ESD Columns week 3

Climate-refugees

Ivo Hummelink- Last sunday the 22^nd of November I watched a documentary on the Dutch television (Nieuwsuur, 2015) about the impact of climate change on Bangladesh. The documentary was filmed at the coastal area of Bangladesh which is heavily affected by the rising water and the changes in local climate. These changes for instance resulted in cyclones occurring three times more then regularly. The local and national government responsible for preventing and coping with these climate excesses are desperately calling for measures to be taken by the global leaders to mitigate the exhaust of greenhouse gasses and to help protect this vulnerable country.

In my opinion, these measures should not only be taken by the global community from the deontological standpoint of humanity and solidarity with areas like Bangladesh but also from the utilitarian standpoint of the well-being of the total world population..

The documentary makers stressed that the long time affect of climate change on the global population also includes a large increase of climate refugees to more developed (and better protected) countries. In that sense the current refugee-stream toward Europe from people coming from non-warzone area’s like the northern African region, can also be seen as climate-related. These people flee from dry and arid area’s like the Upper-Sahara region, cross the Mediterranean Sea looking for a better life in Europe, because all economical prosperity in their own region is lost due to the effects of climate change.

Estimations of worldwide climate-related refugees in 2020 are up to 300 million and these numbers will increase if nothing will happen to turn-around the impact of our lifestyles on the global climate. If you for instance project these figures to the current European refugee-crisis which ‘only’ involves 400.000 refugees in 2015 (Vluchtelingenwerk.nl, 2015), you see that also the consequences of climate change to the developed countries are immense.

Hopefully the policymakers that contribute to the Climate Conference in Paris next week, are willing and able to make significate steps and create a lever to really alter the course of events. Not only for the benefit on humanity but also for their own interests.

If you have a minute and want to look the documentary (Dutch only) check http://nos.nl/video/2070789-bangladesh-ground-zero-van-de-klimaatverandering.html

Reference

Nieuwsuur. (2015, Nov 22). Opgehaald van http://www.npo.nl/nieuwsuur/22-11-2015/VPWON_1241467
Think big, start small: sustainable waste handling at TUD

Tessa Vaendel

During the talk of Gert-Jan de Werk whom with D-Exto is informing people about sustainability on festivals, I got inspired by his statement of think big, start small and then get bigger again. Besides this I was also inspired by the importance of making things concrete by using visuals and tangible products. I realized that this relates very much to a project I am currently working on as a student assistant for the Green Office of TUD. I would like to share some of this project with you by this column.

My student assistant project is about “sustainable waste handling at TUD”. One of the activities is looking at the general picture (waste separation, waste collection, stakeholders, etc.). During the workshop on the 16^th of November we had the assignment to make pictures at the campus of what we found (un)sustainable. I saw a lot of pictures of waste bins, either the ones in which waste can be separated and the ones in which the waste cannot be separated. During some pitches it was mentioned that TUD does not do anything on this waste separation, but the existence of my student assistant project proves the opposite. TUD is aware of this problem (with TUD I mean at the operational level), however it is more complicated than just simply replacing all ‘normal’ bins by the bins with separate waste streams. There is a big challenge in the logistics and the costs. Besides this communication is an important factor. For example the method of waste collection should be the same within the TUD in order to be efficient, at this moment the separated waste collection differs very much between for example the Aula, Sport & Culture and Industrial Design faculty.

Another activity within the student assistant project is the development of a product that can be produced with waste of TUD and also can be distributed within TUD; this is in cooperation with VerdraaidGoed and Coffee Based. The waste stream we are looking at is coffee ground, since this is a huge waste stream (approx. 100 kg per day) that currently ends up in the residual waste. By combining the coffee ground with a biobased plastic a new material is developed which will be used in a new product.

What I observed during this project is that when there is a concrete and tangible example of a product, it is way easier to communicate and convince people. When the right people are enthusiastic and convinced, then actually something can be done, like starting the separate collection of the coffee ground. One could argue that coffee ground can also be separately collected and disposed at the green waste, since coffee ground is still valuable in the green waste and that the energy needed for the production of the new product could be saved. However, without this new product, it would have been much harder to convince people to separate the coffee ground in the first place. Here the point of Gert-Jan de Werk comes back: the importance of visuals and tangible products. Besides this I think by focusing on one waste streams (the coffee ground) and thus by starting small, ultimately we can look at the bigger picture again of sustainable waste handling at TUD in general.

To conclude I would like to mention that if you have any suggestions/ideas for sustainable waste handling at TUD or if you have experience with the production of materials with coffee ground, please don’t hesitate to contact me!
Is it up- or downcycling?

Noor Debets

For my final bachelor project last year, I worked on a floating platform made out of recycled plastic out of the Maas in Rotterdam. The platform was partly designed to make use of the masses of plastic found in the Maas and partly to create a greener environment in the Rotterdam Harbour by placing trees on the platform. I liked this initiative to do something with the plastic pollution and wanted to investigate whether this was possible or not. It appeared to be more difficult than thought, why?

The Recycled Park is, as the webpage of the project tells, a proposition to catch the plastic pollution in the Maas just before it reaches the Northsea. This collected plastic will be re-used or recycled to assign a new value to the river. If we translate this, the idea will prevent the plastic waste disappear directly into the incinerator, although part of the plastic is also suitable for other types of recycling.

The ‘disappear directly into the incinerator’ shows that the platform of recycled plastic only prevents the plastic waste to directly disappear. Since the plastic material will be recycled into a product that can only be burned in the next stage. In other words, this has nothing to do with recycling, it’s about down cycling. The term recycling make people think, but in a wrong way. The recycling we actually mean, is about upcycling. About the positive and endless cycle of a product, re-using it over and over again. On the contrary, discussing recycling, the most attention goes to this down cycling. A lot of our focus is on recycling, but the actual recycling of good quality is about the recycling of a material into a material of the same quality. These days, this can only be done with PET-bottles. While a lot of plastics are still shreddered and turned into, for example, roadside bollards which have to be burned after use. And then, the actual problem is extended but not solved. The quantity of the recycling is still a problem.

In sum, there are many good initiatives, like the recycled park, that make people aware of their waste and try to provide proper solutions. But still, the most challenging part remains the same; how to keep the products away from the incinerator. To make a first step; let’s be honest to the users and explain clearly the difference about up- and downcycling. Only in such way we can make it to a real circular economy.

http://www.recycledpark.nl/

image: versbeton.nl/2015/10/was-getekend-plastic-in-de-stad/
Is cycling sustainable?

Katja Rossen

During the end of my bachelor, while attending a lecture of one of the professors on the faculty of architecture, I was confronted with the question posed in the title of this column. As you yourself might think right now, my first reaction was: Yes, of course! Bicycling is a very sustainable activity, especially when you compare its’ ‘ín-use’ carbon footprint with the one from a car or a plane. Since it seemed so obvious for me that the answer was or should have been ‘yes’, I was very interested in other ways to look at the subject.

Andy van den Dobbelsteen, the professor who held the two hours during lecture, told us that he himself once asked the same question. To come up with a ‘scientifically based’ answer he had calculated the amount of energy it took him to get from point A to B by bike. In this calculation he included the amount of energy that was needed to grow his food, how much food he had to ate to supply his body with enough energy to be able to cycle the specific distance, the efficiency of his body to turn food into energy, and the efficiency of the energy used by our body when we cycle. In the end, the outcome was that cycling, from this point of view, was not sustainable at all!

However, sustainability as a concept should not be defined only by the criteria based on this point of view. Sustainability is so much more than that, for instance one should consider incorporating the concepts of embodied energy and public health as well. When done so, you could think of bicycling as an environmentally sustainable activity in cities again;

Of course, depending on the type of bike and other vehicle intended for transport some variations exist, but the amount of energy required to produce a bicycle is far less than many other forms of transport. For example, a bike of about 7 kg with a carbon frame uses about 11.5 billion Joules of energy during production, a generic car however takes up to about 10 times as much energy during its production process. In addition, also the construction of bicycle lanes is less energy intensive than roads for cars, requiring less space and material.

