Slide 1 - Metropolis Magazine

Document Sample
Slide 1 - Metropolis Magazine Powered By Docstoc
					Edward Mazria is an internationally recognized architect with a long and distinguished career. His architecture and
planning projects employ a cutting-edge environmental approach to design and span over a 30-year period. His
published work includes technical papers, articles for professional magazines, and a number of other works including
The Passive Solar Energy Book first published by Rodale Press in 1979, which has sold over 500,000 copies
worldwide. His most recent articles--“It’s the Architecture, Stupid!” published in Solar Today magazine and “Turning
Down the Global Thermostat,” published in Metropolis--outline his strategy for addressing today’s most pressing global
challenge, climate change. His built projects have appeared in Architecture, Progressive Architecture, Metropolis,
Architectural Record, Architectural Digest, Process, Kenchiku Bunka, Public Garden, Solar Today, Texas Architect, the
Wall Street Journal, the New Mexico Business Journal, and the New York Times. He has received numerous awards
for architectural achievement.

Now I’d like to introduce the man who made this evening possible, Ed Mazria. I want to tell you how we, at Metropolis,
came to know Ed. He sent us some research that he’s been doing. And it really was very dramatic and very apropos to a
magazine that deals with design and architecture. While we couldn’t publish the paper that he sent us, which was by the
way beautifully written and very well argued, but it was more of an academic paper, and we pride ourselves on our
journalism. We did assign a journalist to come and see Ed. He pushed our writer, Chris Hawthorne, and the rest of us
back in our home office in New York, to make sure that we figured out what to do with his information. He demanded we
put him on the cover! And we said, “Yeah, well, ok.” The story did get the cover, and very few get that privilege; not Ed
himself but three rolled up blueprints spewing black smoke, with the cover line: Architects Pollute. You will see how much
energy and how much thought there is in his work when you see his presentation.—Susan S. Szenasy

Tom, you basically gave half of my talk, but I’ll give it in a visual way that maybe will stick. Basically this forum has its
beginnings in our office, with the incredible people that work there. We bring in beer and chips and we break every Friday
afternoon at about three or four o’clock and sit around the conference table and just catch up on the week. I think it was
Sandra Odems who came on behalf of all the other folks and said, “Why don’t you give us a seminar on all that stuff you
did in the seventies and eighties? Talk to us until you exhaust the information you have in your head, information we
don’t have. We’d like to hear it.” So I said, “Sure, I’ll do that,” and we were going to start the following Friday. That
weekend my wife and I went to Disneyland in California with my step-son, my step-daughter, and my little granddaughter.
So I thought I would take some books with me to begin reading and refresh my memory of what I taught back in the
seventies and eighties at UNM, at Oregon, and some different schools. I took some big- picture books. I thought I would
start with the big picture, and then we’d get down to the nitty-gritty in the seminar. Among the books I took with me was
The Limits to Growth, which I used in a seminar. Some of my students may even be here. They’re older now.
Here I was in Disneyland, reading The Limits to Growth, which was published in 1972. This was one of their projections:
in 1972 we had about three billion people on this Earth. From the beginning of time, hundreds of thousands of years, even
millions of years to 1972, we increased our population to three billion people. In thirty years, from 1970 to 2000, we
doubled our number. This was exponential growth, which goes from two, four, eight, sixteen, and the numbers get really
incredible. Well, that blew me away.

                                   Then I turned the page to CO2s in the atmosphere. In 1970 we were at 323 parts
                                   per million; and they projected that if we kept putting CO2 in the atmosphere
                                   exponentially, that means two, four, eight, sixteen, thirty-two, by the year 2000, we
                                   would be at 378 parts per million. We’re now at over 380 parts per million. So they
                                   projected, in ‘72, that if we kept going the way we’re going, basically the world would
                                   collapse. So here I was in Disneyland with my granddaughter, reading this stuff, and
                                   I got on the Internet and started looking at what CO2 meant. I had no idea what it
                                   meant. I didn’t know much about global warming. And then I looked at my
                                   granddaughter and I said, “What are we doing? What are we going to leave our
                                   kids?” And that’s when it hit me to get in and do more research for our seminar at
                                   the office. So who really holds the key to the global thermostat? That’s what we’re
                                   here to discuss. And I think the answer when we get into it, will surprise you.

