The Forest Towers of Milan and the Future of Sustainable Building

The author of recycled architecture makes the good point that these "green" buildings will require a lot of concrete, which is not a very sustainable building material. Relative to wood, it requires a lot of energy to produce and build with.


It turns out that the industry's already on it. According to this Time article, new concretes are being developed that not only require less energy in production, but also confer other environmental benefits. One example they cite is the titanium-dioxide containing concrete for the Jubilee Church in Rome, which filters pollutants from the air.

So as long as the energy input needed to manufacture concrete continues to fall and the architectural benefits, such as insulation, continue to improve, concrete buildings will approach an energy profile similar to that of wooden ones.


How long will it take? To give you an idea, Lafarge, one of the world's largest cement makers, has already reduced its carbon emissions per ton of production by 20% from its 1990 level. That's translated into a ten percent absolute reduction and was partly achieved by advances in making concrete stronger - ten times stronger - requiring less for a given building.

But that rate's bound to slow down and even once we have this wonder-concrete on hand, it'll likely cost more than aluminum or steel. Today's high performance concretes already are.


Given today's technologies, wood still looks like the most sustainable option. At least one prominent urban planning expert and the author of Cradle to Cradle, William McDonough, advocates employing wood as a primary building material for cities.

Sustainable Teeth

I didn't think there'd be many options out there for making my dental care more sustainable but I was wrong. I was lucky enough to discover a few local options that require less plastic and other wastes.

The first is organic silk floss from Radius, whose main selling point for me is that it's biodegradable. The silk itself, however, is cased in a plastic shell. A spool - with or without an aluminum bit for cutting - would suffice for me and would also reduce the amount of packaging needed. It's currently housed in a plain card paper sheath. Maybe making it more compact would complicate its distribution. It's still the best commercially available floss I've found.

For my new favorite toothbrush I've chosen Preserve. There's still some virgin plastic - for bristles and the pack - but the handle, and thus the majority, comes from a secondary source: yogurt cups. And once you're due for another brush, you can send your old one off to Preserve, where they recycle it. Since the inflow of plastic is well-controlled, that's presumably into other toothbrushes. So unlike conventional recycling - which deals with mixed plastics by compromising structure or pitching them - there'd be no downcycling or runoff into the environment.

As for toothpaste, one option is DIY. My friend's father, a pretty distinguished oral surgeon, insists that with fluoridated water, baking soda is all you really need. However, home recipes - for the most part variations on the straight up baking soda method - abound. My Plastic-free Life recommends some commercial tooth powders that I'd like to give a shot, but I have yet to find any near me.

In an economy and society as heterogeneous as ours, we're presented with countless choices and the ability to drive the market in one direction or another. As comedian Elvira Kurt put it, even something as seemingly simple as the toothbrush - in essence, a stick - is evolving. And thanks to that, as ridiculous as it may seem, we have cleaner options and - not so clean options.

comedians.comedycentral.com

Solar Future?

Last month I made it back to my hometown for the first time in several years. Outside of Cleveland, for all the wind coming in off of Lake Erie, I was still surprised to see that the area had acquired two wind turbines. For a place I grew up associating with economic depression and often seen as quagmired in the fallout of industrial ruin, wind turbines were an unexpected development.

As a key battleground in recent presidential elections, it's not surprising that Ohio is engaged in the same rhetoric surrounding manufacturing that's discussed at the broader national level. For decades, advocates on different sides have alternatively professed that returning to manufacturing is the key to economic growth and seen greater opportunities in "clean" technologies with, at least theoretically, more value-added. At least one town is attempting the latter strategy.

Midwest, represent.

The village of Yellow Springs isn't an unlikely candidate for a solar powerplant. I consider it one of the more eccentric enclaves of Ohio and that impression's been reinforced by its current ambitious undertaking. To quote Dayton Daily News,

"Between the solar array and new Ohio River hydroelectric projects being built now, the Yellow Springs intends to draw more than 50 percent of its power needs from renewable sources in 2013"

Solar and hydroelectric initiatives have in part been spurred by federal tax credits and Ohio's renewable energy standard, as contested as it's been, which requires that 25% of the state's energy come from alternative sources by 2025. That would help move it away from its current coal-dominated energy profile.