The effect of the bicycle’s environmental sustainability doesn’t stop here. If more people start using bikes, which in use are zero emission ones, instead of more polluting ways of transport, there is potential for overall reduced carbon emissions and an improved air quality in our cities. Pollution however, is about more than just carbon emissions; noise levels in cities can also be considered a pollutant, so by switching from noise generating ways of transport to bikes, a reduction in noise pollution will be achieved as well. Therewith both contributing to better public health.

In addition to better air quality and reduced noise pollution, cycling could also achieve improved health by means of decreased health risks due to extra body exercise.

So, to be able to conclude on the question whether or not bicycling is a sustainable activity it is important to define the concept of sustainability and its criteria, since different points of view could have different outcomes
People, Planet and ... Prosperity?

Milan Voorhorst

When discussing sustainability, the phrase people, planet, prosperity is often used (also PPP or the triple bottom line). This should point out the importance of social, environmental and financial properties of sustainable development. The idea of this phrase is that sustainable development only can happen when all three pillars are considered. Is this saying always true? I do not think so.

Imagine an average household in an average house. They decide to place pv-panels on their roof. Planet happy, because of green energy. They inspire people in their neighbourhood to do the same. People happy, because they feel more independent and have more social cohesion. After some years the panels have payed themselves back and become profitable. From now on the average household has more money to spend; their wealth has grown. The key question is: what will they do with their money. Every euro (or any currency) has a potential carbon dioxide footprint. If the richer family buys a new TV or goes on a holiday by plane, the money they earned with a sustainable technology has not been spent in a sustainable way. This means that the carbon footprint of their euros is high. If they choose to spend their money on going to the hairdresser more often instead, their euros have a relatively low carbon footprint.

How can we know the potential footprint of a euro? The New York Times (2007) stated that the industrialized countries appear to contribute to most to the total greenhouse gas emissions (and the most vulnerable countries for climate change tend to be the poorest, but that is another story (Revkin, 2007). Can we say that that the richer someone is, the higher its potential carbon dioxide footprint is? I think we can. Money earned with for instance the pv-panels, probably will be spend on the holiday by plane and not on the hairdresser.

The bottom line is that I think we should focus less on prosperity in rich countries for sustainable transitions. We should make the product or process better for people and planet in such a way people are willing to pay more. Prosperity should play a minor role in sustainable transitions for the richest. The last thing we want to happen is growth of wealth of the richest and make the gap between rich and poor bigger. Extreme wealth is bad for planet and people.

The New York Times (2007). "Sustainability for Rich and Poor." Retrieved 29 November, 2015, from http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/sustainability-for-rich-and-poor/?_r=0.

Revkin, A. C. (2007). "Reports From Four Fronts in the War on Warming." Retrieved 29 November, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/science/earth/03clim.html.
Sustainable change in the current society

Melchior Huijts

Sustainability these days is becoming more and more of a hot topic, with the Climate Summit in Paris starting tomorrow, being a very important milestone. So let's hope that they come to good legislation, but in the mean time, start yourself and change. You will see it is not necessary to change your lifestyle much, technology is already way ahead of you.

This week I will not touch upon the way sustainable engineering is shedding a new light for me on the way a technology can be designed for use in a society. No, I will take you, the reader, to something that might be a little more familiar. A little closer to home, so to speak.

Sustainability is not something of the last few years, it is a topic that has been around for a few decades already. Jimmy Carter, late President of the USA, already stated in 1980 during his State of the Union Address that the people of the US should ‘Conserve energy. Eliminate waste.’ and ‘Make 1980 indeed a year of energy conservation’. As we can see today, the whole world, including the USA, has not yet really proven to be one of energy conservation and waste elimination. However, as with most changes, this doesn’t happen instantly.

I hope that you are already familiar with the S-curve that describes a change. If not, it works in the following way: at first, a change is initiated and followed only by the few for a while, after which it hits the main public, is adopted widely and then the system (society) smoothens out the ride to a new equilibrium-state. The same holds for this transition. So already for a few decades some pioneers are letting the world know that we cannot continue the way we are going. After which the technology-world as started developing ways for us to reduce polluting energy use and waste. This has marked the beginning of the S-curve.

It feels to me know as if we have started the acceleration-part of the curve. The whole environment and sustainability problem is no longer one for the hippies and the early adopters, it has become one that is now also getting to the companies and world leaders. Only look at the Climate Summit starting tomorrow in Paris where the heads of most of the countries in the world will come together to agree on legislation that will halt/decrease climate change. Many politicians are starting to feel the pressure and are making themselves heard in the media on their plans. [2]

It is a good thing that governments start to change, but it is the people that can speed up the process and help a lot themselves. They can also get the companies to change, since these will listen to what the needs are from society, to maximise their profit. So start close to home, and change, without even needing to change your lifestyle much. This is the great thing, you don’t need to be living like someone from the stone-age to be living sustainably, but it can just be from the comfort of your warm house, only with the warmth coming from the sun for instance, instead of oil or gas.

Since there are more people than ever on this planet, shouldn’t we be able to make a change?

[1] Jimmy Carter, State of the Union Address 1980, 23^rd of January 1980, (http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml, consulted on 29/11/2015)

[2] (dutch) Robert Giebeld, Samsom en Klaver schrijven nationale klimaatwet, De Volkskrant, 24-11-2015, (http://www.volkskrant.nl/politiek/samsom-en-klaver-schrijven-nationale-klimaatwet~a4193318/, consulted on 29/11/2015)
Is 'Urban Farming' the solution?

urban, food

Maya de Groot

Why urban farming isn’t always the solution.

If we look at the recent works of architecture students, we can define a trend. The green roof or façade, or both. We design cities with only green roofs, or sky scrapers that in itself form a food production towerand since its best to not implement such a specific feature because of purely aesthetics, students often define these areas to be used for Urban Farming. A technique that sounds very promising, but isn’t really further researched during the design projects. I know, because I used to be one of those students.

Urban farming is promoted to be sustainable, a green solution for the food problem. Giving back the land that is now used for the building, is one of those reason students use all the time, but is urban farming always the solution. This column will elaborate on some pros and cons of urban farming, and perhaps form a guideline of subjects to be researched for future projects.

One of the most heard arguments students give for urban farming is the possible added food production [1] On all these now unused square meters food can be produced; which means there’s a big potential to increase the production capability. This is true, there are a lot of square meters ready to be used, but only so much can be produced on these areas. Fruits and vegetables is most often the chosen food, but what about grains, meat, oils and other dairy products? It’s highly unlikely one will produce its own milk, by letting a cow live on top of one’s roof (but yes it could be done)

Another argument students often use to justify the implementation of urban farming in their designs is locally produced food. ‘You are what you eat,’ [2] is one of those lines. Yes, it’s true that if you produce or grow your own fruits and vegetables on your roof or garden you are the one that’s deciding on which pesticides will be used, but people often forget that the soil used for this (especially when using the garden) production of food can already be polluted. Cars and paint can influence the quality of the soil and if not noticed up front, foods grown on this soil can be poisonous [1]. Going back to the animal farming, one’s neighbour might have this, but you cannot guarantee what these animals are fed [2].

Urban farming is also often promoted as a way to create extra jobs and income [2], and even though the production can be quite large is done collectively, this is often not the case. Right now urban farming is an activity only small communities or individuals partake in. One could sell these grown fruits or vegetables to one’s neighbour, or go to a local market and sell it there, but this doesn’t weigh up against the mass production of the professional farmers. Mass produced products are often less expensive, which means it could be difficult to generate an income from one’s own food production. Besides farming for personal consumption, now the incentive of possible income lacks which could mean a lower engagement of the people.

With these examples, I hope to show that urban farming might not always be the solution one thinks it could be. What I’ve experienced until now is that the question ‘why?’ regarding the implementation of a green roof or façade is often answered by ‘urban farming’, no further questions asked. But isn’t this weird? I’m not saying urban farming isn’t an option at all, I just believe to justify the implementation of this in a design project more research needs to be done; more questions need to be asked by both the tutor as the student.

[1] Seeds in the city

[2] Pros and cons of urban agiculture
Do men think sustainable development has cooties?