  In 2001, this is what Tom was talking about, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [] came
  out with a study about global warming. And what they showed is that we’ve had very, very stable temperatures for
  thousands of years and that in the last hundred years we’ve increased our temperature by 0.7 to 1.4 degrees
  Fahrenheit globally. What’s more alarming is that their projections say that we’ll warm between 2.7 and 10.5 degrees
  Fahrenheit. Chick Keller will be on to talk about this after me. We had a discussion last night that there are maybe
  five or six huge computer models, two at Los Alamos, two in Europe, and one somewhere else in the United States.
  Some of them are predicting that we’re gonna be at the high end, but I think the two at Los Alamos are predicting
  that we’re gonna be at the low end. And what Chick was telling me, which I thought was really interesting, is that if
  we’re at the low end, then we have a chance now to do something.
In 450,000 years we’ve never been above 300 parts per
million in the atmosphere of CO2. Right now we’re up at
380, and the projections are, if we keep going the way
we’re going, I think there are two projections. One is we go
between 500 and 600 and the worst case is in the next
hundred years we’re up at 700 parts per million. We’ve
never been there.

The IPCC 2001 report projects that sea levels will rise
between two feet and seven feet—the low end two feet, the
high end seven feet—above sea level. The two feet will be
disastrous for a lot of island states. The Environmental
Protection Agency predicts that with a two foot rise the
United States will lose a land mass, mostly beaches, of an
area equal to the state of Massachusetts and Delaware
combined, if we’re at the low end.
FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] came out and said that within the next 50 years, 25 percent of all
structures within 500 feet of a coastline will be gone. Cities, especially at sea level, which most of the population in
the world is located, will have a hard time and will have to spend billions to hold back seawater. The poorer countries
won’t be able to do that. So in the poorer countries you begin to get mass migration of people out of the coastal cities
moving inland. And we’ll lose, as Tom said, the polar bears. We’ll lose a lot of species. Think about vegetation, trees,
maple forests. In the past, as temperatures rose trees could just gradually kind of move as this happened. But with
the kind of change we’re talking about now, the trees not only have to move very fast, but they have to cross
freeways, they have to cross farmland, they have to cross cities. Biologists are telling us that we’ll be losing lots of
species, because they won’t be able to make it. We talked about more severe weather events. And a big issue we
know here in New Mexico is water.
                                                                   As climate changes, we don’t know who is going to
                                                                   have water and who is not going to have water. People
                                                                   who don’t have water are going to try to move into
                                                                   areas where people do have water, so the potential for
                                                                   chaos is great. The people who suffer the most are
                                                                   obviously the people who can’t afford to do something
                                                                   about it.

                                                                   England and Europe are right below Greenland.
                                                                   England is at a very, very northern latitude, and
                                                                   Europe’s weather is warmed by the Gulf Stream. A
                                                                   scientist named Wally Broecker has discovered that
                                                                   the Gulf Stream works like a loop. As the Gulf Stream
                                                                   moves North the salt content gets denser and denser,
                                                                   ‘til it’s so dense that it drops and loops back. And some
                                                                   models are predicting that as glaciers melt and fresh
                                                                   water comes down from the North Atlantic it adds more
                                                                   water to the salt and dilutes it and could possibly shut
                                                                   down the Gulf Stream. Needless to say, the Europeans
                                                                   are very, very concerned because their

temperatures will become more like Iceland rather than their temperate climate. So you
see a big push in Europe for us to get on board with the program. This is what Tom was
talking about.

In 1992 the elder Bush signed on and both houses of Congress ratified the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change that called on us to go back to 1990 levels in           1979
‘92, which would have been very easy. Five years later, in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol set
binding limits whereby the United States was supposed to go back to seven percent below
1990 levels, Europe, I think, to eight percent. When the present President Bush got into
office, he asked the National Academy of Scientists to review the IPCC report that came
out in 2001. Eleven distinguished scientists told President Bush that not only was climate
change real, but that it was getting worse. Six months after they issued the report they
came out with another report that talked about the possibility of abrupt climate change,        2003
and if that happened, then people and animals and ecosystems and plants would have a very tough time adapting.
So Bush got information from the Energy Information Administration [], who ran about fifteen different
economic models of what would happen if we signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. And if you read those reports, every model
that came back showed the United States’ economy really going downhill: unemployment going up, inflation going up. Any
president in his right mind, who wants to get reelected and is looking only short-term, is not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol
if the US Energy Information Administration is telling him if you do this, we don’t have an economy. So to pin it all on Bush is
really not fair at this time, maybe.

