Short Stories

So, I'm taking a break from social action to indulge in my second favorite subject: My sister, but if I had written that at top, my brother would've been livid. So, in the name of sibling equality I'll donate this to Dani and a future post to the B-ster.

Dani has been my inspiration for how to lead a socially responsible and personally fulfilling life. As a yoga master, English teacher and outdoors leader she has let her heart guide her path. Through this pursuit, she has met her husband (we should all take note). Meeting a Middlebury man on the mountains on Montana was her destiny. Now, after teaching and helping me in so many ways, I'd like to help her (does this count as social action?)

I would like you, yes, YOU! The person reading this blog now, to think of one great, fantastic short story that made a lasting impression on you as a student and leave a comment about it. It can simply be the title or if your feeling benevolent, a comment as well. Can you think of a more democratic way to teach? As DanDan would say: Smiles

Toilets!

Ok- I'll admit it. There is nothing like toilet humor to make me laugh. Just the thought of it can elicit a giggle. (Many of you already know that). So when I came across the news that the newly formed World Toilet Association was having its first conference on November 22, hosted by none other than South Korea's Mr. Toilet, I smiled. That's so funny! The World Toilet Association!

However, once I stopped giggling, I began thinking. This, I realized, is a fantastic way to gather all these disparate people together to discuss how to save water by reducing the amount each toilet flushes. So provincial were my views. I only focused on the environmental benefits. Little did I consider the international health implications of a Toilet Association. It could save lives. (Scroll down to buy a toilet to save a life).

A Toilet Association has the power to bring toilets to those who don't have them. Specifically, to the 2.6 billion people who do not have them. As some of you might know, about 2 million people die each year from diarrhea, 90% of whom are children. I have always maintained that it is an outrage that children are still dying of diarrhea. While access to toilets is certainly not the magical panacea for this and other causes death, it's a fantastic and underrated start.

Let's first start with the leading causes of preventable death. These are: lower respiratory infections, HIV/AIDS, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis, malaria and measles. They account for 90% of preventable deaths worldwide. Astounding. Cholera, while not in the top six, also takes a substantial amount of lives. (Footnote 1) Of these diseases, malaria, diarrhea, tuberculosis and cholera would be far less fatal if clean water and adequate sanitation was widely accessible. Why? Because these are communicable diseases, meaning diseases that one obtains from physical contact with infected persons or things, such as foods, body fluids, liquids, the air and other contaminated objects. This means that the cruder and more overcrowded your living conditions are, the more likely you are to get a disease from your neighbor. This is particularly true if the disease is transmitted through airborne inhalation, or is a water-borne disease like diarrhea. Hence, the dire need for toilets.

Disease and bugs carrying diseases are naturally attracted to the waste that a toilet disposes of. One gram of feces can contain 10 million viruses, one million bacteria, 1000 parasite cysts and 100 parasite eggs (footnote 2). Imagine how many children are killed due to this simple equation. A toilet would eliminate these 10 million viruses and parasite eggs, which go on to breed terrible parasites in children and adults. In fact, according to the organization Wateraid, safe disposal of human waste can reduce childhood diarrhea by 40%. Pretty astounding?

Here's another way to look at it. You really have to go, but there are no available facilities. We've all been there. Now, imagine its not a matter of holding for a few more minutes or even hours, but days. In fact, a clean, available facility might never be available. Think about how hard it would be to focus on your classes as a second or seventh grader knowing that your choice is between holding it for six hours, incontinence or a filthy toilet with worms and bugs. You'd probably do what many women and children do, which is develop a habit of avoiding toilets for extremely long periods. This, of course, disrupts the body's natural cycle of eating and disposing and causes dehydration, fissures, urine infection, kidney failure, constipation, incontinence and bladder disease to name a few (Footnote 3).

So, now, just as with recycling I encourage you to take action. Donate a few dollars or even just one to help prevent this atrocity. Think about it- if every person who views this blog donated two dollars to toilets, we could really make a difference.