Anne van loenen

A few days ago, while taking a break from work, I stumbled upon the story of one blogger. While dreaming of their hypothetical future house, they went to take a look at solar panels to reduce their energy use. They were in the middle of Home Depot, when suddenly one guy decided it was his job to loudly interrupt them, and tell the blogger that clearly, fossil fuels are the masculine option for energy, which means that renewable energy is feminine. And if this blogger didn’t want to end up having some sissy girly house, they should get a gas-powered generator instead [1]. Fortunately, this blogger reacted with baffled incomprehension at this ridiculous idea, and didn’t seem to discouraged from getting solar panels as soon as they have the time and money to actually buy a house.

However, it was an interesting insight into a point of view I had never imagined before, that there were in fact people (often men, probably conservatives) who did not like renewable energy simply because we as humans decided to assign a female gender to it. Of course humans have always assigned genders to objects. The sea is a cruel mistress, cars are Betsy, Baby or Bertha (more women name their cars than men, and are also more likely to associate them with a female gender [2]). The German language, as well as many others, even assigns a grammatical gender to every noun. So the fact that sustainable and renewable energy has a ‘gender identity’ is not weird or the problem. What is the problem is that some people see one of these genders as lesser. If you believe that one gender has nothing to offer, then by extension everything connected with that gender is also untrustworthy.

And I am not the only one who has noticed this split. A simple google search will lead you to publications such as ‘Gender Equality and Sustainable development’ [3], ‘Gender and Sustainability: Lessons from Asia and Latin America’[4] or ‘Are women the key to Sustainable Development?’ [5].

Gender inequality has in fact been linked to achieving sustainable development in all of these publications. Getting both men and women involved doubles the number of minds who can work on the complicated problem of sustainable development, and women do have a lot to bring to the table here.

But the main goal of this story was to make people aware that men like this exist, good ol’ boys who seem to believe that anything connected to femininity is circumspect, and diminishes their masculinity, which means they should avoid it. Even if the only connection that can be found is through the weird twists of our language’s grammatical system. And while it’s rare to meet a man like that in Home Depot, they still exist, and I wonder how many anti-sustainable lobbyists and politicians and anyone else, indeed feels this way, even subconsciously. What does this tell us about those places where sustainable development has not managed to get a foothold yet, and how can this help us in the battle for sustainability?

[1] bibliophile20.tumblr.com. (2015). Gender Binary. Retrieved November 25th,, 2015, from
     http://bibliophile20.tumblr.com/post/132363312576/you-know-how-the-gender-binary-
   is-so-strong-that

[2] The Automobile Association. (2014). The most popular car names Retrieved November
     26th, 2015, from https://www.theaa.com/newsroom/news-2014/most-popular-
     car-names.html

[3] United Nations Women. (2014). Gender Equality and Sustainable Development. United
     Nations publication: United Nations.

[4] Cruz-Torres, M. L., & McElwee, P. (2012). Gender and Sustainability: Lessons from Asia
     and Latin America: University of Arizona Press.

[5] Stevens, C. (2014). Are Women the Key to Sustainable Development? Sustainable
     Development Insights.

[image] Shaffer, D. (2014). N.D. oil production tops 1 million-barrels-a-day milestone,
    StarTribune. Retrieved from http://www.startribune.com/n-d-oil-production-tops-1-
    million-barrels-a-day-milestone/263507621/
What to do in Limburg

Kimberley Roelvink

Last week I was buzzy with a sustainable landscape redesign in Limburg. I was looking for solutions on the site groenblauwenetwerken.nl, this website consists out an overview of all sustainable measurements with topics like water, heat, green, air, energy and economics.

Here in the lowlands, water maintaining and storage are a large problem. Next to this, in the "randstad" there is a lack of green. So, we learn to design with these problems. I made an idea, where some parts of the road were translated into a wadi, so the rainwater is collecting for in the summer. Luckily, my boyfriend is a gardener and he asked me how did you want to do that?

He was explaining that different types of the underground have other specific characteristics. Apparently, all options which are in groenblauwenetwerken been made for clay or sand. Kerkrade probably builds on loam; naturally no water infiltration is possible, so the water will rise and wash away the substrate. So, now the question, would it be possible to build a wadi or other natural water collecting system on this location? Will the water stay and rise until the limit or will all the water spoil away and make the wadi steeper until the 0 level which is -50m?

It could be possible that the upper layer exists out of clay laying on top of the peat. The clay forms a hard layer but is not that thick. So, by spadework the underlayers are hit. Here arise the next problem. By placing the wadi, the water will reach the peat. Peat is like a sponge, in very wet periods, the layer will bulge and the total surrounding rise up, including houses, streets etc. In drought periods the peat shrink, the surroundings become hollow. The effect is that the road, houses are lower. The effect results in subsidence of houses, streets sewer and piping.

Google didn't find the answer on this particular problem, many I didn't use the write searching words. So the next step is to call a gardener in Limburg and explain this problem to find a solution. Maby they have other problems with other undergrounds, or they have other solutions.
Riding a bicycle: act of courage or joyful choice?

Graciela Nava Guerrero

Montserrat Paredes Alva, 21 years old in 2015, was riding a public bicycle in Mexico City when a bus ran over her and ended her life. About a year before, Gerardo Pedroza died in similar conditions and only two days after Montserrat’s accident, three fellow cyclist in the city would cheat death, but only by inches.

Ironically, Montserrat and Gerardo were driving bikes that were part of a public program that aims at achieving a more sustainable mobility system. The program had been in place for about 5 years and had enabled about 21 million bike trips in the city. Before their accidents, the program’s beautiful red bikes had given some of the trendiest neighborhoods an air that reminded of Paris, Brussels or London, all of them cities with their own public bike systems.

The tragic deaths of Montserrat and Gerardo are a heart-piercing reminder that sustainable transitions cannot be achieved by technological means alone. Neither bikes nor bike-only lanes can turn around an unsustainable mobility system on their own.

Instead, sustainability transitions need to go beyond technology. They need to consider the people who might use that technology, the way in which they might use it, the interactions that they might have with other people and the rules that might be necessary to make the system work. In the case of Mexico City’s public bike’s system, for instance, technology was not a problem. Some citizens were willing to turn around the mobility system (citizens who need transportation and were willing to ride a bicycle) and those citizens were interacting with “sustainable” instruments (the bicycles or the lanes). However, they were not the only ones interacting with the technology. Bus and car drivers, pedestrians and other cyclists were also part of the equation; so were behaviors such as respecting (or not) an exclusive lane or giving cyclists enough (or too little) space to prevent an accident if they happen to fall off their bike.

Unfortunately, traffic accidents involving cyclists seem to be a global issue. Although number and frequency may vary greatly depending on the country, casualties occur all over the world, from Denmark to Germany, Canada or Austria. For instance, projects such as Ghost Bike keep record and memory of cyclists’ deaths in more than 25 countries, including more than a dozen European nations (interestingly, by November 30, 2015, the website did not have one single record from the Netherlands, a country where bicycles are mainstream).

Ghost Bike and many other projects remind us that mobility systems are in urgent need for change, and many actors are already aware of it. In Mexico, for instance, collectives such as Bicitekas and Gdl en Bici are trying to promote a culture of respect towards non-motorized vehicle users as well as pedestrians. Likewise, citizen groups such as Ciudad para Todos have proposed visions and pathways to reach a better mobility system. In other places, such as the United Kingdom, citizens are also mobilizing to reduce the number of future casualties to zero. Nonetheless, we still have a long path ahead of us.

When designing sustainability goals and pathways, we should keep in mind that the first steps for the transition might not be the obvious ones. Making bicycles available does not necessarily make the mobility system more sustainable. As long as severe bike accidents and cyclists’ fatalities continue to happen, a public bike system will not add up to a city’s sustainability. In Mexico City, as in many other cities, riding a bicycle should no longer be an act of courage, it should be a joyful choice.
Seen in London: Turing trash into trophies

waste

Eline Degenaar

As a future architect and sustainable engineer it is important to position myself in the current architectural debate. There are several roles to play, roles that are influenced by many different factors on the fields of political preference, economical position and cultural background. Last week I organized an excursion for the Msc students of Architecture to London where we visited several players in the field. The 'big-money' seems to dominate London at this time, but at the same time London is a forerunner in the so-called maker-movement in which small local initiatives emerge from society, implemented by the citizens themselves. These citizens are supported or activated by an intermediary that creates public engagement by launching projects via social media and face-to-face advertisement. Since the projects aim to uncover problems as gentrification in certain neighbourhoods social acceptance is easily created.