Scaling up solar

Although it's too recent for current projects to benefit from it, two researchers at MIT have discovered a better way to arrange mirrors around solar boilers to improve efficiency and save space. The design is based on the Fermat spiral, a design already found in nature.

As long as these piecemeal improvements to plant design continue, the possibility of a solar future looks real. In his State of the Union Address, Obama endorsed leveraging all resources at our disposal to ensure our energy future while pointing out that Germany and China already have an upper hand in solar energy technology. Provided that there are opportunities in solar, it would be wise for America to contend as well.

Of course, the issue isn't whether America should pursue opportunities. It's whether there actually are any. The experiment about to take place in Yellow Springs will help shed some light on the controversy.

Natural vs Synthetic Fibers

I've read that from a resources perspective, clothes made from synthetic fabrics are more sustainable. They last longer than conventional organic materials like cotton and need to be replaced less often. So the idea is that over the course of a person's lifetime, they'll consume less material and all the water, land and other resources that go with it.

There are two problems with this assertion though:

1. The repercussions of material choice extend beyond resource use.
2. People typically don't wait for one garment to wear out before replacing it.

There's toxicology to consider as well.

Runoff from putting synthetics through the wash is a major component of plastic pollution found in the ocean. And while I wish I could better appreciate it or that we had a clearer picture of the details, a perusal of the research reveals that plastics disrupt how organisms develop and function:

• Effect of polyvinyl chloride plastic on the growth and physiology of human umbilical vein endothelial cells
• Toxicological review and oral risk assessment of terephthalic acid (TPA) and its esters: a category approach
• Effects of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and four of its metabolites on steroidogenesis in MA-10 cells
• A mixture of an environmentally realistic concentration of a phthalate and herbicide reduces testosterone in male fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) through a novel mechanism of action

There may be innocuous polymers out there and new methods for disposing of harmful ones are emerging each day. I don't subscribe to the fallacy that "natural" is always better for me; the natural world is a struggle for survival filled with poisons and other dangers out to take people down. Man-made technologies are responsible for substantial improvements in the quality of life for many. Still, it doesn't look like we're equipped to handle all the toxic waste already entering our waterways and the food chain.

Till death do us part

Maybe if people dressed like cartoon characters, sporting the same synthetic outfit wherever they're seen, synthetics would be more promising. If people bequeathed their virtually immortal polyester shirts to subsequent generations, even better in terms of sustainability, though not the best news for fashion. In reality though, the problem with synthetics, even without toxicity, is that they last too long.

In terms of consumer behavior, you wouldn't want clothes to last forever. For all the radical pragmatists and conservationists in society, most people prefer turnover in their wardrobe. It's that or look stylistically static for large periods of your life, which could pose - if only psychologically - an impediment to personal growth and reinvention. Depending on what initial choice you made for your appearance, you may find it difficult to fit in later on in life.

Actually I don't think anyone from the Scooby gang would have any issues vibing in today's social circles.

Nevertheless, internal transformation is more easily induced when one has an external reference point. It's why people seek change after harrowing experiences, part of the reason we benefit from vacations, and how some flourish after facing tragedies.

So how can we reconcile the existential need for personal progress with the material means that tend to accompany it and the physical limitations of the earth? People have sought beauty and novelty to such a historical extent that it appears fundamental to our very nature. For that reason, the superior strategy is to augment the substrates subject to our behavior, rather than the behavior itself; it's better to work with materials that accommodate the timing of our consumption choices. And those remain natural fibers that can degrade as they grow too worn for use and as we tire of them.

Don't lead a disposable life

At the same time, moving too far in the direction of disposable clothing would be a mistake too. And that in many instances seems to be what we have achieved in retail with the "just good enough" principle: clothes, furniture and other products from IKEA, Urban Outfitters and the like that appear increasingly designed for one-time use. Although it's not quite the paper dress of the sixties, it's close when, as a friend put it, you wash a shirt and it's ruined.

I don't expect people to stop washing their clothes or replace all their nylons with - wool socks? But I do think it's wise to refrain from acrylic, nylon and polyester until Mother Nature or a lab comes up with a bug to help us digest them, since we can't.