#climate solution

This story kind of gets to a peeve I’ve had about the climate crisis for a long time: the lack of deliberation and thoughtful planning. For example: the idea of electric vehicles is terrific. Yes, we need to convert. But shouldn’t we plan first before implementing? How many chargers are needed around the US in order to avoid range anxiety for all potential consumers, thus removing that impediment to purchase and conversion? How much money will that take, and how long will it take to install them? Who should install and maintain them? Are they going to be public utilities in all places, some? How long will it take for the auto industry to convert its factories for electric vehicle production? How much money is required? Should the conversion be sudden or gradual, and if gradual, over what period of time? How long will it take to train workers to build, repair and maintain electric vehicles? How many people will it take? Are our educational institutions and trade schools ready? If not, how long will it take? And what I’ve been addressing are just cars. What about trucks and buses? And so on and so on. I suspect there has not been a coordinated and coordinating approach to the issue of how best to convert our transportation infrastructure to all-electric.

Excerpt from this story from Treehugger:

From Climeworks’ giant carbon sucking machine (that also happens to be way too small) to the fact that electric cars are still very much cars, we’ve become used to much-vaunted climate "solutions" that, on closer inspection, are not quite as game-changing as they appear. Yet we are also coming to realize there never was going to be one solution in the first place.

With a crisis as complex, multifaceted, and intractable as the one we are facing, the idea of a single solution—or even a relatively broad set of technological fixes—is an unlikely scenario once you really start to think about it.

This creates a tricky conundrum for folks in the climate space. On the one hand, we need to recognize that no single thing was ever going to save us. And we need to accept that solutions—even partial and imperfect ones—may be important in moving us in the right direction. That’s why, for example, I’ve been reluctant to join others in the wholesale rejection of concepts like net-zero—suggesting instead that we scrutinize the details, and learn to differentiate between credible and not-so-credible plans. And it’s why, when some pour cold water on soil-based solutions like regenerative agriculture, I prefer to talk about ways to measure their contributions—rather than rejecting them entirely.  

There's a growing movement, in the construction industry, that wants to reuse building materials & keep such 'waste' out of landfills.

Deconstruction has already created a small circular economy that actually shrinks an area's carbon footprint!

Sadly, many communities just don't have the necessary infrastructure - yet...

These places need sorting facilities & resale stores just to keep up with all of the new demands for recycled materials.

Specialist contractors handle both, the deconstruction & the recycling operations.

Basically, disassembling buildings for parts.

Wiring, siding, nails, lumber, joists, pipe fittings & more - everything's sorted & stored in local warehouses.

The reason behind all this is climate change.

Construction & destruction of buildings accounts for 40% of greenhouse gasses & half of that comes from throwing away these materials!

For a long time, experts focused on building operations - the climate impact of heating, cooling & electrifying spaces.

But, in the last few years, they've come to understand the processes involved.

The creation & destruction of buildings create significant amounts of pollution - actually enlarging the carbon footprint involved.

Reusing already manufactured materials helps reduce embodied carbon stores.

Contractors don't have to waste materials.

But, the higher cost of deconstruction is what makes the concept a hard sell.

Homeowners & developers need financial incentives - as the process costs 35 to 40% more than just throwing the material away!!

Yet, in Boulder, Colorado alone - some 140+ million pounds of building materials has been recycled - since 2020!

There, all buildings must be deconstructed & 75% of the material must be reused.

But, Boulder has actually overshot that goal!

For the last 5 years, a full 83% of building materials have been kept out of landfills!!

Next up?

A plan for disassembling a building - before it's even built!

That way, everyone involved knows how to take the building apart, what recyclable materials to use & what is truly waste...

Sierra Club Takes a Commendable Turn on Population, Climate Change, and Inequality

Climate justice is given its due importance in the latest issue of Sierra with the recognition that: “Some people are consuming wildly more and wildly different than others…10 percent of the world’s population is responsible for about 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and about 60 percent of those people are in the Global North. The bottom half of the world’s population is responsible for…