On of the firms we visited was ‘Assemble Studios’ . Trough collective action they have found ways to create new places, which are delightful, inventive, relevant and function as a incubator for new social relations between people. As radicals they fight against the ‘big-money’ that destroys communities and leaves no space left for public meeting places. With their temporary constructions they aim to bring people together and create fruitful relations and awareness. Their constructions are mostly built out of recycled materials since it is their aim to work with local materials.

For example the OTO workshop and performance space for experimental music: the building occupies a formerly discuses site and is made of demolition rubble found there. ‘Like the traditional London stock brick of the nineteenth century, the construction method is based on utilizing resources that are readily available locally at little or no material cost. The earth, rubble and gravel on the otherwise empty site was gathered, sieved, bagged and compressed: transformed from waste into giant building blocks.’ (Official website). When the building is no longer needed the material can just easily be given back to the earth were it came from.

Using waste as a valuable resource, discussed in my previous column, is seen more and more as a profitable strategy. It is likely that from a demands perspective, the trend will always move towards materials with a good closed-loop story that consumers can relate to. Discovering this working method in the nowadays practise of London was very inspiring and makes me want to start right away with turning valueless material in something that adds new levels of meaning and value. Turing trash into trophies!
Impossibility of transformation without data

Karolina Dvorakova
International treaties or national policies are pushing the municipalities to become more sustainable and energy efficient. The well-known European 20-20-20 energy targets (20% lower CO₂ emissions, 20% more energy from renewables and 20% decrease in energy demand) or other target force European municipalities to create city strategies and visions where they should address the issue of their energy efficiency. Just to give an example, already 6.630 signatories have joined the Covenant of Mayors, a movement involving authorities, that voluntary commit to energy efficiency and through the submitted strategies promise to comply with previously mentioned 20-20-20 objectives. What is important to note is that to be able to come up with a thoughtful decisions, which is eventually turned into a well-stated sustainability policy document, reliable basis information is needed: the data.

As being involved in a project called TRANSFORM, a European funded program developing agendas for low carbon cities, I gained insight in policy making of several European cities, each of them in a very different context: Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Genoa, Hamburg, Vienna and Lyon. During the project, which ended in July 2015, it became crystal clear that most of the cities do not have a trustworthy overview of their energy system(s). The data, which some cities couldn’t access, functions as a baseline giving stakeholders, policy makers and citizens insights into their energy consumption. In order to start working on the future solutions, the energy data needed to be collected and clearly visualized on the map of each city. Without exaggeration it is possible to state that data is a starting point of any energy transformation.

In TRANSFORM we discovered that it is much more difficult to get a hold on energy (or any other) data than we would ever imagined. Cities and/or energy companies possess a lot of data, but making them open and available for the project or for the public turned out to be an extremely difficult task. The city of Amsterdam shows itself as exceptional in this matter by having the majority of data (far behind the scope of only energy) openly shared online on maps.amsterdam.nl. The part of the project regarding energy is called Energy Atlas and from the TRANSFORM cities has been gradually adopted also by Hamburg. Unfortunately the other cities have lacked behind.

The trouble with gathering and openly sharing the data is mostly a policy issue and the regulations of involved parties (mostly energy providers) are the main obstacle in the way. Some energy providers are reluctant to share the energy data of their customers, because:
- They believe it invades customers’ privacy.
- They do not own the data.
- They intentionally do not share the data due to their internal regulations, being afraid of loosing the competitive advantage and privileged position on the market.
- The data is information, which might be used for new business and thus is valuable.
- It is not clear, who should pay for gathering and maintenance of the data.
On the other hand, some energy providers as Alliander see sharing the data as an opportunity for new business cases. The data knowledge may trigger startup companies to come up with ideas, which are through collaboration and financial support further developed under Alliander itself. Thus creating win-win situation.

Such obstacle of open data could be only overcome by establishing a dialogue between the involved parties: municipalities, energy providers and citizens. Only then the city is able to define its problem statement in which it bases its energy strategy and make a step further towards a more sustainable and smart city.

References:

Covenant of Mayors http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/index_en.html
Maps Amsterdam http://maps.amsterdam.nl
TRANSFORM project http://urbantransform.eu
The Afsluitdijk & Blue Energy

Judith Stegeman

The Afsluitdijk is the porch to my hometown. It is so familiar to me that for me it is one of the characteristics of the Netherlands and of being home. In order to travel by car from Delft or other places to my hometown Leeuwarden most of the times we have to travel via the Afsluitdijk. Whenever I see the Afsluitdijk I know home isn’t that far away. My father even had to travel this route from Leeuwarden to Den Helder every working day via the 32 km of the Afsluitdijk.

But the Afsluitdijk is not only familiar to me. Holland is known worldwide for its innovative creation of cultural landscape and its dealing with water. The Afsluitdijk is part of this tradition. The Afsluitdijk, designed by Lely and built in 1932, combines both a water embankment and a road connecting the provinces of Noord-Holland and Friesland.

Nowadays this worldwide known infrastructural object will be used for the next technology, that of Blue Energy. But still the Netherlands are lacking behind by becoming energy neutral and dealing with the climate change.

Can blue energy be the future of the Netherlands? Will this be combined with our great water technical innovations? Will we someday be known for our innovative water energy concept? Can the characteristics of the Netherlands be used and emphasized in this way? Will it also be the pride of the people of the Netherlands? Will we be as familiar with blue energy as with the Afsluitdijk itself?

In 2007 and 2008 elections were held by Rijkswaterstaat, the water agency, to develop a vision about the future of the Afsluitdijk[i], as it needs renovation. Because the Afsluitdijk is a well-known characteristic for the Netherlands and its citizens, it is important to give the Afsluitdijk a future role so that the importance of the Afsluitdijk is being kept and maintained.

The Afsluitdijk can play a future key role in making the Netherlands more sustainable as it can be used for blue energy. Blue energy is to obtain energy from the difference in salt density between salt water and fresh water. At this moment is being experimented with this technology in Breezanddijk, situated at the Afsluitdijk[ii]. The Afsluitdijk is the ultimate location to do so as the fresh water from the Ijsselmeer and the salt water from the Waddenzee can be used.

The Netherlands has always been known for the fight with the water. Last years this strategy has been turned into working with the water(ii). The Netherlands are being asked for advice in other countries to help them working out this strategy because of its knowledge. Working with water is what characterises the Netherlands at the moment. Blue energy is also about working with the water as energy is created by using the water for the right purposes. By improving this technology the knowledge of this system will grow and the Netherlands will be asked for advice in this case.

When this technology is applied and implemented in Holland, we will be known worldwide for this system. The citizens will become proud of this. But is important to make the system visible and accessible for them, just like is the case with the Afsluitdijk. When it becomes visible and accessible it becomes more evident.

But implementing this system might take a while. Already in the 1970’s this technology of Blue Energy has been known of, but experimenting with it took some time. Small experiments have been done by Wetsus, European centre for water technology[iii], and Frisia Zout, European salt company[iv], which had positive results. At this moment in the test setup in Breezanddijk the Blue Energy technology is being worked with in real circumstances. Afterwards an increase in scale will be performed by a demonstration installation. This makes the technology more accessible. I am looking forward to that as the experiments with Blue Energy are not visible at the moment. I know something is going to happen but it is not clear to me yet.

As the Netherlands offer the ultimate location for testing and using Blue Energy and combine this technology with the already famous characteristic the Afsluitdijk, we might also become famous for this new technology. By handling the climate change this is a good solution, which makes use of the cultural, created circumstances where the Netherlands is known for already. By making this technology visible and accessible for both citizens and tourists people will become familiar with it. Blue Energy will at least be the future of the Afsluitdijk itself.

[i] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afsluitdijk

[ii] http://www.deafsluitdijk.nl/projecten/blue-energy/

[iii] https://www.wetsus.nl/home/what-is-wetsus

[iv] http://www.esco-salt.com/frisiazout.html?&L=4
Playing for money at COP21

Joey Wagemans

This week the COP21 event takes place in Paris. Over 150 countries are together to talk about how to save the planet and at what price.

