Design and Saving the earth

Design Discussions general design discussion
21

Just connecting the dots here, and throwing in my own observations as a former science teacher:

Ozone-depleting gases released from ground level take 50 years to rise to the ozone layer. Generally speaking this is true – we’re mostly talking about CFCs, which were widely banned in the 90s after the polar ozone hole scare.

It’s a commonly held misconception though that ozone-depletion and the greenhouse effect are caused by the same substances. They are not. Greenhouse gases are primarily carbon dioxide and methane, which are emitted when fossil fuels are processed and burned, and which rise much more rapidly than CFCs. Additionally, CO2 is produced in abundance by aircraft, which fly at 30,000 ft, as has been previously noted.

One of the more hopeful conclusions of all this is that the positive effects of limiting CO2 emissions are realized quite rapidly: the global temperature curve correlates very closely to the CO2 emissions curve, rather than lagging behind it by 50 years, or even 5 years. So there is abundant justification for limiting fossil fuel use now, rather than decrying our inability to address the problem.

22

hitch: Do you know how long it would take to reverse global warming? That would be assuming that any of the changes would not fundamentally change the global weather system (ie, gulf stream). If you have a source showing the correlation of CO2 emissions to temperature, I’d love to see that data too.

molested cow: Man, now I’m 100% with you. Today is usually as much as I can handle!

23

Well, no, nobody does, because there are literally millions of variables to consider. If everyone on earth stopped using all fossil fuels tomorrow, forever, I imagine it would be pretty quick…on the order of a few decades. Realistically though, too much depends on political and economic developments for me to even try and estimate.

CO2 vs. global temperature correlation data can be found online in lots of places – the NOAA and EPA have some links on their websites, but a lot of it is pretty dense. There’s a fairly straightforward graph from the UN Environment Program here, for one example:

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm

24

and cows.

DOWN WITH COWS! :wink:

25

No not cows! Americans should eat less beef!!! :angry:

26

Did you all look at the CLOGGER with the Superplanes article?

This is what I mean. We should work on & feature articles about developing planes (energy efficient aircrafts) that would benefit the environment rather than pimping them out & trying to find a way to have people stretch thier arms eagle-out on planes.

No disrespect to the article, I think it is a cool idea, but I would like for you all to see my point.

27

If you spend as much of your life on planes as I do… stretching your legs out 2 more inches is pretty important…

28

Yeah, you wouldn’t have such opinion after being locked on a NorthWest flight for 13hr straight.

29

I have been on a plane in coach on a 13 hr flight. Lets not kid ourselves, these planes are for people than can afford luxury. Sure it is great to have an inch or two and I am all for it, but you and I know they (media) talk MORE about luxury than saving ourselves and the planet. Lets have some balance.

30

a small addition: an Australian has come up with the use of coconut oil to run vehicles. Though this is not exactly a new technology (coconut oil was used in world war 2 too) it can be a ‘refreshingly nice’ experince.

imagine the coconut smell in the air instead. Healthier to the body too…

still as a side point, I really think that we complicated our lives much more than we should…

31

some good airliners have already done that.
See some executive economy class and other better business seats have more room for the passengers.

the problem with crowded skies is that flight tickets are getting cheaper…

we should run more internet meetings than choosing to fly.

32

here are a few quick thoughts:

– use a bicycle
– perhaps design a bicycle like car if you travel short distances only
– use bio fuel (perhaps the coconut/ coconut cum disel oil)

raising prices for fuel may be one solution, but I would prefer building a more efficent public transport system that will encourage people to drop off cars altogether.

33

Anytime you burn an organic material, you are releasing greenhouse gases and particles. It doesn’t matter if that is petroleum based, wood, manure, vegetable oils, ethanol, natural gas, coal, etc. It all pollutes*. That is not an answer.

Hydrogen needs to be liberated from other substances. This takes alot of energy…energy that within the next few decades will be carbon based. Therefore, this is not an answer. Unless we are talking about escaping the planet with ships powered by a Bussard ramjet (Bussard ramjet - Wikipedia)

Nuclear could be a good transition energy source. It’s pollution is all solid and liquid. Therefore, managing the disposal is more realistic. Unfortunately, all of the stuff stays deadly for millions of years.

Longer term, the only solutions are solar, water, wind and tidal power combined with efficiency in everything we do. Unfortunately, electrcity doesn’t travel well, at least not with existing batteries. Beyond toys, I’ve never seen an electric airplane (feel free to post one, I’m sure it exists). This is for a reason. Flying is so innefficient, you’d use all your charge just getting airborne. International shipping at a slow rate is more realistic. Afterall, wind power is exactly what humans used to ship for thousands of years. In fact, people are already investing in it again: New Scientist | Science news and science articles from New Scientist

On that note, I’m curious about those who fly alot. What percentage of your flights would you say are 100% necessary? I still fly mind you, and 100% of the flights I take are not necessary.

*Ethanol-blend auto emissions no greener than gasoline: study: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/03/30/ethanol-emissions.html

34

There have been many other alternative sources of fuel, but governments are unwilling to use them. Why? Because Petroleum is more of a political tool than anything else, and nobody is ready to look past that yet.

35

Really good points, 914!

Something that has always bugged me about a lot of the discussion about sustainability/global warming/green design is the frequency of arguments that insist on one solution to all of the problems. Ethanol, for example, has been seized on to a massive degree in the US lately, and is already developing a backlash because there’s no way it can completely replace petroleum (requires too much energy to process, too much land to grow it, drives cost of tortillas up, pollutes as much as gasoline, etc).

