A couple more good articles on the Eastern Redcedar

http://www.normantranscript.com/opinion/local_story_284012314

and 

http://juniper.tamu.edu/Brush/PDF/2007%20Ansley%20&%20Wiedeman%20juniper%20book%20Chap15%20272-290.pdf

The People of Oklahoma vs. The Eastern Redcedar

If you read my first post over this subject, Attack! part I, you might have noticed the astonishing statistic that each year, an acre of Eastern Redcedars can consume around 55,000 gallons of water!

Think about this, each day, according to the American Water Works Association, the average person consumes 72.5 gallons of water.  If you take that times 365 days in a year, the average person consumes 26, 645 gallons of water.  Equally as astonishing.

(http://www.gloucesterva.info/util/waterconservationtips.htm)

What I wanted to compare was Redcedars to the population of Oklahoma.  According to ODOT (Oklahoma Department of Transportation), the state averages 0.08 persons per acre.  

When all calculations are done, this means that the average acre of human life in Oklahoma takes 2,150 gallons of water per year, compared to an acre of Eastern Redcedars at 55,000 gallons of water per year.

ATTACK! part II - University of Oklahoma campus (read part I first!)

For now, this will have to do without pictures, but I promise they are coming soon.  

After reading part one below (which you should've done), I now want to ask you a question...

The National  Weather Center, which was recently built on Highway 9 and Jenkins, is what some might call a nice building (you won't hear me give it much more credit than that).  However, this building that the University and the National Weather Center partnered up to build, is completely cut off from view (from highway 9) from about the 3rd floor down.  The reason?  THE EASTERN REDCEDAR!

Some of those cedars were already there when the Center was built, BUT, the University came back through and planted a thicker hedge of them to block the view (or maybe smell) from highway 9.  

WHY?  Why would the University, that has been so extensive in landscaping over recent years, think it is a good idea to plant a HEDGE of these cedars (this was rhetorical...it's the same University that destroys and replants thousands of flowers several times a year on the South Oval as part of their beautification efforts)?  There are many other types of cedar, pine, or many other evergreens that could have had the same effect, and come on, they are much more attractive than the invasive breed.  

How beautiful, right?  

Now maybe the University is planning on using these cedars as biofuel (from article below) for their new fleet of buses, but I highly doubt it.  I'm sure this issue is nowhere close to being on President Boren's agenda, but the sad part is that if any attention was paid whatsoever, these never would have been replanted in the first place, and the surrounding University property should be removed of them.

ATTACK! of the invasive Eastern Redcedar

From the Nature Conservancy...

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/oklahoma/about/invasives.html

Eastern redcedar is actually native to Oklahoma, but with the absence of fire on the landscape this juniper is estimated to be spreading at the rate of 720 acres per day in our state- creating relatively sterile cedar forests and increasing soil erosion underneath its canopy. Control options include controlled burning and mechanical removal.

And an article from last June, discussing the impacts and potential benefits of the Eastern Redcedar.

http://southwestfarmpress.com/news/eastern-redcedar-0605/index.html?imw=Y

• In Oklahoma, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) estimates the number of Eastern Red Cedars is increasing at an estimated rate of 852 acres a day or over 300,000 acres a year. It is estimated that at this rate of spread, the red cedar population doubles every 18 years. ·The trees are affecting people’s health, reducing productivity from grasslands and destroying wildlife habitat, all of which is costing the state millions of dollars each year, according to the Red Cedar Task Force formed in 2002 by the Oklahoma Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Environment.

• Oklahoma State University research shows that one acre of cedar trees can absorb 55,000 gallons of water per year, which means less water goes into lakes and aquifers, threatening water supplies for cities and towns.

• In 2000, it was estimated that red cedars cost Oklahoma $218 million dollars annually through catastrophic wildfires, as well as loss of cattle forage, wildlife habitat, recreation and water yield. By 2013 that figure is expected to increase to $447 million if major preventative control steps are not taken to control the invading cedars.

