Friday Five: March 21, 2014 Limits to Growth?

This week, there is only one story that I think we all need to take the time to read, dissect, analyze, and pick a course of action to address. The link's author took the most balanced and factual approach to the story, and I recommend it as a starting point (note he has one factual discrepancy addressed in the next link). The study notes that throughout history, civilizations have collapsed...even highly ordered ones. Signals in our patterns of consumption can help identify weaknesses.
Society is doomed, scientists claim
"The researchers used the HANDY model to analyze three different social scenarios: an egalitarian society with no elite class; an equitable society with workers and non-workers (students, retirees, disabled persons); and an unequal society with a robust class of elites.
The egalitarian and equitable societies could produce a sustainable civilization and avoid collapse, even with a high ratio of non-workers. Social collapse was more likely after people overreached and depleted natural resources. Importantly, even without any social stratification, collapse could occur if a society exhausted its natural resources.
In the unequal society, however, collapse was almost unavoidable — and these were the HANDY scenarios that mirrored our current globalized society."

Most coverage of the press release for the study mentioned that NASA funded it. Although NASA funded the development of the tool through another study, it did not fund the research that led to the conclusion about societal inequality.
NASA clarifies its role in new civilization collapse study
"NASA officials released this statement on the study today (March 20): 'A soon-to-be published research paper, 'Human and Nature Dynamics (HANDY): Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the Collapse or Sustainability of Societies' by University of Maryland researchers Safa Motesharrei and Eugenia Kalnay, and University of Minnesota's Jorge Rivas, was not solicited, directed or reviewed by NASA. It is an independent study by the university researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate NASA activity. As is the case with all independent research, the views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors alone. NASA does not endorse the paper or its conclusions.'"

The study ties back to concepts presented in the 1970s by MIT researchers working through the Club of Rome. In their work, Limits to Growth, they identified patterns of consumption and activity that would lead to collapse of civilization. It is worth reading the entire work.
A synopsis: Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update
"These are symptoms of a world in overshoot, where we are drawing on the world’s resources faster than they can be restored, and we are releasing wastes and pollutants faster than the Earth can absorb them or render them harmless. They are leading us toward global environ- mental and economic collapse—but there may still be time to address these problems and soften their impact."

I think it important to hear multiple sides of an issue from learned people with something to say, no axe to grind, and a relatively clear way of stating their position. I disagree with Mr. Lomborg on many issues, and find some of his analysis incomplete, but having read his books and articles, I find his approach fair and reasoned. In order to put some perspective on the predictions of collapse from resource consumption, I recommend reading this post and other work of his.
The limits to panic
"The Limits of Growth got it so wrong because its authors overlooked the greatest resource of all: our own resourcefulness. Population growth has been slowing since the late 1960’s. Food supply has not collapsed (1.5 billion hectares of arable land are being used, but another 2.7 billion hectares are in reserve). Malnourishment has dropped by more than half, from 35% of the world’s population to under 16%."

For another analysis, this time one that verifies the predictions of Limits to Growth, I present the following. I am less familiar with Mr. Turner's whole body of work, but find the presentation of data clear and reasonable. I recommend that everyone take the time to understand the fundamental factors affecting out ability to sustain high quality of life with continued growth of population and consumption (as less developed countries strive to gain the high quality of life we enjoy). It quite literally is a matter of life and death.
Looking back on the limits of growth
"Turner compared real-world data from 1970 to 2000 with the business-as-usual scenario. He found the predictions nearly matched the facts. 'There is a very clear warning bell being rung here,' he says. 'We are not on a sustainable trajectory.'"

Happy Friday!

Developers, contractors, and designers should lose their license if buildings do not perform to energy code

We are running out of fuel.

There is no politics behind that statement, it is a matter of fact.  On a per person basis, which is really the only accurate measure, we are depleting resources at a rate faster than we discover new ones.  At our current rate - and even with the addition of newly found natural gas resources through fracking - we will run out of fossil fuels sometime this century.