“After years of excess and willful ignorance, the climate bill has finally come due. Who will pay? Right now, it is being paid by the poorest and the most vulnerable. Small Island Communities pay in the droughts that destroy livelihoods and the record cyclones that steal lives. We see a small toll exacted every day as our shorelines are slowly eroded. Larger payments are made when the foundation of our marine ecosystems are bleached away.”

Thus spoke the president of the island state Naura, Baron Waqa, at the COP21/CMP 11 world leaders event in Paris this Monday, an event with more than 150 countries participating to talk about the climate change. Not everybody was convinced. Mohammed VI, king of Morocco, rather just points fingers at rich countries and is not done playing for money: “Is it fair to advocate frugality when one already has everything?" But when one has little, is it a crime against the planet to want more?”

At the start of the COP21 event, president Obama announced, along with Bill Gates, a new plan: investing millions in researching clean energy. A total of 28 investors, including Facebook inventor Mark Zuckerberg, will invest a total of 10 million dollars each year into this research and they hope to double this amount within 5 years.

These ideas may sound great, but perhaps these politicians and CEO’s are two steps behind engineers. The technology is already here, there are just socio-technological boundaries that need to be crossed. Throwing money at it could make the process go faster, but the end product will just be a commercial shadow of what we already have, a solar panel running on Windows 10 or a wind turbine with Facebook connection.

I’m not writing this column just for bad talking big commercial companies. It’s more matter of the amount and type of players. The COP21 event has over 150 countries taking part and not all of them have the best intentions, as we can see from Mohammed VI. The same goes for these 28 investors of clean energy research. Perhaps, before we all start to shake hands to achieve this great goal, we need to set up certain rules of playing the game. One player might take the money and run, leaving the rest of us behind on a dying planet. I do hope they understand this in Paris. If you want to be 100% clean, you also need to play the game 100% fair.
Global agreement by COP21

governance, energy, justice, Responsibility

Marlien Sneller

The yearly United Nations conference on climate change started last Monday and will last 11 days. During this international policy event, the 21^st Conference of Parties (COP21) takes place, in which all parties gather from the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Outcome

The desired outcome of the COP21 is a new international agreement on how to keep the effects of climate change on the global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. This has been agreed on in 2011. A special working group ADP has been created which is responsible to ‘produce a new “protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force”’. The new agreement is a follow-up for the successful Kyoto Protocol which ended in 2012.

INDC

Before the start of COP21, all participating countries should have proposed their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) to the UN on how to reduce CO2 emissions in their country. As the name says, these proposals are intentions and therefore not legally binding. However, the World Resources Institute explain that INDCs serve as a foundation for the 2015 climate agreement.

COP21

In the past year, the UNFCCC has written a draft agreement, serving as content for discussion in Paris. During pre-COP, from 8 to 10 November in Paris, four themes have been discussed: ambition, fairness, post-2020 financing and pre-2020.

Criteria for the agreement include being ‘universal, concluded by all and applicable to all countries’. Since all countries have to agree, Tinus Pulles, a retired environmental scientist who is reviewer for the UNFCCC review process, expects the commitment of the final agreement to be low. For the same reasons, he is skeptical whether the agreement will be legally binding.

It is extremely difficult to make an international agreement ambitious and legally binding.

The criteria to make a universal agreement also has advantages, because all countries support it. Regarding promises to take action, the argument ‘my neighbor does not take action either’ becomes invalid. Unfortunately, it is uncertain whether the agreement will be legally binding. If not, the above excuse can be used.

Challenging

To conclude, everybody knows we should come into action against climate change. Global agreements can make a significant contribution to stimulate this action. However, it is immensely challenging to make an agreement with 195 countries about a topic that is considered to limit the economy. Nobody knows what the outcome of COP21 will be..

To be continued

Source: Unless otherwise stated, all facts were found at www.cop21.gouv.fr on November 30th, 2015.
Green roofs surrounded by barriers

Menno Schokker

The aim of a paper I wrote a year ago was to scrutinize the barriers for establishing widespread green roofs (GR) in the USA, Australia, Hong Kong and Belgium and to look for similarities. In this way, one gets a start of an overview of the global situation. After having researched several papers and/or reports about barriers concerning widespread applicability of green roofs or green development in the various countries, I identified the barriers and proposed some recommendations. It will be good to share.

The main barrier for every country, no matter how (un)developed in GR widespread development, is of financial nature. Applying a green roof is still not financially attractive enough, because of various reasons. Even in countries where widespread GR technology is relatively well developed, to make it possible the government still needs to subsidize GR development and make it mandatory through policy measures. A second main barrier seems to be of a knowledge and cultural nature: a lack of knowledge of GR benefits results in a lack of urgency and awareness for widespread GRs in both the public and private sector. This barrier however, only seems to apply to the less well developed countries (in terms of widespread GRs), such as the USA, Hong Kong and Australia. One could say that, globally speaking, the highest result with the same means would come from tackling the cultural and knowledge barrier, before moving on to detailed financial aspects.

Hopefully such a paper with its result and conclusion shows the use of having an international overview. Five countries with just two papers as a source each is clearly too few; more elaborate studies of more countries is needed, including relatively successful countries such as Germany and North European countries. When an elaborate international overview of barriers is in place, one can more efficiently look for global and local solutions.
TIPS TO GO GREEN (part_2)

Antonia Kalatha
Now that we cut down our needs and bought less products -or at least less non-useful products- it’s time to take a more critical step on waste prevention by focusing on reusing and recycling.

The main idea of “reusing” is to keep new resources from being used for a while longer and old resources from entering the waste stream. It does not only include conventional reuse, where the item is used again for the same function, but it also gets a creative form when the same product is used for a different function. How can it be achieved? Before recycling or getting rid of anything, consider whether it can be of any use again. Starting from the household waste, there are several easy tips that can be followed.
- Switch from disposable to reusable products (i.e. food and beverage containers, cups, plates, writing pens, batteries, razors, towels, shopping bags, etc.)
- Create your own decorative items and toys. With a little bit of imagination and a little bit of time old items can be transformed to new decorative accessories for the house, festive decoration for the annual holidays or toys for the children.
- Donate (and buy used) (i.e.household items - clothes, furniture, dishes, books, sports equipment, magazines, appliances, electronics, business attire, wedding attire, etc.)
- Compost and make your own natural fertilizers. Transform your kitchen and garden waste into a valuable and nutrient rich food for your garden.
- Share: Join in with neighbors to purchase infrequently used products such as lawn mowers, ladders, etc.
- Repair everything that is broken. Before buying new items, think if you can just upgrade or repair those that you already have. Any electrical equipment can be repaired, a computer can be upgraded, and a car can be resold.
“Recycling” is the "R" that has caught on the best. Partly, this is because there are so many curbside recycling programs today, which makes recycling so darned easy. It differs from reuse in that it breaks down the item into raw materials which are then used to make new items, as opposed to reusing the intact item. How to recycle?
- Use recycling bins for each type of recycled product and place them in convenient locations in your home/garage.
- Find out where you can recycle the following locally and close to your house: glass, paper products, plastic grocery bags (better yet - use cloth bags), plastic,aluminum, cardboard, batteries, tin cans, scrap metal, motor oil (one quart of oil can kill fish in thousands of gallons of water), ink cartridges, household appliances such as refrigerators, computer equipment and other electronic devices, aseptic packaging (square boxes used for liquids), tires
- Recycle produce label. Fruit and vegetable labels can be recycled by sticking them on a recycleable plastic container.
- Use “green” paper. In general, try to buy products/containers made from recycled material as often as possible to support the recycled product market. When purchasing paper products (toilet paper, etc.), look for paper that has been recycled using a minimum of 50% post-consumer waste. Also, purchase from companies that do not use chlorine to bleach their paper products
- Minimize the hazardous waste of your household. The other key aspect of dealing with waste effectively is to dispose of toxic products at a hazardous waste facility. Products requiring special handling include:
- Building Materials-paint, varnish, paint thinner, solvents, rust remover, wood preservatives and driveway sealer
- Automotive products-gasoline, transmission oil, brake fluid, kerosene, charcoal lighter fluid, power steering fluid, used motor oil, used oil filters, used antifreeze
- Household cleaners-spot removers, rug cleaners, metal cleaners, bathroom cleaners, oven cleaner, drain cleaner
- Pesticides-insect killers, weed killers, flea products, moth crystals, fertilizers with weed killer
- Miscellaneous-photographic chemicals, acids and corrosive chemicals, pool chemicals, compact fluorescent light bulbs (mercury), Ni-Cd batteries
References

http://www.nrdc.org/thisgreenlife/0802.asp

Images' source: http://beautyharmonylife.com/25-diy-ideas-to-recycle-your-potential-garbage/
Do we need a ‘massive Ebola’?