Is the Redcedar good or bad?

Why is there "A Widening Gap" on global warming views?

     First off, I would like to point out that my views about global warming have been formed almost entirely through my education here at the University.  My thoughts have very little if anything to do with the media or my religious and political views.  In my opinion, when it comes to taking a side on climate change, the media, politics, and religion should be left out as much as possible.  We all know the media is often not trustworthy, religious views differ greatly from person to person, and when it comes to politics, as "A Widening Gap" points out, growing polarization between the two parties, coupled with the idea of top-down sorting, can cause political views to skew thoughts on climate change and global warming (political views are much like religious views, in that especially with the older generations, many people believe much the way their parents believe, religious and party affiliation is passed down).  The whole idea of bipartisanship seems great, but is not a realistic expectation on an issue like this.  From the article, and studying other controversial issues, it seems that Democrats and Republicans, whether or not they agree on the problem and solution, will fight and argue against each other, only because they check a different box when asked of their party affiliation.    

     After looking through the article, I believe it is safe to assume that the responses from both parties may be a little off of reality for the typical person, the Republican responses seemingly low for those who believe in climate change and its causes, and maybe a tad high for those Democrats who responded.  Through my personal opinion, I would like to believe that people are leaning towards the response of the Democrat affiliates.  However, if party affiliations were taken out, would the responses be similar?  Or would the response be somewhere in between?

     I thought it was interesting that even with both parties, the percentage of respondents who said that global warming will pose a serious threat to their lifestyle (D-49% R-26%) was significantly lower than those who responded saying that the effects of global warming have already begun (D-76% R-42%).  If I had to guess, the reason for this is that even though many are admitting that there is a problem, few of those want to admit that it is at least partially due to their lifestyle, and that to change the trend, they might have to give up certain aspects of that lifestyle.

Architecture and Sustainable Business...is it possible?

The field of Architecture presumes its advancement in sustainability is equal, if not far above that of other industries.  As for the new material and technological advancements for sustainable buildings, I would agree that Architecture is moving forward quickly.  When it comes to incorporating these new materials and technologies, the field is not nearly as far along as some would like to believe.  

LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is a point system that provides architects with a list and description of sustainable standards that can be incorporated into the site selection, design, and construction of a building.  By meeting these standards, along with a hefty fee, a building can achieve LEED certification.  However, LEED is not a requirement for buildings across most of the country.  Few major cities have adopted LEED standards, and even fewer rural areas have considered the system.  The point system is heavily criticized by many architects because they are not distributed fairly among the different requirements (water conservation and innovation are both given a maximum of 5 points, far lower than any other category).  In the end, due to the extra costs of certification and research hours to the Architecture firm, and the relayed costs to the client, many projects opt out of certification.  (some still meet many or most of the LEED standards without achieving LEED certification because the client decides against paying the excessive fees)

What is most interesting is that firms implementing these LEED standards for buildings operate without a required or voluntary set of standards for themselves...and of the many firms that I have visited and researched, this is of little or no concern.  As you might imagine, Architecture firms produce massive amounts of trash paper, most of which is 100 % recyclable.  I had to struggle to implement a recycling program at the previous firm I worked for.  I volunteered to collect and deliver the recycled paper, as long as everyone could manage to use the recycling bins that I placed throughout the firm (I rarely had collect and deliver as most people ignored the bins).  

If you are having a hard time believing that such a progressive field as Architecture is having sustainable practice difficulties, visit the brand new, temporary home for the University's College of Architecture in the old Hobby Lobby on Main Street.  All of that "trash" piled up is from only ONE semester, and much of it is cleared out on a weekly basis.  There are several recycling bins around the College, and they are almost always full, but they are emptied less often than the regular trash bins, and once the recycling bins are full, the excess paper can be found in the regular bins.