Since 1992, when we signed on for voluntary efforts, US energy consumption and CO2 track almost parallel, because we’re
basically burning fossil fuels. Tom said thirteen percent, the numbers I’m reading say 13 to 16 percent CO2. Energy
consumption rose from 1990 to 2000, during the Democratic administration; it went up 17 percent.

                                                        The Energy Information Administration projects that with the United
                                                        States economy going the way it is, we’re going to increase our
                                                        energy consumption over the next 20 years by 37 percent, and
                                                        almost all of it is fossil fuels. So to get back to 1990, we would
                                                        basically have to trash our economy by 50 percent. It’s almost
                                                        impossible. If we keep taking this route we will never get back to
                                                        1990 levels.

                                                        There are two things coming together now that are very, very
                                                        interesting, and it’s why there’s tremendous hope now for what we
                                                        can do. One is global warming. A lot of countries are really alarmed
                                                        now. The other thing is oil, and gas, and resources, and how fast
                                                        we’re depleting them. Basically it’s like a time bomb waiting to go off,
                                                        in fact, we think that with 9/11, it actually has gone off. What we see
                                                        is that in the United States, oil production peaked in 1970 and has
                                                        been going down ever since. And gas is not far behind. Natural gas,
                                                        we peaked in 1973, and every year we have to drill more wells just
                                                        to keep the gas supply steady. If we didn’t increase our energy
                                                        consumption, we’d still have to import more every year.
If we want to increase our Gross National Product and
grow our economy, we have to import even more

And on the world scale, it’s not much better. Some
scientists say we’ve peaked, some say it’s going to be
in the next few years. Most say within the next ten
years, world oil peaks and then declines, and gas is
not that far behind it.

These are incredible figures. When I read them, they
just blew me out of the water. And nobody talks about
this. The static lifetime of conventional oil is 42 years.
That’s the world’s oil. That means all the reserves that
we know about today, that’s recoverable by today’s
technology. The world is projected to increase its
consumption over the next 20 years by 60 percent—in
the United States 37, but the world by 60—with China
and India coming on-line and increasing their
consumption. As for gas, its static lifetime is only 64
years. And just like Tom said, 70 percent of the world’s
oil reserves are in what we call the strategic ellipse
with Iran basically being the center. And 65 percent of
the gas reserves are in that strategic ellipse as well.
So when you heard Greenspan say that we have to
build more ports for liquefied natural gas, it’s because
Mexico peaked in 1999 and can’t even supply its own
      GLOBAL gas. The gas fields of Canada are
country with naturalSTATIC LIFETIME

      conventional oil = 42 years

         natural gas = 64 years
now, and they’re going to go into decline.
So the only way we’re going to get
natural gas is by importing it from the
strategic ellipse. And who holds the
largest natural gas reserves in the world?
Iran. They by far outstrip any other
country in the world in terms of natural
gas resources. So what do we do now? I
think there is tremendous opportunity.
And the opportunity really is in your
hands. I don’t think you knew that before.
It’s because we’ve had tunnel vision. The
government puts out statistics, hundreds
of thousands of pages of statistics, and
they’re always broken down this way:
industry in terms of energy consumption
and CO2 pollution. Industry consumes 35
percent of the energy, puts out 35

                                             percent of the CO2; transportation 27 percent, residential
                                             buildings 21 percent, and commercial 17 percent. So what
                                             are the loudest voices out there? The loudest voices come
                                             from the environmental movement. What’s getting all the
                                             media attention? SUVs. We had two incidents in the last
                                             week, one in Albuquerque and one up here, about trashing
                                             SUVs, spray-painting them.

                                             Automotive—mini-vans, and pick-up trucks—are 6.5 percent
                                             of total US energy use and CO2 pollution. So if you figure
                                             SUVs are maybe half of that, three percent or maybe 3.5
                                             percent, even if we destroyed every SUV on the road, or
                                             traded them in, we will have effected 1.5 percent of the total
                                             energy consumption in this country and CO2 pollution.
The environmental movement wants to see 8.6 percent
of total electric production over the next 20 years be
renewables. It’ll be more than that if you count in hydro,
but this is just solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass.
The energy industry and the administration are
projecting 2.6 percent.