Kajan Kort

Have we surpassed the maximum inhabitants this world can sustain on a long term? Do we need to opt for an epidemic?

Last week I was triggered to search for the facts in the discussion about the current human population on our planet. With unprecedented population size and population growth, it is an important matter to investigate the limits of our world. Do we need to seriously start worrying about our population growth? Did we already surpass the maximum sustainable population size? And if so, what is then the estimated maximum population? And finally, does the world need a ´Massive Ebola’ to get rid of its excess inhabitants?

According to Wikipedia[1], the definition of overpopulation is when the number of individuals of a species is bigger than the maximum carrying capacity. The maximum carrying capacity can be simplified to the maximum number of mouths a region can feed. But this would severely underestimate the complexity of the topic, as the maximum carrying capacity is by far not only dependent on the maximum amount of food available. Other resources can act directly and indirectly as a constraint on the carrying capacity as well, for example fresh water, biologically accessible nitrogen, soil, minerals, etc.[2] Next to that, the maximum carrying capacity can also be dependent on time, since we are able to use energy from the past (fossil) and make all kinds of products with it to increase the carrying capacity temporarily. It should not be misunderstood that nowadays the maximum carrying capacity of a region can be way higher than the ‘natural’ carrying capacity of that same region. Of course it is silly to not take into account that we all share one planet with the whole human population. Eventually, we are forced to respect this natural carrying capacity of the earth. Once we exceed this capacity, our population would (partially) starve and decrease until the number of population reaches a sustainable number again.

So to be concise, let’s try to take a look in how many seats the world has to offer us. There are different ways of calculating the maximum human carrying capacity of the world, all with different outcomes. Without hard numbers it is hard to address the problem effectively. One of the vital parameters to the survival of humans is access to fresh water. We could divide the total amount of renewed fresh water per time period by the amount of water an average human uses in that same time period. Same can be done with food, but food production is related to the availability of fresh water and other resources as well. Different studies have used different methods leading to different results. The intertwining of parameters and the uncertainty in the further development of technologies makes it a rather slippery terrain. Still some hard numbers can be found in literature; the result of a meta-analysis of almost 70 studies led to a best point estimate maximum carrying capacity of 7.7 billion humans, the lower and upper bounds be 0,65 billion and 98 billion, respectively.[3]

What does it mean when the United Nations project the human population to reach 9,3 billion in 2050 and 10.1 billion in 2100?[4] Are we close to entering a zone where limits of the carrying capacity on earth may be encountered? It is safe to answer confirmative on this question, as those projections lie significantly above the best point estimate of 7.7 billion in the meta-analysis of Van Den Bergh (2004). The prospect will not be pleasant at all, as thousands of people would be forced to move as economic, warfare of environmental refugees. Thousands would starve and suffer malnutrition, not to speak of the possible effect of water shortages and poisoning. But wait, is this not already happening?

Is it the rotten economic model we adapted in our modern world or is it the approaching human carrying capacity of the host planet leading to the millions suffering from basal problems today? Can we not provide clean water, electricity and food to the poorest of sub-Saharan Africa (for example) because those resources aren’t available sufficiently? Or because ‘they’ cannot pay for it but ‘we’ can? Can it be true that in a world with enormous economic and wealth inequality the maximum carrying capacity is reached? Let me be clear on this: personally I do sincerely believe that population growth should be slowed down, stopped and preferably reversed in the coming years. To opt for more babies in a house that isn’t remodeled yet sounds like a bad plan to me. But it is not the Earth's maximum carrying capacity that causes millions to suffer from the lack of basic human needs, it is the way how we design our economy. This is the house we live in.

Remodeling the metaphorical house would in my eyes mean: transform all processes where resources are involved from linear models to circular models. If done right, the only resource that should be added constantly is energy. And guess what, we do have a pretty nice source of renewable energy for the coming 5 billion years: the sun. A short calculation with the corrected and average energy budget of 240W/m² and the average disk surface of the earth leads to a total irradiance on the total surface of 3,06*10¹⁶W. In the case that we are able to cover 5% of the planet with technologies that harvest 5% of the energy available with a human population of 10 billion people, we would have 7650W available per person. This is a number that can be compared to the TOTAL energy use of a European citizen nowadays (6000W). [5] With other words, using these assumptions, it is possible for 10 billion people to live on this planet with the life standards of modern European citizens.

The house needs to be remodeled before more people can move in, or the house will collapse. To opt for an epidemic will not cure the decease that prevails, how ironic and ambiguous that may sound. A sudden decrease of human population will just lead to a moratorium on execution, namely an insurmountable mismatch between human needs and planets gifts. We don’t need a ´Massive Ebola’. We need a complete and ruthless transition towards circular economies driven by renewable energy.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation, visited on 1-12-15

[2] Cohen, Joel E., (1995). “Population growth and Earth’s Human Carrying Capacity”, Science, New Series, Vol 269, No. 5222, 341-346.

[3] Van Den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M.; Rietveld, Piet (2004). "Reconsidering the Limits to World Population: Meta-analysis and Meta-prediction". BioScience 54 (3): 195.

[4]"World Population Prospects:The 2010 Revision Press Release" (PDF). Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat. May 2011.

[5]http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/you-are-entitled-to-2000-watts-use-them-wisely-updated.html, visited on 2-12-2015

Ryerson, W. F. (2010). "Population, The Multiplier of Everything Else". In McKibben, D. The Post Carbon Reader: Managing the 21st Century Sustainability Crisis. Watershed Media
Souvenir vs plakkies

Hanna Van der Ploeg

A travel through South-Africa shows contrasts in landscape and city areas, but also in people, cultural habits and religion. Educated people living in cities and following luxury lifestyles, live almost like western people, while some other people staying at the countryside, are still living by the old traditions and religions. Innovations are set up and developed in cities, but does the inspiration also comes from these areas? The creativity and ideas of the people living at the countryside inspire the business market in the Johannesburg or Cape town. African fabrics are used for many different garments, traditional music is recorded and available online, recycled tires, plastics or thatch is used for souvenirs. Arriving back home from a travel through South-Africa, people wear flip-flops made out of thatch and collared African scarves. Unfortunately, a few weeks later the memorable feeling of the special experience in South-Africa is shrinking more and more and meanwhile the souvenirs got broken. At that time the Plakkies flip-flops pop up in the Beienkorf. How do African traditions got implemented in mass production? And what made the innovation of the Plakkie so strong?

An impression of good life arrives by the idea of African villages where women are weaving together, preparing and eating food with their families and where people are making music. Tradition is guiding them in daily life. Even though this seems to be relaxing, these cultures have their worries as well. Parents are concerning about money for themselves and their children. Since the last couple of years, the mobility of people has increased and the popularity of travelling expanded. Western travellers are making organised trips with 'local' guides who show them the insights of the country in a few days. To give the Western travellers a satisfied feeling about 'having seen the whole country', countryside visits are inclusive the trip. Western travellers are eating and dancing together with the African locals and get a 'real impression' of a normal day on the countryside. African locals are just trying to accept this interesting hype, but they are playing a smart role in it as well. Locals take the chance to make money out of it. The traditional products that are used in daily life, the creative work arts, fabric and the spices are wanted by tourists. This are the products tourist want to take home, to have a touchable memory and something to give or show others at home. At this local level people earn money out of selling this stuff. The quality of the products is not like the Western quality people are used to. So the memorable product don't last long.