Although a large portion of this draw-down will result from increased usage in developing countries, we in the developed world still hold the lion's share of responsibility and opportunity.  As the majority of the world's population uses energy to improve their quality of life, how high they have to go depends entirely on us.  We can keep the bar where we have currently set it, or we can drastically lower it to a point where the available resources can support a high quality of life for everyone.

In order to make some level of improvement on this performance, over the last decade, we have made great progress in addressing energy use in our building codes.  Part of this success comes from industry, where product manufacturers and systems designers have found economic opportunity in driving down the energy use of buildings.  Part of this success comes from environmental advocates who have made the social and economic case for continuing to challenge the marketplace.  Over the past decade, the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) has increased in stature and has drastically dropped the amount of energy a new building can consume.  IECC follows closely on the heels of the tri-annual update to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air conditioning Engineers' (ASHRAE) standard for commercial building energy efficiency, ASHRAE 90.1.  ASHRAE gets input from all areas of the marketplace, and as such, the standard represents the "state of the shelf", and not a leading edge.  This has helped move IECC from a separate standard in the industry to a part of the International Building Code: the standard of care for the industry.  Anyone who designs a building and does not meet the most modern version of IBC risks litigation if problems arise.

The rapid adoption of IECC into state and municipal building codes has moved the needle on improving energy use in buildings.  In just the past decade, we have essentially cut in half the amount of energy that a building can consume and meet code.  The figure below highlights this for a multi-family residential building.  In 2004, that building could use 43 kBtu/square foot/year; that same building starting design today would have to use about 22 kBtu/square foot/year.  There is evidence to suggest that within another decade, all new buildings will have to manage their entire energy use through resources available only on their site.

This raises an interesting question: how do we know during design whether a building will use the right amount of energy when fully constructed and operated?  The answer relies on a practice called energy modeling.  Using the building data (materials in construction, geometry, etc.) and the planned operation (occupancy type, number of people, hours open, etc.), engineers and designers can use any number of computer modeling programs to project how much energy the building will use.  The modeling software has improved significantly over the past twenty years, to the point where we have some reasonable certainty that if the input parameters are right, we have a good idea of how much energy the building requires.

The problem with these modeling tools comes from accountability.  Right now, enforcement of these codes relies on either government employees with little to no training on the product, or consultants hired by the authorities to review.  In the former case, enforcement is almost impossible, and while better in the latter, the limited resources in most municipalities restricts even an expert's ability to do an adequate review.  This creates a nebulous enforcement environment that shrewd business people use to their advantage.  If a designer can tweak a model to create the perception of compliance, but not have to worry about whether the building actually meets that level, then developers that can skimp on elements necessary to meet code will do so and wait to see if they get any enforcement.  I wish I could say this was a small risk, or infrequent occurrence, but it is not.

The answer to these issues comes in the simplest form: hold those who own, develop, build, and design the building accountable.  For a first offense, all parties must make all the necessary adjustments to bring the building up to the most recent code, not just the code at the point when they started design.  For a second offense, each entity associated with the project: owner, developer, designer, contractor, loses their business license.  The risk that comes with each of these penalties would not only drive the market to develop even better modeling tools, but it would add responsibility to a marketplace that currently does not have any.  Many major cities now have energy benchmarking ordinances that require large users to report their energy use.  Combine this with a target energy use to comply with code, and it takes almost no resources to enforce in this manner.  Instead of trying to beef up code review infrastructure, place the responsibility on the professionals, and enforce the penalties.  Good designers and ethical developers will welcome both the clarity and flexibility, and the system should weed out those only looking to take advantage.

Within a decade, the marketplace will deliver new buildings that use no imported energy, and probably will deliver many renovation projects with the same level of performance.  There is no question that this is the way the market is heading.  Given the concerns about how much energy we use, it will have to move there in order for us to survive.  We can help this along, and perhaps even make it happen quicker, if we restore personal responsibility to the process and expect more of those who develop and design our buildings.