Even if you took the 8.5 percent of electricity generated
by renewables, that is only 30 percent of the increase. It
doesn’t even bend the curve down. It just bends the
increase down slightly. In the residential sector and
industrial sector, we’re calling for better codes, stricter
codes, more insulation, better appliances like
refrigerators. If you look at the residential sector, we
had tremendous hope in the 70’s and 80’s because
energy use per household went

                                                              down. Between 1990 and 2000 it went up, and it’s projected to
                                                              keep going up. The energy code during this period was
                                                              adopted by many of the big states. That’s part of the reason for
                                                              the drop, but there are other reasons for the drop. But in
                                                              commercial, we’ve been going up. We’re up close to 130,000
                                                              BTUs per square foot in 2000, and we’re going up.

                                                              When I called Metropolis, it was really interesting. I didn’t get
                                                              Susan. I wanted to talk to Susan directly, but I talked to their
                                                              Executive Editor Martin Pedersen.
I mentioned some things and then he said, “We’re doing all the sustainable stuff. We at Metropolis, we publish a
sustainable building every year. There’s a tremendous movement going on. It’s unbelievable.” I said, “Wrong, Martin,
would you believe energy use per square foot of building, with all that going on, is actually going up every year?” And
think about this, the stock of buildings in this country is like 260-70 billion square feet. We only build five billion square feet
per year, so it’s a small part. We renovate five billion, so it’s maybe five percent. In order to move the whole stock up,
what we’re putting out there to move that up is not sustainable.
We need all these strategies by the way: We need the automobile industry to raise standards. We need the 10, 20
percent renewables that Tom was talking about. We have 10 percent now. We need to go to 20 percent in 20 years. We
need better codes. But those by themselves don’t bend the curve down.

So who really holds the key to the global thermostat? It’s the architects. The power that architects have is unbelievable.
The government doesn’t recognize this, the public doesn’t recognize this, the architects themselves do not recognize the
type of power that they have. When I looked at the traditional pie chart, I said, “Let’s create an architecture sector for the
little seminar to see, what our contribution is,” so we
could discuss it in the office. And when I took the
residential and commercial sectors together I said, “You
know we’re really major polluters.” And, the guys in the
office said to me, “Yeah but we don’t design all buildings.
The builders, it’s their problem.” I said “Alright, next
week. I’ll tell you next week. Let me go find out who does
all the building.” I called the AIA and said, “What’s the
percentage of commercial buildings that architects do?”
77 percent; we do almost all the commercial buildings in
this country. “What about multi-family?” Oh we’re
seventy-something percent. “What about industrial
buildings?” Oh we’re way over 50 percent. We design
most of the industrial buildings. “What about housing?”
We do 25 percent of the housing. I said “oh, well.” But
that doesn’t account for all the intern architects doing
housing. That doesn’t account for all the architects that
developers have on their staff. That doesn’t account for
all the architects who design houses and don’t stamp the
drawings, because they don’t have to and don’t want the
When you add all that up, we basically control the built environment.
This was news to everyone at the office. When you put the
residential sector, the commercial sector—that’s just building
operations—together with industrial building operations—that’s just
heating, lighting, and cooling offices and industrial buildings—you
put that in the architecture sector. You put in the embodied energy of
building materials. When you build a building, there’s a certain
embodied energy in all buildings.

We have tremendous choice. We can choose one carpet over
another, one paint over another. We can choose whatever we want.
We do a spec, it’s a bible. Architects are responsible for close to 50
percent of the total energy consumption in this country and close to
50 percent of total emissions. So if you want to make significant
reductions and you go burn down an SUV, you’re in the one percent
category. If you want to attack the problem, this is where we have to
attack it. And attack it we can. It’s not that difficult.

                                                                 Until now, nobody was blaming the architects. I didn’t
                                                                 know. You didn’t know. Nobody knew. But now, with
                                                                 this talk and with the Metropolis article, we set up a
                                                                 threshold. And all those who read the article, and all
                                                                 those who come to the workshop have now crossed
                                                                 over that threshold. They now know. Before, we didn’t
                                                                 know, so it wasn’t our problem. Now it’s our problem.
                                                                 We now know. We’ve been building buildings for years
                                                                 without any connection to the natural environment—
                                                                 zero. In fact, the building codes that are in place
                                                                 actually want us to seal the buildings up as tight as we
                                                                 can to protect ourselves from the environment, so
                                                                 there is no connection. And that goes for housing also,
                                                                 the same.
When I was in school in the 50s the icon for us was
the Philip Johnson House in New Canaan. That was
the connection between the inside and the outside. It
was the connection to the environment. And it was
only a visual connection. You had to pump in so
much energy to condition this place to live in it. That
was the icon that we were designing to. Today it’s
Frank Gehry’s buildings, like the museum which has
transformed the city of Bilbao in Spain. Thousands
of people come to see this building. He designed
this unbelievable building, and it’s what the students
are emulating at any architecture school. And for
when it was built, before the Metropolis article, it was
appropriate. It’s an icon. It’s a beautiful building.