Could Architecture firms (and apparently the University's program) adopt a sustainable business attitude?  Absolutely.  Architecture is one of the most innovative fields in the world, we have just failed to innovate a reasonable and substantial way to be sustainable within the firm.  Should all new and remodeled buildings meet some sort of sustainable standard?  Again, yes, but is it reasonable for architects to bark about sustainable design when they lack the same principles?

Lead by example...

What is a Sustainable Business?

How do you define a Sustainable Business?  What makes a sustainable business, and what should their purpose be?

 

From the World Resources Institute.  

http://www.wri.org/ecosystems/sustainable-business-and-markets

"(A business which) proactively develops strategies for managing business risks and opportunities that arise from their companies' dependence and impact on ecosystems."

And from Natural Capitalism on sustainability in business. (thanks to Leslie Johnson for finding this)

http://www.natcapsolutions.org/sustainability.htm

"Sustainability is a way of working and living that balances immediate needs for commerce, living, habitation, food, transportation, energy and entertainment with future needs for these resources and systems as well as the liveliness and support of nature, natural resources and future generations.

Sustainability addresses human and natural systems (such as social justice, meaningful experiences, social values, biodiversity, ecosystem services and lifecycle food chains) as well as economic systems (such as market viability, profit and returns) in order to meet needs and desires without endangering the viability of future generations or endeavors. It is similar to the "seventh generation" philosophy of the Native American Iroquis Confederacy, mandating that chiefs always consider the effects of their actions on their descendents seven generations in the future."

Reaction to The Tragedy of the Commons

I would like to bring forward a couple ideas I found alarming and one idea I believe might help from Garrett Hardin's article.

"No gourmet meals, no vacations, no sports, no music, no literature, no art...I think that everyone will grant, without argument or proof, that maximizing population does not maximize goods."     Hardin says this in response to Bentham's idea of maximizing population.  I do not bring this point forward to harp on either Hardin's or Bentham's idea.  This quote is an example of "ideas" that have been brought forward in the media, and in previous classes that I have taken here at the University of Oklahoma.  It's the idea that in order to return our planet to its normal state, we must give up all of the things that make life what it is.  The idea behind becoming a sustainable economy should not be to give up the things that everyone enjoys, but to make all of these things more sustainable where they don't affect the global environment in negative ways.

"Relinquish the freedom to breed."     This goes along with the quote I discussed above.  This summed up Hardin's article, on what he thought was the best solution.  Once again, if this type of thinking is our best idea, we are far off from becoming a sustainable world, as we are far off from reaching a feasible solution.

"by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated."  This is really the best solution I see to solving our environmental problems.  Can we count on people (business owners) to do it the right way, not necessarily the most cost saving way, but the right way when it comes to the environment?  Have we seen any signs of integrity during the recent blast to the economy?

_T.Newcomb

Introduction

I am currently a 5th year senior finishing up my degree in Architecture with a minor in Sociology.  I have been involved in creating Recycle Week and the Trash Bash event at OU, as well as setting up a recycling and reuse program at the firm I work for during the summer.  Over this semester and the coming summer, I hope to begin an outside internship with the Oklahoma City planning commission  so I can push LEED design standards and sustainable business practices to become part of the City's standards for future development and new businesses.  I have devoted time during the last few semesters of architecture to researching sustainable materials and other ways that offices are incorporating 'green' practices within their companies.

When reading my blog, you may pick up on sarcasm and pessimism.  I am neither by nature, as I am a very optimistic person.  When it comes to discussing sustainable business practices and sustainability in general, I cary a sarcastic and pessimistic attitude.  I am optimistic that eventually people will begin to see the dire need to address these issues.  However, most people are informed of the effects of recycling, water conservation, etc. yet are slow to take action or do not act at all.  Before the semester started, I thought of myself as a Hopeful Pessimist, and I believe at the end of the semester, I will carry the same attitude.

Hopefully I can bring an interesting perspective to the discussion and entertain and enlighten at the same time.  I look forward to the debate!

_T.Newcomb