A few years ago a Dutch TU Delft student came up with the idea to develop a flip-flop fabric in South-Africa. His aim was to create structural employment with it, in one of the lowest social and economical areas of the country. His vision was that it was important to build up a corporation within a production of high standard quality products. Plakkies offers good working conditions to their workers and a salary that is enough for himself and 10 others. The sales of traditional products for the Western world is taken away from the countryside. The locals are still playing a role in this business model. Designs of patterns are made by the people where it originally comes from. Furthermore Plakkies doesn't take advantage of the natural resources of the areas. The Plakkie makes use of the old car tires, which were burned before and only delivered toxic gasses. Finally the produced flip-flop got transported to Europe where it got sold in warehouses, and where it gives Western people using it the feeling of, sustainability, travelling and concerning about the world and other cultures. This seems to be ít, what made it a good innovation.

The integration and corporation of regime and nice seems the be the factor that well-formed innovation. The small niche segment where ideas could be found and experimented, are working together with higher regimes that support the growth of ideas and products. Locally designed flip-flops made out of thatch did end up in mass produced flip-flops following the originally concept, where all the different levels were working together. That made the Plakkie innovation so strong.
Sustainable Clothing

Janne de Hoop

What is the status of clothing and is it easy to change this?

Next to Engineering for Sustainable Development I am also following another course with sustainability as the main topic, it is called Strategic Sustainable Design. For this course we have to interview people from a company. This company, or case, has to have something to do with sustainability. This week we interviewed Anneke. One of the things we asked her is how the companies vision (working towards a blue economy) also influences her private life. This related in a conversation totally of topic for the project but for me personally very interesting. Things she did to achieve a sustainable way of living where for example reducing waste by bringing your own bag to the market. Something I am also doing as much as possible. But apart from the things I also do she took it a level further. Because of her interest in clothing she started looking at different ways of producing clothing and kinds of clothing. The things she was wearing at the time of the interview were: a t-shirt made of biological cotton, a jacket made by herself also of biological cotton and pants with a special coating to make it unnecessary to wash it (she has been using it for approximately 6 months now without washing).

This made me think about my own clothing. At this moment I am wearing clothes I ordered online, made in China and with an unknown kind of cotton. I immediately feel guilty about the clothes I am wearing, so I started looking for sustainable clothes. The websites I found were not only trying to get rid of their dull (geitenwollen sokken) image, they even advertised with it. I found a rating system for clothing brands (check.goedewaar.nl and rankabrand.nl) You can choose for popular brands, or all brands. From the popular brands I found out that H&M is actually on the top. Since I was convinced that H&M must be really bad because of their low prices, this really surprised me. At check.goedewaar.nl they use three factors to rate a company: social (no child labor), ecological (no pollution) and economical (fair prices). Especially on social H&M higher their score, while ecological and economical are actually not that heigh. It does prove that creating awareness helps for a company like H&M to shift into a more sustainable way of producing clothing, but in this case their is still a lot of improvement possible After looking at the popular brands I looked up a company of which I know of is sustainable: Kuyichi. I was happy to see that they scored higher than H&M, but they have their high score because of ecological sustainability. Considering economical they actually scored really low, so also for them there are still a lot of things to improve from a sustainable point of view, while this is a company that advertises themselves as a sustainable clothing brand.

In the interview Anneke told us she looks at it this way: paying for a product is like voting for that company or kind of product. So every time you buy something you vote. In the future I am going to vote differently, when voting I will try to vote for as much sustainable clothing as I can. Although I have to look a little more into the sustainability of brands that I can find at stores instead of only online, I really want to be more considerate about my clothing. The only problem left though is the price of sustainable clothing, to be able to buy them I will have to save some money, which also causes me to buy less clothes. Maybe that last thing is already a good incentive, buying less clothes definitely saves energy and materials.
Recycling – Upcycling, Repurpose or Downcycling

Rafael Silveira

The term recycling is already very common in the sustainability and general dialogues, however it is important to pay attention to its meaning and the ways that materials are recycled.

To recycle means, according to the Oxford dictionary [1], to “Convert (waste) into reusable material” or to “Use again”; if we analyze the word it means to put a material back into its cycle, more specifically its life cycle.

A life cycle of a material can be considered from its extraction until its disposal; a recyclable material can be reintroduced in its cycle and instead of being disposed it can be used again.

However, there are different ways to reuse materials, which can be divided in three main categories: repurpose, downcycling or upcycling. Their meaning is to either reuse the material as it is, or by removing value from it, or by adding value to it respectively.

To better understand each of the terms, it is interesting to see examples of each of them.

A very simple example that relates to all of the concepts can be the reuse of car or truck tires. In Brazil, the amount of waste produced by discarded tires is an issue, not only for environmental reason but also regarding public health (as the accumulated water on the tires may be incubators for mosquitoes [2]).

To repurpose a material, is to reuse the (waste) material in its original state, but to a different purpose. Regarding the tires example in the Brazilian context, this material can be repurposed by simply using it in contention walls [3-page 70], by filling it with earth creating a resistant and heavy barrier.

To downcycle is to use (waste) material in products of lesser quality or that avoid the reinsertion of the material in its original cycle. Again regarding the tires, another use for them that is commonly used in Brazil is as an aggregate in asphalt production [3 page]. The tires are triturated and then added to the asphalt composition. This process ends the life cycle of the tires, making them useless for future use.

Upcycling is to use (waste) material in a way that adds value to it, and that allows it to be repourposed, or downcycled or even upcycled again in the future. This is the most difficult alternative, but also the preferred one, as still allows for different future uses. One example regarding the tires is to make furniture using them, by overlaying other materials on top of it, it is possible to make usable furniture based on this product. This use still allows the two previous examples to happen in the future if necessary.

In conclusion, regarding recycling it should always be aimed to upcycle (waste) materials or products, allowing that they maintain their properties for future different uses; if not possible then repurposing should be the alternative, and when there is no other option (because of material quality or lack of feasible possibilities) it should be downcycled.

[1] Oxford Dictionary. Recycle.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/recycle

[2] ALVES, L. Water Crisis in Brazil May Have Led to Dengue Increase - http://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/rio-politics/water-crisis-in-brazil-may-have-led-to-dengue-increase/#

[3] Andrade, Hered de Souza. "Pneus inservíveis: alternativas possíveis de reutilização." (Insertible tires : possible alternatives to reuse) UFSC - Federal University of Santa Catarina (2014).
Learn from the Past: Sustainability features in Traditional Japanese Architecture

Alkistis Stergiani Kartsiou

I recently came across the intriguing pictures of a modern residence designed by a famous Japanese architect. Observing the interior spaces and being mostly interested in its architectural qualities, there was no strong evidence of sustainable practices in its design. Simplicity in both the form and in the interior arrangement of spaces, furniture and objects is the backbone of the architectural minimalism that characterizes a big amount of the modern design production anyway. Nevertheless, this residence seemed to have a much more interesting atmosphere than many others, mostly western, examples. A closer look made the reason obvious. It was the wise distribution of daylight all over its spaces, the functional arrangement of furniture so that every square meter would be exploited, the “measure” that seemed to rule every part of the design, its natural building materials and its relation to the surrounding natural environment that made it more attractive to the eye.

And indeed, these were some of the fundamental features of the traditional Japanese architecture that keep inspiring the modern creations and it may be difficult to realize at first, but they are all part of the same philosophy: the respectful relation between people or buildings and natural environment; in other words, the basis of the recently established term of “sustainability”.

Diving more into that realization, I made myself sure that there are undeniable features of sustainability evident in the traditional designs of Japanese architecture that either derive from certain cultural preferences or topographical conditions. Respect to the natural environment has been a core of the Japanese culture and religion, but it was also dictated by the limited space in the mountainous islands of the country.

This unique relationship of Japanese architecture with nature has been historically demonstrated through various aspects of traditional design such as the use of natural light, natural ventilation, material selection, flexibility of spaces or design of gardens.

