the best approach for educating people on green development

[Roland Beinert]

The environment is seen today as mostly a political issue. We tend to talk about it in terms of right vs. wrong and hope vs. doom. But if you look at history, you’d see that most people were using the techniques we call “green” for thousands of years. I imagine that if you praised them for using these techniques, they would give you a pretty confused look. They were simply doing what worked. They didn’t think about the ethics of it.
I’m happy to be a part of a proffession where people have such a strong environmental ethic. But I worry that the ethics of the environment is overshadowing the practical side of green building. Can we really solve these problems if we have opposing forces who think that green building is all about ethics? Ethics are always debatable. Always. Some people don’t care about future generations or other life forms. These people are convinced that we think we are morally superior to them. They think we care more about plants and other animals than we do about other people.
I think, for the most part, the environmental movement has common sense on it’s side. Humans really are connected to the ecosytems around us. A lot of green building methods are simply ideas taken from the way people did things for thousands of years, and they really are the most prudent ways of doing things. They really can save money and future effort. I think this is the strongest argument for green building.
As I said, I’m glad to be part of a profession that has a strong set of ethics. But ethics are the weakest argument for green building. Why not focus our efforts on the practical side of things? Should that really raise red flags when I say that?

[Bob Luther]

if you can show people how to save money while they save the fluffy bunnies they will be much more attentive to doing something. The best “green” movements attack two things, the pocketbook and the health and safety of children or future generations.

[Trace One]

Wow, Antigonum! I was in Puerto Rico in the sixties and it was beautiful..I am so sorry to hear what you have to say..

apparently ethics can’t get any traction in Puerto rico at all…

check out the DotEarth blog on the New YOrk Times, you may feel less pessimistic..

I think progress is like soup – a lot of different ingredients go into making it good..So we have to proceed on the large scale, the small scale, from the perspective of ethics, from the perspective of cost..It is a soup…

[Roland Beinert]

You all bring up good points. I guess what started me thinking about this again was some comments on the treehugger website from some very conservative people. They seemed convinced that environmentalists, in general, were just sitting around judging average people as morally inferior. I really don’t understand how people can think that. I have plenty of valid reasons for being an environmentalist and none of them have anything to do with moral superiority.

[Roland Beinert]

I think I’m more fascinated than anything. I’ve always been a nature buff, and I see a lot of elegance in some green building solutions. It helps that I worked for a firm run by an old hippie (something he occasionally calls himself) for a year and a half and have seen this stuff work. But even he cared about budget and never forced anything on clients.

[Bob Luther]

In a lot of ways there are different ways to educate differnet people. The general public it is about the little things, compact florescent lights, hybrid cars, high effecency windows and doors. For our clients it is a little more elaborate, orientation of buildings, recycled materials, energy exchanges, solar panels, reclaimed water, LEED certification. For us, the designers, it should be try to learn what all of this stuff is, what is on the horizon, how it works, how to use it, how to design with it, and how to get it through the budget. the more “green” we put forward the more developers are going to have it in their projects, and the more the public is going to be exposed to the future.

[Keven Graham]

For what it is worth and whether you agree or disagree with Al Gore we should be glad he and many others have made the environmental movement forefront in mainstream media. The conversation has started and programs like HGTV and the Planet Green have thrived because people want to express their connection to nature. I am glad this is happening. Now as the Green Industry and Landscape Architects we have the opportunity to showcase our knowledge and help educate the general public, politicos and corporate America on what environmental, green, sustainable is and how it works as a whole. We need to show how all these techniques, and you are right they are old, actually work on a site.

Some say it is only about making money or saving money, that is ok. Dare I save i want to make some of it. I think we sometimes get caught up in the purest part of environmentalism, where as it should be our new economy. We all need to take on a foerward roll in teh business sector and push for sustainability and environmental awarness and responsibility as standard business practices.

[Roland Beinert]

I think that’s why we should promote what we currently call green building techniques simply as practical techniques to help towards the goal of reducing long and short term costs. If I think a swale is the best option for reducing infrastructure costs or something in some project, I’d rather not have the idea dismissed simply because it’s supposedly part of a “green agenda”. It annoys me when they are not even explored as an option, sometimes purely because of political leanings of other people. In my opinion, we need to find a way to take the politics out of the equation, but still be able to use swales, or whatever, when it’s the best thing to use.
I think it’s green building that has the image problem more than landscape architects. Permaculture is a good example. For some people, the very word “permaculture” probably conjures up images of hippies dancing around with fuzzy bunnies in fields of flowers. You have to get past what it’s called, and past the heavy emphasis on ethics in the writing. Then you realise that what they are promoting is really just innovative, efficient, and logical design of human landscapes.

[Roland Beinert]

You’re right. It’s the political correctness that I worry about. In a lot of cases environmentalism is seen only as a cool fad or a matter of ethics. Fads go away when something else becomes cool, and ethics are regularly ignored. That’s exactly why we need to concentrate on practicality when we present green building options to clients. Practicality is a value that is a lot less likely to go away than being politically correct. People who care about the environment need to show that we can be innovative problem solvers.
I think a lot of environmentalists also need to try to present a more positive view of the future. I know it’s hard sometimes, but the average person doesn’t want to be negative or critical. If we environmentalists seem negative or overly critical, they will cover their ears and go “LA LA LA!” Showing them how things can be done more cheaply and efficiently is a much more positive way to approach environmentalism.

[Ryan A. Waggoner]

Hey Roland,
Great topic. I’m currently reading a book by Jared Diamond called “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed” which breaks down all of the reasons different societies have addressed certain issues and what happened after those decisions were made. It is a very interesting read, and definitely makes you look at the decisions that we as a society are making today. Looking at things like basic land stewardship as a “good choice” instead of a given is definitely one of those decisions that we deal with daily. Until basic considerations and care are not considered a “perk” and instead treated as the standard I think we still have a ton of work to do…

[Roland Beinert]

I’ll have to look for that book. Jane Jacobs wrote a book that sounds similar called Dark Age Ahead.

[Author]

Posts