But given the global conditions that we now know,
and given the fact that we now know that we’re
responsible, when I look at the building I see it
plugged-in in order to work. Gehry’s an incredible
architect. But like Susan said, an article about Gehry
is in the same issue that the Key to the Global
Thermostat article is in. He’s right behind us in the
magazine. I’m sure he’s going to read the article. As
of today Gehry has crossed over the threshold. And
so we’re waiting to see what his next building’s
going to be like. The icons for today should be other
buildings: in Frankfurt, the London City Hall;
buildings by Glenn Murcutt who won the Pritzker
Prize in Australia. We have examples of incredible
buildings; Miller Hull, whose going to talk here;
Randall Stout, who is an LA architect, is doing some
incredible, incredible work.
                                                  I’ve seen work that’s absolutely
                                                  outstanding coming from our
                                                  profession, like a building here
                                                  in Santa Fe by Dent and
                                                  Nordhaus. There are lots of
                                                  such buildings in Santa Fe, we
                                                  just don’t have enough of them
                                                  to move the curve yet. But
                                                  these should be our icons as we
                                                  move forward after today. The
                                                  information is there. It’s not like

this is a mystery. Norman Foster did the egg and the Frankfurt high-rise.
And supposedly the Frankfurt high-rise, my staff was telling me, doesn’t
use any heating or cooling. It’s all done naturally; it’s Germany’s highest
skyscraper. So the information is there. It’s on the Internet. It actually was
developed in the ‘70s and ‘80s. And it started, believe it or not, right here in
Santa Fe, where you’re sitting. David Wright, Steve Wright, all these guys
went out on a limb. And the information developed. In the ‘80s the
government got into it and had a demonstration program for commercial
buildings, across the country 12 or 17 of them.

                    We did one of them, the Mount Airy Library to illustrate
                    that you could get reductions of 75 percent. Mount Airy
                    uses 75-80 percent less energy than the typical building
                    in North Carolina, the typical library, the typical office
                    building. In that demonstration program, almost all the
                    architects that participated got 65 to 75, 80 percent
                    below, so the information is there. Now the information is even
                    more accessible and we have powerful computer models. But the
                    graphics are difficult for architects to use. So for the conservatory in
                    Albuquerque I got together with Bob Jones who used to work at the
                    Solar Group. He happened to live three doors down, and I asked him
                    to develop a computer model for me so we can model the
The conservatory was built a year before the aquarium down in Albuquerque, so the building sat there for a year before the
aquarium was finished. We took temperature readings. We had a little model in there and got a year’s worth of data. What
we did is take the LA basin temperature, because the LA basin is a Mediterranean environment, taking a year’s worth of
data from LA and superimposed it on the temperatures inside the conservatory, the Mediterranean pavilion. And indeed
without any energy input, because it sat there for a year, there was no heating system on, no cooling system on, it just sat
for a year in an all glass building—talk about a tough one—we could recreate a Mediterranean environment. Now if we can
do that in all glass environment, think of what you could do if you have insulation and all sorts of things to play with as an
architect. You can basically get very close to getting off the grid.
                                                                                            We need a revolution in
                                                                                            architecture. Right now the
                                                                                            forces that are coming together
                                                                                            are requiring us to revolutionize
                                                                                            the way we practice and teach
                                                                                            architecture. And that’s what the
                                                                                            hope is. That’s what the beauty
                                                                                            of this thing is. If Charles Keller
                                                                                            is correct, and we’re at the low
                                                                                            end of the global warming
                                                                                            scale—that the Los Alamos
                                                                                            models are correct and not the
                                                                                            European models—then we
                                                                                            have a chance to change the
                                                                                            way we do things and to change
                                                                                            the world. If you look at the
                                                                                            global pie chart it’s almost
                                                                                            exactly the same as the US pie
                                                                                            chart. Think about it. All the
                                                                                            developing countries, where are
                                                                                            they putting their money?
In infrastructure, in buildings--that’s where all the money is going. In the world pie chart, 50 percent of CO2 emissions
come from buildings. The only thing is that industry and transportation shift. Industry gets even bigger, transportation
smaller, because they don’t have as many big cars in the third world. So it’s a world-wide issue. And I’ll tell you why
the US is so important, and why you are so important.

