convey this narrative.” I could not agree more with this statement and is in many ways the very reason I made this blog. They also mention that since money talks and demand drives the market and innovation, SHFT also showcases many sustainable products and ideas that hopefully illustrate a way towards a more sustainable future. They also feature cutting-edge ideas and the people behind them.

Here are just a few cool topics from SHFT (http://www.shft.com/):

Diego Stocco: Music From A Tree: http://www.shft.com/watching/diego-stocco-music-from-a-tree

     Playing a tree for a Techno Track

The Big SHFT: Bionic Men: http://www.shft.com/watching/the-big-shft-bionic-men

     Return Textiles with Pharrell Williams: Sustainable Fabric

Harvesting Air for Water: http://www.shft.com/reading/harvesting-air-for-water

     Gathering water from the Air in Lima, Peru

One Belongs: http://www.shft.com/watching/one-belongs

     Animated short from Liz Klein about plastic pollution in the oceans

Ars Natura: Lea Turto: http://www.shft.com/reading/ars-natura-lea-turto

      A Finnish artist, Lea Turto works in felt and tree stumps in the woods