Some links to donate and or check out are:

1. Articles:
a. Dugger, Celia. Toilets Underused to Fight Disease, U.N. Study Finds. New York Times.
11/10/2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/world/10toilet.html
b. Practical Action: World Toilet Day: http://practicalaction.org/?id=sanitation

2. I love the Water Aid website (http://www.wateraid.org/uk/get_involved/world_toilet_day/default.asp)
because it gives many practical suggestions besides donating, along with facts about the crises. They also have a Tasteless tie and tacky earrings competition, writing campaign, posters, games (yes- tinkle time and others) and a fantastic four page booklets: http://www.wateraid.org/documents/campaigners_sanitation_pack.pdf

3. For the toilet lovers, you can buy a toilet from Oxfam. Go in with your friends. Buy one in your parents/boss/boyfriend's name for Christmas. Or buy one in my name for Hanukah.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/shop/ProductDetails.aspx?catalog=Unwrapped&product=OU2648

4. The frugal might want to buy a toilet through World Vision Alternative Gifts. Not as nice,
but does the trick:
http://www.greatgifts.org/GiftCertificateSelection/GiftCertificate.aspx?CertificateID=733&ParentTypeID=2&ParentType=Water

5. Donate to Bio-latrines in Kenya and help keep schools open: http://practicalaction.org/?id=appeal_biolatrines

Footnotes:
1= http://www.globalhealth.org/view_top.php3?id=228
2= http://www.wateraid.org/uk/get_involved/world_toilet_day/default.asp
3= http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/3948

Building that Are Alive

In this day of Green Everything, there is LEED platinum and then there is a living building.
What is a living building?
A living building is a self-sustaining structure. Think of it as a Kibbutz in the vertical variety.
It catches and uses its own water. Its toilets flush with one pint (compared to 1.6 gallons for efficiency toilets) and self-compost. Getting the point? It might or might not generate its own electricity through solar panels and/or vegetation by using the heat generated by the building for a greenhouse.

The architecture firm SERA in tandem with the developer Kenton Living Building is creating an excellent example of a living building in Portland, Oregon. While this project does not capture the waste heat generated by the UHI, it pushes the envelope of green building by limiting the amount of water and electricity each tenant consumes. Additionally, to garner enough usable water the team is lobbying Portland for a variance on the anti-gray water ordnance to harness the water from the faucets (10% of the total water supply).

Check it out the project for yourself at: http://www.djc.com/news/en/11189630.html

If energy is not a primary concern and a building has tons of roof space to spare and free falling water from the Catskill Mountains delivered to your apartment, as we do in NYC, it might become alive by harnessing all the resources of its roofs. Stay with me. The luxury high-rise readers of this blog are probably wondering a) if I am on drugs (I'm not) b) what roofs have to offer besides a view, place to smoke, and lounge chairs. Others might be aware of some sort of movement to put plants on roofs, but do not realize the larger context. Plainly put roofs have many resources.

Roofs are not only the homes of HVAC systems (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Cooling) or satellite dishes, but are homes to vast harvestable flat areas that offer space for energy, ecology and light, partially due to Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.

The ho-ha what Island? An UHI is land that had been changed by urban development. The change causes an enormous amount of energy to be generated because of the material properties of cities, i.e. asphalt and concrete, lack of natural cooling systems, like vegetation, pollution, and, most relevant to this blog, large amount of tall buildings. The buildings have multiple reflective surfaces which bounce and absorb sunlight, block the wind, another natural cooling system, and generate waster hear from air conditioning, factories, industry and other function.

This excess heat, known as waster heat, alters the climate of the city. As we all know the temperature in NYC is much warmer in the night than in the outer lying suburbs, which are geographically quite close.

So how does this relate to green roofs? Well, this waste heat can be harnessed and used to create vegetated systems for roofs. A waterproof, filtered floor or soil is placed on the roof on which vegetation is planted, grown and consumed by the residents of the building. Therefore, the residents are trapping and using the waste heat to grow their own vegetables, grossly reducing their food carbon foot print. Pretty efficient, huh?

40 million bottles a day

Why doesn't the gym recycle? That question has always gnawed at me for years. It has become particularly dominant recently as I have been aware of the extreme explosion in the consumption of water bottles, the large carbon footprint of each bottle and inexcusable abdication of recycling responsibilities by wealthy corporations.