We have 124 accredited schools of architecture in this
country. We have 30,000 architectural students in
school as we sit here—that’s a huge number. About 10
to 15 percent of those students are foreign. We train a
lot of the architects that go back. And those are from
well-to-do families; they don’t get to send their kids here
if they can’t pay tuition at Pratt Institute, at Yale, or at
Harvard. So you’re talking about some very influential
foreign students who we send out into the world to
practice architecture. And would you believe that of the
124 accredited schools, less than half of the schools
have a person—one person—that can teach the
relationship between architecture and the natural

                                                               environment and energy concerns? And most of those
                                                               schools, except for Carnegie Mellon and a few others, have
                                                               only one person and he’s the technical guy. He’s the guy
                                                               that teaches environmental control systems, and he’s the
                                                               guy that nobody wants to go to his class, obviously, because
                                                               we all want to go to design studio.

                                                               There’s no time to educate thousands of faculty in the
                                                               principles needed to remove us from this mindless reliance
                                                               on fossil fuels when we design buildings to plug them in. But
                                                               because of the way architectural education is structured, the
                                                               design studio is an incredible teaching tool. So if we make
                                                               as a requirement of every problem that’s given to every
                                                               student in design studio from first
 year on out, that they have to engage the environment in a way that reduces reliance on fossil fuels, the students
 will get on the Internet, they’ll figure it out. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to do this. And through design
 critiques, they’ll teach the professors.
 We’re calling on all the schools to mandate that in every design studio, every problem given to students needs to
 engage the environment to either reduce or eliminate fossil fuels from their designs. And let these students educate
 the thousands of faculty that need educating in this arena.

                                                       Doug Balcolmb, Glenn Murcutt, and I were judging the Solar
                                                       Decathlon on the Washington D.C. mall. We’d go to each one
            Architecture                               of the architecture schools’ buildings and sit around with the
                                                       kids who had built them. Doug and I were amazed, these kids
      be designed to engage                            knew more than we knew about how to design this stuff
   the environment in a way that                       because they had just lived it for a year and built it. And they
                                                       were asking questions that we couldn’t answer. We need to
      dramatically reduces or                          transform our schools. The second thing is the federal
        eliminates the need                            government, the state government, the city government. This
                                                       is where Tom comes in. We’re asking that government take the
           for fossil fuels.                           lead by just doing one thing. It doesn’t cost anything.

All they have to do is write into their RFP’s [request for
proposals] that they want a fifty percent energy reduction: We
want you to use half the energy of that particular building type.
So if you’re doing an office building in Santa Fe, it would be an
office building in Santa Fe. Let the architects figure out how to
do it. That’s what we’re trained to do. We’re trained to
problem solve. We go through school for five years. They give
us a problem. We solve the problem. We give it back to them.
They critique it. They give us another problem. We solve the
problem. We give it back. They critique it. Let architects
solve the problem. We’ll solve it a million different ways.
There’s no one way to do this.
                                               George Cowan, who was supposed to be here today, wrote me and he said,
                                               “Ed, how much is this going to cost? What are we talking about in terms of
                                               dollars?” I emailed back saying, “George, you have an office building you want
     New building projects +                   to build, it’s 20,000 square feet. You have a 2 million-dollar budget. You want
          major renovation                     this many spaces. You give it to a thousand different architects there will be
                                               no two solutions alike. Some will not use any energy, and some will be energy
                 projects,                     hogs; doesn’t cost anything extra. It depends on the education and the will of
           meet an energy-                     the architect and how he approaches the problem. We think this is design with
                                               the biggest capital D you can think of. I guarantee—I can’t guarantee anything
              consumption                      but they quoted me as guaranteeing so I guarantee—that within a year, all the
      performance standard                     firms that compete for federal jobs and state jobs, will know how to do it.
                                               They’re not going to let those jobs just fly out the window. If they have to stick
     of one-half the regional                  PV’s all over the place, or whatever, they’ll figure out a way to do it and it’ll get
    average for that building                  better and better and better as we go. And we need the
                                               federal government to
                    type.                      support, instead of
                                               cutting out, the
development of an architectural graphic program. They just cut
the funding for Doug Balcolm’s Energy Ten Program
[], and he’s retired. He was
trying to make a graphic for architects so that you can attach it
to AutoCad or Form Z or whatever. He was moving in that
direction. We’re pushing Doug in that direction. Get a graphic
Doug, because we architects, we don’t want to deal with
numbers. Just tell us. Do we have enough light in here?
Show me graphically how the light comes in. Flash a number
if I’m off. I’m not going to plug in 8,000 numbers and run
simulations and stuff. We’re architects. We’re not trained that
way. We need graphic tools. So what does the government
do? They cut the only program that was moving in that
direction to give us tools. We want the government to go back
and take the measly amount that they gave Doug to do his
program. Take it out of the oil industry. Take it out of the electric industry or wherever. It’s probably 1 thousandth of
one percent. And fund him to get a graphic software that’s user friendly for the way we think.
We want the government to expand its BEES program [Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability,] and make that part of this friendly graphic thing.