That doesn’t make it a bad solution though – on the contrary, it’s got a lot going for it, just as wind power, tide power, geothermal, solar, nuclear, hydroelectric, and improved transport efficiencies all have things going for them. But it’s a bit silly to think that just one of these solutions is going to satisfy the enormous energy appetite modern economies have.

When we finally get off of fossil fuels, in a century or three, it’ll be through a combination of all of these alternative sources, coupled with much more efficient buildings, cars, and manufacturing processes, and urban planning policies that promote lower energy usage.

Thinking about the very initial question posted by cheerygirl last week though, about what designers can do to address global warming and energy concerns…what do you think of this:

Reducing resource usage is a crucial component in creating a sustainable economy. Part of the reason things get manufactured is to replace old things that get thrown out. Things get thrown out when they cease to be perceived as useful or sufficient. So something every designer on earth can do to improve resource efficiency is to design every single product in such a way as to make consumers love it, and want to hang on to it as long as possible.

A cast iron pot takes far more resources to manufacture than a paper plate…but which one is better for the environment?

36

This is the part about these discussions that end up making me tune right out. Its a discussion that borders on one about religion. Emotionally charged and people start burping out “solutions” that are knee-jerk short term solutions that have no basis in reality.

“Alternate Fuels” are NOT “alternate”. Supplemental, maybe. But not alternate. Its already been pointed out that biofuels are not necessarily better than petroleum based fuels. Biofuels are already clearing even more rain forest in Brazil to make way for soy bean production. If the USA were to switch from Petrol to corn based Ethanol it would take approximately 90% of the U.S. corn crop.

My thoughts on this have most definitely not changed based on any of the discussion throughout this thread.

Humans are not going to give up convenience. For any changes that will have a dramatic affect on the planet, it will take something that does not affect convenience or the government will have to grow some cajones and force people to change.

Neither are going to happen until all of Manhatten is water front property.

I would love to see designers start talking about things we can change. What can we do to affect change but not alter peoples convenience. That’s where we have real power. Talking about things we can’t really change – electric cars, preaching that people should ride bikes, not fly, yada yada – makes people tune out. It makes me tune out.

37

'cause as a native and abundant plant in suburbs of Jersey, coconut palm could be a perfect and sustainable solution for all of our transportation needs. Say what?

There’s this thread that offers some thoughts on what designers can do past choices we make on a consumer level.
You, yourself, can do a lot of stuff, from going veg. and religiously re-using foil to wrap yr sandwiches for yr lunch that you bring to work in a reusable lunch bag that you made out of yr mom’s old trousers to making sure your cash goes into some SRI (green, sustainable, fair trade, alternative fuel…etc) funds. How you, I, they…mere staff designers save the planet on professional level, that’s a much tougher question.

I have to fly so much this week for work…so douchey. Meh. Totally unnecessary,too.

38

ip,

How right you are. Everyone stop looking for a golden bullet. It is all rhetoric to make us feel safe.

There will have to fundamental changes to how we live everyday in order to solve this problem. In order to survive, the human race will have to do everything differently including our expectations of personal wealth and choice.

39

“Things are meant to be used and people are meant to be loved; many of life’s problems exist through a disturbance of this reality: people are used and things loved.”

Not to sound overly altruistic, but It’s all about priorities, and what you hold as most important.

I agree that, hybrid cars are not going to save us, neither are loads of sustainable green products. While they will make a dent in helping the environment, the real changes will come from the publics awareness that were are living in a time were old lifestyles are no longer acceptable.

Could you imagine what would happen if people were concerned with things like a declining bee population (causing the possible loss of 1/3 the foods we eat) as much as they are concerned about the private lives of Hollywood stars? The mainstream celebrates even worships the decadent lives of celebrities, what does that say about are culture and its priorities.
We could stop letting convenience override conscience but this feels extremely unlikely, as money is to great a motivator. Most people see wealth as the end goal.

ip_wirelessly wrote:

In case you were wondering…No, I don’t have faith in humans to change without a catastrophe to drive the change. I’m not talking recycling, or turning out lights. I mean real, significant change.

I can understand that thinking, but doesn’t that suck to have a defeatist attitude and doesn’t that effect a persons willingness to make changes?

I agree, that this is not a design problem but a cultural one. If you look at history almost always the decline of a culture comes at the height of its decadence and arrogance that they can continue in the same direction. Like all life me must adapt to environmental changes in order to survive, not just ignore and endure.

At this point no band-aid solution is going to fix things.

40

In order to not sound like we have no effect on the outcome of events, I do believe we can “nudge” things in a certain direction.

The next things I say will of course be challenged as dangerous for ones career, but I think if enough of do it, it can have some effect. This is not “pie in the sky” rambling below. This is the change in lifestyle that I mentioned in the previous post.

  1. Corporate designers - Push forward greener solutions and be an advocate for more environmentally correct practices. When people ask you why, explain that the current business environment is non-sustainable from a business point of view and you are looking out for the best interests of the company. Ask your non-impressed colleagues if they have children or grandchildren and if they do they want to leave them a planet that is livable.

  2. Consulting and Freelance designers - Also push for more environmentally correct solutions and don’t take clients who just want to build another piece of junk to be sold in big box retailers. Explain that money is no good if you don’t have a planet to live on. If enough of you do this they might get the message.

If we could band together and understand that a little money today is not worth an unlivable planet tomorrow, we might be getting some where.