Then ask the folks in Greensburg, Kansas, about their priorities. Remember Greensburg? Last year, a May tornado ripped up 95% of the town's homes and businesses. The storm looked like the coup de grace to a town already suffering from the familiar rural plague of dwindling small-town economy and youth exodus.
But Greensburg, population 1400 before the storm, 800 now, is rebuilding (769 building permits issued) and rebuilding green. This AFP report tells us that even after losing pretty much everything, Greensburg is making an extra effort to build a whole green town:
The town is building an eco lodging project, a recycling center and a water conservation system to turn rain into drinking water.
Residents have been encouraged to purchase energy efficient appliances and light bulbs; consider alternative energy sources like solar panels and windmills; use local, non-toxic and recycled building materials; and use native plants that don't require much watering to provide shade and reduce the load on storm sewers.
An Australian company even donated 200 water-saving toilets that are expected to save 2.6 million gallons (9.9 million litres) of water a year. [Olivia Blanco Mullins, "Devastated by Tornado, Kansas Town Rebuilds on Green Plan," AFP via Yahoo News, 2008.04.21].
What, did a bunch of hippies move to town to impose all their new-fangled eco-Gaia-worship on the storm-shocked locals? Hardly: locals are recognizing that green building is about doing things the old-fashioned way:
Town leaders launched a non-profit group to teach residents how to improve efficiency and reduce their environmental impact in the old farmer spirit of doing more with less.
"The process for us was getting the community to understand what building green meant, and diffusing [defusing?] political issues of environmentalism," said Greensburg GreenTown director Daniel Wallach.
"We helped them see that they were environmentalists whether they knew it or not."
Wylan Fleener's furniture warehouse is surrounded by empty lots and the rubble left behind by the tornado.
The unfinished facade reveals Styrofoam-covered concrete blocks which will insulate the structure that he is planning to cover with old bricks that the tornado left behind.
Rebuilding on an energy-efficient plan has increased Fleener's costs by about 15 percent, but he figures he'll make up the difference in about five years.
He hopes to further cut energy consumption by installing solar panels or a wind turbine and is planning to rebuild his home with efficiency and sustainability in mind.
"This is more an older way of living than a green fad," he told AFP. [Mullins]
Green building -- green anything -- isn't something new. It's the way Great-Grandpa got by, doing more with less, not throwing things out, and making the most out of what we have. There's no fancy philosophy, certainly no crypto-Marxism or secular humanism. Just regular folks thinking maybe we should build to make things last... not just buildings, but the environment they occupy. Says Stacy Barnes, a 26-year-old native who moved back to Greensburg to rebuild her hometown:
"I wanted to be here. It is town pride. I wanted to be part of this movement," she said.
"I want to walk down the street with my children and grandchildren and say 'I was part of that.'" [Mullins]
It shouldn't take a disaster for us to realize the need for conservation and green building practices. All it should take is what Ms. Barnes expresses: a love of the place we call home.
Going Green is everyone's obligation. It really means leaving this earth without any amount of polution footprint, or eco-neutral. Our goal should actually be to leave earth better than what it is today in terms of greenhouse gasses, industrial waste, carbon fuel emissions and soil fertility and ph level. How much pollution did a cave man create other than a set of animal bones once in awhile? That should be our destination. Not to live like cavemen, but to leave like cavemen...biodegradable.
ReplyDeleteKudos to Greensburg. Just after the tornado, my sister (who lives out east) e-mailed them, or said she would, with the idea that they ought to rebuild "green" to go with their town's name -- and then promote themselves that way.
ReplyDeleteI thought they'd dismiss the idea as silly. See what I know. People are more into this than I imagined. One must admit, it makes for some pretty good town advertising.
The whole environmental issue has me internally conflicted. I suppose that if I really wanted to minimize my carbon footprint, I could move back to Kona where I lived in a 350-square-foot condo that needed neither heat nor a/c, and rode a bike rather than driving a car. High taxes there, but practically zero utilities. It was a pretty good life. One bad weather day in a year and a half of beach-bumming. However, most of the store-bought goodies had to be shipped in, mainly by boat, and that took fuel. They got their electricity (in Kona, anyhow) from burning oil. The Geothermal Venture was a minimal enterprise at best, back in 1999-2000 when I lived there. Maybe things have changed since then. I hope so.
Above all else, I have said it elsewhere and will tap it out again here: Humanity will never, ever, ever gain mastery over its earth-destroying nature until it learns to control its numbers. Overpopulation lies at the very root of the entire issue, and it is the one thing I almost never hear emphasized. True, we can do plenty of things to minimize carbon emissions, sewage production, waste production, and all that -- but if we keep "being fruitful and multiplying," it will all be for nought in the end.
I was so puzzled by this apparent ignorance of the "tyrannosaurus in the tea room" that I did some Web-based research and discovered that the idea of population control to combat environmental destruction is considered "radical."
Hmmph. Too true to be anything but radical, eh?
Careful with the ZPG line, Stan -- Leslee Unruh will come after you. We all know we want babies, more babies! <8-O
ReplyDeleteInteresting observation about your footprint in Hawaii (350 sq ft -- way to go!). And taxes -- notice there's always a tradeoff. As folks in Minnesota will point out, you pay higher taxes, you get something in return.
Same with building green. The higher building premium is an investment in a longer lasting, less consuming building.
Just on a side note, who decides how many children people can have? It would seem strange that government could/should not interfere with abortion issues because of privacy, but then quota children.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of carbon footprint's, am I wrong that cows produce large quanities of greenhouse gases? What's PETA to do about the poor cows?
There are no easy solutions to the population problem. I would certainly never advocate quotas on the number of children people could have, or any of the various other Orwellian (and worse) "solutions."
ReplyDeleteBut as time goes on, even the most onerous sorts of government mandates may begin to seem good compared to the alternatives. Unless some voluntary way is found to deal with this problem, future generations will find themselves coming into a miserable world, indeed.
Heard on National Public Radio today about the cows and their methane production. In New Zealand, they're actually tampering with the intestinal flora of the poor beasts to get them to produce less of this gas.
This whole global warming thing has become such a profit maker for so many people! Even governments are thinking of ways to cash in (carbon tax, gasoline tax, etc.)
I asked a friend how the government would tax the carbon that comes from my wood stove, on those rare occasions when I actually use it. He had a great answer: "They'll put a meter on your chimney."
And there the tyrannosaurus sits, drinking our tea, laughing, and getting bigger and bigger and bigger every day.