First, bottled water consumption has doubled over the past decade. Specifically, there are approximately 15 billion water bottles now consumed a year. So what you say? People also enjoy soda, beer, and sports drink. The difference is that bottled waters is usually consumed at the gym, on the train, while walking and the office (also in the car- but since I live in NYC, I'll shelve that problem). Because these places are not residential, there are few opportunities to recycle. As a result, some forty million bottles about 87% of all water bottles are trashed each day. Wrong? Yes. Solvable? Yes.

Why report? Why bother? Excellent question.

Toxic byproducts such as chlorine gas and are produced when bottles are incinerated.

Water bottles that are not incinerated but buried take 1,000 years to biodegrade.

By some estimates 40% of PET bottles were exported to China for recycling demonstrating the high need for domestic bottles. There are simply to few people recycling in the US threatening the livelihood of the domestic plastics recycling industry.

What are the solutions?

First of course is to go nalgene or some other way that elements or drastically cut consumption of water bottles in the first place. Short of that, a few concrete solutions do come to mind.

First, comes with the understanding that about 30% of soda bottles are recycled. This is because they are consumed in the home. Logically, then we should have opportunities to recycle outside the home. Specifically there must be recycling opportunities at the gym, where an unbelievable number of bottles thrown in the trash as a result of there being no onsite recycling option.

Second, create a financial incentive for recycling water bottles. There is no reason that water bottles should be exempted for the recycling deposit levied soda cans and bottles.

Thirdly, and simply, report or speak to business that do not recycle so that they will be forced to comply creating a greater supply of plastic available for recycling and reuse. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dsny/html/contact/requests_comm_recycling.shtml. Report abuse!

Water Bottles and Terrorism.

Ok- so you understand why recycling is good. You might even vaguely understand why people, like me, carry around water bottles. What I'd like to do is make you aware of how buying water bottles supports terrorism. By buying water in a plastic bottle that has been mostly likely transported some distance you are a) most likely paying more per gallon for water then you are for gas and b) buying gas, and therefore making terrorist supporting states wealthier.

1) Massive amounts of fossil fuel are burnt by the extremely long distances bottled water often travels to satisfy needs of Americans to have European water. By some estimates, one quarter of all bottled water crosses a national border. Think how many trucks, planes and boats that Fiji water used because the clear, reservoir isn't good enough for some.

2) The packaging of water requires fossil fuel. Bottles are usually made from a plastic called polyethylene terephthalate (PET) which is derived from crude oil. In just creating the bottles, some 2.7 million barrels of oils used (1.5 domestically). Gives you a pause, doesn't it?

3) Drilling oil for the plastic and transportation of the water bottles realizes gases that contribute to global warming.

4) As little as 12% of water bottles are recycled, meaning their garbage must be burnt or transported requiring more oil.

5) Enormous amounts of nickels, benzenes, ethylbenzene and ethylene oxide and other toxic emissions are generated in the manufacturing of PET. In fact, according to the Berkeley Ecology Center, is 100 times the amount generated in the production of glass.

Convinced yet?

Where are all the recycling bins?

So, I ate at my favorite organic, vegan restaurant and immediately felt comforted by its a pseudo-Portland vibe. I consumed a delicious vegan lasagna full of vegetables, flavor and tomatoes- what could be better? Then came do or die time- the moment at which it is revealed if the store/restaurant/cafe truly espouses the philosophy it promulgates. It was time to through out the trash.

Let me rewind a bit and state preemptively that I did not request a plastic container, or asked if I intended to eat in or out, but was simply handed my delicious lasagna (see above) in a plastic container. Put that thought on hold. So, I walked to the trash and was shocked to find this store, which places such a huge emphasis on wholesome, vegan foods, and general health to lack a visible recycling receptacle. Confused, I approached the counter and asked where to recycle my plastic container.

"We don't have recycling" the girl told me, "you must put it in the rubbish. We should, I know, but there are many things we need to work on," she continued "like more space." Surprised, disappointed but at least engaged in conversation I returned to the initial offense, the one that would have obliterated the problem from the get go: "Why aren't there plates for orders to stay?" I asked, intrigued by the paucity of environmental awareness. "Why, she asked?" I then explained how, unlike more space which would require a bigger store, but or hiring a recycling company, which commercial enterprises must do and can be expensive for small business, buying biodegradable plates and utilize would not require a loan, and almost eliminate the need to hire a recycling company, because plastic objects would no longer be consumed on the premises. In fact, according the the NYC government website, all NYC businesses are required to recycle. The link below will give you a way to report business that do not recycle and make this city a better one.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/recycling/recycling_businesses.shtml

One important question for today

Why, no matter how dry it is outside, is the area under the stairs at the Warren exit of the Bergen stop always wet?
I would love any answers or possible answers to this questions.
Tell me please!