Architects are the biggest consumers in the world. What we consume is basically everything, almost everything. The
design professions can change an industry. You want no VOCs [volatile organic compounds]. You write it into a
spec—no VOCs. All of a sudden VOCs disappear, no VOCs in anything. Manufacturers are struggling to get the
architects. All we’re asking for is a measly fifty percent reduction in the embodied energy and CO2 emissions of the
entire building when you build a building. It’s a tiny amount. The information is there but you go to BEES and they
don’t have all the materials. They have maybe two carpets, so you don’t have a choice. But they plug in vinyl
composition tile, cork, and floorboard, and they give you how much CO2 and other pollutants in the atmosphere it
takes to make a square foot of that
material. We need this kind of information
for every material. There are a hundred
thousand, two hundred thousand
materials that go into a building--from
wood to carpet to mastics to sealants to
hardware to light bulbs to filaments. We
specify it all. With the stroke of a pen we
can change not only the architecture
sector; we can change the industrial
sector, and that’s 75 percent of everything.
Each year, we tear down 1.75 billion
square feet of building in this country, and
build about five billion square feet. The
stock of buildings is a few hundred billion.
But the great thing is that we renovate five
billion square feet. If we implemented
these things that we just talked about, our
profession, with just a teeny bit of help
from Tom and the
government forcing us, pushing us, we can actually bend the curve down. We’d be moving back toward 1990. And that’s
just us; if we add the 10/20 that the union of concerned scientists wants in the electric industry. 10 percent in ten years
renewables and 20 percent in 20 years renewable generationable electricity, it’ll bend the curve down even further and we’ll
get there much, much sooner.

We talk about the power grid and what happened in New York [Blackout 2003] and how antiquated it is and we have to
build more. You’re not going to believe this next statistic. Building operations take up 76 percent of the total electricity
produced in the United States. That’s just HVAC and lighting. Dick Cheney in 2001 put together a task force and gave
Bush the US National Energy Policy Report. It says that we’ll need 1,300 to 1,900 new power plants over the next twenty
years. Just think about it, 60 to 90 power plants every year. We don’t have gas. We don’t have oil. How are we going to
power 60 to 90 new power plants every year? It will be coal or we’ll try to import it from Iran and the Middle East. If we
adopt the program that we’re talking about and we can take the lead and save the money that we would’ve sent to Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, and all the other countries importing energy. We take that money and put it back into the economy and the
numbers over twenty years go over 1 trillion dollars. And this is not adjusted for inflation, these are today’s dollars. The
money we would save that we would put back into the hands of consumers that go back into the economy in 20 years, go
over a trillion dollars. If you add inflation at 2 or 3 percent a year, we’re off the chart. And not only that, think of it as a
continuing increasing tax credit because every year you’re putting more money into the economy because we have 250
billion square feet of building to turn over. We have a long way to go. The question I leave you with is, “who are going to be
our icons in the future?” Is it going to be guys like Norman Foster and Glenn Murcutt? Or is it going to be business as
usual? We’ve established a threshold today. I hope we all cross over it. And I hope we all cross over for the sake of our
children and our grandchildren. And with that, thank you very much.

Shared By: