Who owns saving the world?
In Schatzberg’s critique of Lovins et al.’s Natural Capitalism (2002), the reviewer claims the authors are naïve in enthusiastically and uncritically embracing technology as the solution to environmental problems. This emphasis on technology seems contradictory to the thrust of Lovins’ argument in his 1992 paper (“Energy-Efficient Buildings: Institutional Barriers and Opportunities”, hereafter “EEB”, and which I've mentioned previously in this forum), which points to economic inherencies (fee structures, typical project financing, business models, and legal liabilities) as formalized barriers to environmentally sound buildings. Lovins’ eloquent and compelling narrative of the Tower of Babel that is the building design process identifies several inherent problems to the socio-economic context of building design, underscoring how that context disincentivizes energy efficiency. In “EEB”, Lovins points to almost everywhere but technology as the culprit, and therefore opportunity for improvement. Even in his criticism of the practice of mechanical engineering (the poor practitioner and his profession do seem to bear the brunt of the author’s grinding axe), the author underscores economic reasons (fees and legal exposure) for inappropriate design, seconded by unsound engineering practices (oversizing). It seems curious therefore that in the span of a decade he and his coauthors would devolve to a less sophisticated posture by the time of the writing of Natural Capitalism.
Nevertheless, in “EEB” Lovins outlines a solution for addressing the problem: create a non-linear or recursive building design process wherein a variety of design-stakeholders may participate; and eliminate or redirect economic structures which encourage short-term benefits for stakeholders individually, rather than long-term benefits for all stakeholders collectively. In short, the problem is that those who develop, design, and construct the built environment are not inhabiting and maintaining the structures they build. Under the present system the sower need never reap the bitter fruits of his labor. Building operations in 2004 accounted for 99.7 quads or 40% of the energy consumption in the United States (DOE Buildings Energy Data Book, Sept. 2006), and those figures are projected to rise. Put another way, American buildings are responsible for about ten percent of the world’s energy consumption. There is clearly a need for buildings to be far more energy-efficient.
Aside from technology, one way to achieve that efficiency is to let the market do it:
And yet as Nye and Tobey suggest, the market alone should be viewed with a measure of skepticism. Indeed, arguably the market has gotten us to this very predicament, as each player leverages the market for his own benefit; this is the crux of Lovins argument in “EEB”. Where then to look? Inevitably one looks to regulation. The Austin Climate Protection Plan seeks to step in where the market has thus far fallen down. As a matter of public policy, the stick and carrot of performance mandates and financial incentives can be implemented, provided technology and the business sector can keep pace (not always the case; witness California’s failed attempt to mandate that 10% of cars sold by 2003 be zero-emission). By 2020 will we see backsliding on the ACPP? Perhaps in some areas; regulations and tax incentives are the result of a political process, one that is buffeted by fickle winds.
Representatives of the fields of architecture, engineering, planning, business, public policy, and law characterize a broad if incomplete sampling of the stakeholders creating the built environment. And this is Lovins’ other point, perhaps a more profound one: progress can be made through a multidisciplinary, nonlinear approach to design. It is true that technology will solve (and create) some problems, just as regulation and market forces will. A synthetic approach which considers all those factors, one developed through cross-pollination across disparate fields, seems to hold more promise than blind faith in any one sector, or profession.
Nevertheless, in “EEB” Lovins outlines a solution for addressing the problem: create a non-linear or recursive building design process wherein a variety of design-stakeholders may participate; and eliminate or redirect economic structures which encourage short-term benefits for stakeholders individually, rather than long-term benefits for all stakeholders collectively. In short, the problem is that those who develop, design, and construct the built environment are not inhabiting and maintaining the structures they build. Under the present system the sower need never reap the bitter fruits of his labor. Building operations in 2004 accounted for 99.7 quads or 40% of the energy consumption in the United States (DOE Buildings Energy Data Book, Sept. 2006), and those figures are projected to rise. Put another way, American buildings are responsible for about ten percent of the world’s energy consumption. There is clearly a need for buildings to be far more energy-efficient.
Aside from technology, one way to achieve that efficiency is to let the market do it:
“To a theoretical economist … it is inconceivable that in a market economy, such large and profitable savings would remain untapped.” (“EEB”, p 6)
And yet as Nye and Tobey suggest, the market alone should be viewed with a measure of skepticism. Indeed, arguably the market has gotten us to this very predicament, as each player leverages the market for his own benefit; this is the crux of Lovins argument in “EEB”. Where then to look? Inevitably one looks to regulation. The Austin Climate Protection Plan seeks to step in where the market has thus far fallen down. As a matter of public policy, the stick and carrot of performance mandates and financial incentives can be implemented, provided technology and the business sector can keep pace (not always the case; witness California’s failed attempt to mandate that 10% of cars sold by 2003 be zero-emission). By 2020 will we see backsliding on the ACPP? Perhaps in some areas; regulations and tax incentives are the result of a political process, one that is buffeted by fickle winds.
Representatives of the fields of architecture, engineering, planning, business, public policy, and law characterize a broad if incomplete sampling of the stakeholders creating the built environment. And this is Lovins’ other point, perhaps a more profound one: progress can be made through a multidisciplinary, nonlinear approach to design. It is true that technology will solve (and create) some problems, just as regulation and market forces will. A synthetic approach which considers all those factors, one developed through cross-pollination across disparate fields, seems to hold more promise than blind faith in any one sector, or profession.
posted by François Lévy at
5:31 AM
2 Comments