Accountablity for Pre-K? Don't include the rich!

My passionate feelings about education are not easily silenced. I was recently reminded of this during my GRE course in which we discussed how to argue with an excerpt opprobriously stating "the problem of poorly trained teachers that... is bound to become a good deal less serious."

Never mind that this sentence is clearly not written in English. It brings out the misguided notion that teacher training, whatever that ambiguous term means, produces great teachers. While teacher training is certainly valuable, I argue that most parents want an efficient and effective teacher. If s/he happens to become one through rigorous teacher training, so be it. However, if people happen to be conversant and proficient their subject area and has a natural knack for teaching, that works for me too. Most parents of students have taught, which now numbers around 400, want to know a) if their child is understanding the work b) if I am maximizing learning in the classroom (i.e. not passing off the job of instruction to the parents in the role of homework or enrichments). Yes, these parents are almost always poor. Yes, these parents mostly did not go to college. No, these facts do not matter. What matters is that I was expected to teach a large quantity of skills and information in a physically safe environment during a specific and confined time. Period.

Is this what rich parents want? I don't know. I’ve never taught their children. However, judging by their constant and vocal opposition to any initiative to make teacher's responsible, I would say no. They tend favor classrooms centered on emotional growth, and fostering intellectual curiosity. The skills, information and arguably most importantly behavior and language needed to succeed in the general world is naturally absorbed by their offspring outside the classroom simply though exposure.

Does this approach to learning work for lower-income parents? No. More often then not, these parents want teaching not play in school. I don’t think this is a ridiculous desire. Berkeley professor Bruce Fuller, author of “Standardized Childhood: The Political and Cultural Struggle Over Early Education” notes these parents believe schools should reinforce children’s deference and respect for adults, and that teachers have the ability and responsibility to teach math and reading. Crazy wants? Apparently to the parents from the elite whose schools are stocked with teachers who are encouraged to abdicate these responsibilities because these parents know these essential skills are being taught at home. How do they know? Because it is they, the parents, who are teaching these skills and reinforcing them.

Who suffers? When these parents who are teaching and reinforcing early reading and math skills at home through enrichment programs, activities and games start forcing their pedagogy on those who cannot or do not wish to teach these skills at home, and start removing explicit and/or direct instruction from the schools and replacing it with a student centered culture of discovery, who suffers? You got it. The poor. Great job progressives.

23.5 m.p.g. for SUVs in 2010 vs. 27.5 m.p.g. for passanger cars now?

Zero value placed on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Could that be? Why? By Who?

Bush's federal regulators. Now are you surprised? Maybe not, but you might be pleased to know that deliberate disregard for climate change is no longer legal. Today, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco aligned with other courts and rejected the administrations fuels standards for trucks and vans because they failed to value emission reduction. Since transportation is responsible for about 25% of total carbon emissions and that this country prides itself on exporting innovation and leadership, it would seem logical that our government would try to gradually reduce the carbon emission number not stagnate it. Right?

The lawsuit, brought on by progressive states like New York, California and Vermont represents an important proactive movement among states to try and initiate their own environmental regulations, and take climate change into their own hands. This is movement is necessary as states realize the health and environmental costs caused by the federal government's damaging denial of this issue. In fact, the judgment flatly denied Detroit's claim that these states were usurping the federal governments power by setting their own tail pipe emission standards, echoing an earlier September decision by a Vermont Judge.

Four environmental groups and 13 states and cities argued that the regulations, which are for light trucks built in the years 2008-2011, did not place a value on reducing emissions. Anyone reading the standards would have to agree. They were set to rise from 22.5 m.p.g. to 23.5 m.p.g in 2010, significantly below the current standard for passenger cars, which is 27.5 m.p.g. Notably, the judges pointed this glaring discrepancy out and asked the government why light trucks, which includes SUVs and Minivans, were subject to different and lightly regulations than passenger cars.

The Ninth Circuit wrote:

We hold that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the [Energy Policy and Conservation Act] in its failure to monetize the value of carbon emissions, failure to set a backstop, failure to close the SUV loophole, and failure to set fuel economy standards for all vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 gross vehicle weight rating ("GVWR") class. We also hold that the Environmental Assessment was inadequate and that Petitioners have raised a substantial question as to whether the Final Rule may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, we remand to NHTSA to promulgate new standards as expeditiously as possible and to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement.

Equally egregious and notable is the exception of the 8,500 to 10,000 Hummer from any fuel-economy standards. Hopefully, the logic that the court used in finding with the states, that a prior lack of regulation is no justification for continued neglect, will be applied to the Hummer and other vehicles that slip through the cracks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/business/16fuel.html

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2007/2007-11-16-02.asp

Transferring Our Taxes to Terrorists

As most of you who read this blog know, I am an avid believer in a carbon tax, as I firmly believe that is the only viable way to exert pressure on Detroit and other to create viable gasoline alternative, substantially higher fuel mileage and discourage extraneous driving (which, of course, is mostly undertaken by one person completing short trips which who would be better served by walking for their physical health but that a different post, now isn't it?).

So, while still supporting my tax that will I fear will never pass, I came across an interesting op-ed extolling the virtues of a gas tax. Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda by Thomas Friedman on 11/14/07 starts by simply stating the obvious "Two dates — two numbers. Read them and weep for what could have, and should have, been. On Sept. 11, 2001, the OPEC basket oil price was $25.50 a barrel. On Nov. 13, 2007, the OPEC basket price was around $90 a barrel." He then goes on to extol the virtues of a gas tax, to "to diminish the transfers of wealth we were making to the very countries who were indirectly financing the ideologies of intolerance that were killing Americans and in order to spur innovation in energy efficiency by U.S. manufacturers." Good point. As a society, however, we have allowed and encouraged our politicians to become so fearful of even uttering the T word, that this will never happen. While I could go on paraphrasing the op-ed, I'd rather you read it for yourself as I abdicate any claim to be more persuasive that Friedman is in this piece. Read, and eradciate yoru own fears of the T word.... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/14friedman.html .

Go Greenbuild!

What are you doing in Chicago? Everyone has been asking. So here goes my explanation. I am here for Greenbuild 2007. What, you now ask, is Greenbuild?

Greenbuild is a three day conference of workshops, vendors, engineers, architects, suppliers and speakers focused on

• Many Sustainable building. Ok, but what is sustainable building? Well, if your asking that either you don't know me, or have gotten into the habit of tuning me out and didn't realize its time to tune back in.
  
  Sustainable building means building with the least amount of impact to the environment. One way to do this is to work with the US Green Building Council (USGBC) to make sure your building is LEED (Leadership Energy and Environment Design) certified. This entails compliance in the areas of sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality.

Sustainable What a tecture?

What do you do Molly and what have you been doing in Oregon?

Many of you have professed your utter confusion about what I do, so I am dedicating this post to you, particularly my mother and my dear friend DE who has been the recipient of my cough since we were ten.

I work in sustainable architecture. Don't look at me like that- I'm going to explain. On a basic level, sustainable building means building with the least impact to the environment. So, sustainable building is architecture built the smallest carbon and environmental footprint possible. This means considering the buildings carbon footprint, site selection (i.e. is it near public transportation or must everyone drive there), brownfield redevelopment and habitat protection (does it make the site, and therefore world better and less polluted or more so), provide space for bicycles so that people will be incentivized to bike to work and maximize open space. Are you getting the picture?

Other areas of sustainable architecture include water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, design, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality. Those are pretty self explanatory except for indoor environmental quality. This is a fancy way to say it is a measure of the air and light in the building. The objective is to create an environment in which people have greater productivity because adequate ventilation, clean air (no smoke), outside pollutants and natural light dominate. Seems intuitive, huh? Surprisingly, there is an agency, called the USGBC (US Green Building Council) that actually must create these standards because despite caring immensely about the build environment (by nature of being) all architects do not necessarily gravitate toward these objectives, and building owners do not really care about the health of their residents.

However, the big picture, is that after reading this blog, written in the true form of a sleep deprived member of my profession, do you understand what I do?