Daylighting - Translucent or opaque sliding doors were used to filter out the sun according to its path throughout the day, creating shadowed areas in the room and allowing people to sit everywhere. Natural shading features such as deciduous trees or bushes planted around the house, rolled up reed blinds and latticed shutters were also utilized for the same purpose.
Natural ventilation - Air was allowed to flow naturally through the buildings by using corridors with skylights and high ceilings, thus controlling the interior climate during hot and humid summers.
Flexibility of spaces - The sliding doors were also contributing to the flexibility of spaces together with differences in the height ceilings.
Gardens - Even the ponds in their unique gardens were functioning as passive cooling mechanisms in dry seasons; a fact that they probably did not know back then.
Building methods - Reuse and recycling of any waste when the building was dismantled was always in Japanese people’s mind. For this reason a wood frame building system based upon easily dismantled wooden joints was developed and gained in beauty and efficiency over the centuries.
Material selection – Materials were chosen according not only to their abundance but also their climate assisting abilities. Wood, earth, clay or plaster absorb humidity in the wet months and release moisture when air is dry, maintaining a comfortable indoor environment.

Japanese architecture has to exhibit plenty more sustainable features which cannot be presented in a few paragraphs. But most importantly, such features are embedded in vernacular architectural styles all over the world; Greek vernacular architecture is another similar and different at the same time example. The bottom line however is the same: the wise building and design techniques of the past generations who lived in peace and balance with the environment could easily indicate the right way for contemporary sustainable architectural designs.

References

_{Angen, C. (2013). Concept and Technique: How Traditional Japanese Architecture can contribute to Contemporary Sustainable Design Practices.}

_{pictures:
Harada, Jirō. The lesson of japanese architecture. CT Branford Company, 1954.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Takamatsu-Castle-Building-Interior-M3488.jpg}
Moroccan hash for Europeans

Marti Valero Gispert

This last august, I was returning from a road trip in Morocco. We had been driving from Barcelona to the north-african country and travelled along its gorgeous and unexplored Atlantic coast for a month. The last day of the trip, we woke up in Fès: we had some hours of driving in front before getting to Ceuta, where we would take a ferry back to the peninsula.

In the middle of the journey, we entered the province of Ketama, in the Riff’s mountains. The roads were curvy and steep, surrounded by fir trees and growing fields letting see from time to time beautiful landscapes. Suddenly, we realized that one the fields had actually marijuana plants in it. I had already heard of the big production of the Moroccan hash but I wasn’t expecting to see such a big plantation of cannabis, and so close to a transited road. And this was only the beginning. The following two hours, we kept driving next to hundreds of hemp fields. Sometimes, these budded plants extended as far as the eyes could see in the mountains. Next to the road, several men were offering smokes and visits to the ‘villas’ where the hash was produced. It was ironic to see police officers standing on checkpoints every few kilometres. The environment had a glimpse of gloom; in a village we stopped, the perception of poverty was more intense than the other regions we had visited and a sense of decadence could be felt on the people and the activity of the place.

All this was very surprising for me and I wondered why the government of Morocco didn’t take action on that although Marijuana is illegal in the country. Later on, I read that every year, thousands of tones of hash are being exported to the EU and the economic impact that this has on the country is big enough to not make the government stop the system. However, the wealth of the business is far from being equally divided; back in the 1970s, when the international trade started, middlemen made fortune with it and, up to nowadays, the paternalist structure has remained untouched.

In my opinion, it is a big nonsense that such corrupted and unfair system is maintained to cover the recreational wills of European citizens. But how can this be ended? Is legalization a solution? That is for sure a complex issue. From my point of view, I can see two possible paths: either the cannabis flux is totally restricted by the EU authorities or the trade – and consequently the drug – is legalized and brought to the light of the market.
Kartent

waste, innovation, Sustainability

Roely Rijpkema

Last summer I was following the course D-exto, an interfacultair course organised by the TU Delft. D-exto is a pavilion with different projects to make people aware of sustainability and is traveling to different festivals in the Netherlands. One of the projects was the Kartent, invented by three guys. This project was a tent made of cardboard. In this column I want to make some advertisement about this progressive project. Because one of the most striking things of festivals is the waste left afterwards and every year a lot of tents are left at festival sites. The guys explained that one out of four tents is throwing away at the end of a festival. This can be of course more sustainable, so they invented the disposable tent. After the festivals, the tent goes directly to the paper factory, so they can be reused for toilet paper, textbooks, to make shoe boxes or something else!

The first time we went to a festivals, the organisation of the course told us that we had to sleep in a cardboard tent which was arranged for us. When we first saw them, they were a big folded cardboard. We had to lift them from a garage to an open field after a big rainy storm. One of the main questions we all were asking, was it waterproof? When we placed them on the wet field, they were fast unfolded and ready for using. On the inside it was dark, but also dry. We immediately put our sleping bags in it and went to sleep. The next day we woke up in a dry, cosy tent with no sunlight in our face. The cardboard worked isolated and kept the sun outside. Between all the tents made of fabric, the cardboard tents were unique. This made them attracting people. People were writing on it, want to look in it and were asking questions. After the first rainy and windy night, some people were asking if they also could use one of our tents.

This is also what is interesting for the future of the Kartent. At the moment the project is getting more famous and will be present at different festivals coming year. It is possible to buy a ticket for a festival and a kartent at the same time. Most interesting about the project is the awareness it is creating at the festivals. In my opinion festivals are really nice, but also far from sustainable. This project is one of the projects towards a sustainable festival.

If you want more information, you can find it on http://www.kartent.nl/kartent.php?p=1Home&l=nl
Let's become experts again

Robert Akerboom

In Paris, heavy discussion take place weather we as Europe are willing to lower our emissions by 60% of 2010’s quantity by 2050 in a common legal framework that will apply to all countries(1). How great would it be if the Netherlands would make a statement by reaching lower emission levels in a shorter timeframe? Loads of people would regard that an unreachable goal, but the opposite has recently been proven by a small country across the ocean.

Uruguay, a country with 3,4 million people living on 176.215 km squared kilometers has set an incredible example by slashing their carbon footprint without government subsidies or higher consumer costs in less than 10 years’ time (2). Most impressing is that no technological miracles were involved, but that the key element in this project seemed to be in boundary conditions. Clear decision-making, a supportive environment and strong partnership between the public- and private sector has shown to be way more effective than Europe’s climate conferences of the past decades.

Not only does Uruguay get 94,5% of their electricity from renewables, they also became extremely resilient against the fluctuating international fossil fuel dominated energy market on the other side of their borders. Rather than importing oil or gas they are now promoting sustainable produced energy as one of their main export products.

Why is it that all the countries in Europe are looking at each other regarding lowering emissions with an attitude like: “well, if they’re not doing it, why should we?” Cut loose from Europe in a positive way and take the lead in setting examples regarding renewable energy. Visit the climate conference in 2030 and tell them that your country has already achieved their goals and if they might be able to help any other countries by getting there.

Because the Netherlands have always had their issues regarding literally staying dry as a country, we have evolved in being the best experts in water management worldwide. This expertise nowadays makes our engineers wanted all around the globe and they create a huge value, both socially and economically, to our country. How great would it be if the Netherlands can copy this technique to become Europe’s masters regarding renewables. Uruguay has already showed that this doesn’t have to go hand in hand with a communist way of ruling, and that excessive subsidies are also unnecessary.

If we already know that this kind of a future is inevitable and should be established by 2050, then let’s please grab the advantage now and get to be experts in it so we can become indispensable towards our dear friends of the European Union. With their enacted groundbreaking marijuana legalization, maybe now it’s time for us to follow Uruguay’s example.

(1) http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/future/index_en.htm

(2) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/uruguay-makes-dramatic-shift-to-nearly-95-clean-energy?CMP=fb_gu
How to cope with malaria

Hugo Polman

The war on malaria and dengue has been going on for a while now. Most of the solutions offered nowadays are too inefficient and only treat the symptoms of the disease. Many people in critical areas cannot afford malaria tablets and even if they can, there is a high change that the bought medicine is not even effective. Therefore the solutions now lies at exterminating the source of the problem, the mosquito itself.

Generally there are two solutions possible. The first is to exterminate the mosquito itself and the second is to protect people from the mosquito. The best solution would of course be that only the malaria infected mosquitos will exterminate themselves, which is currently researched. Researchers found the way to do this, which is placing mutated mosquitos in the environment that only produce male specimens. Therefore the mosquito will exterminate itself. It seems like the right way to do so, because it is also a very cost efficient method. But even though the mosquito is a small animal, we don’t know how much the extermination will affect the total environment when they are not around anymore. So the second solution where people will be protected from mosquitos seems a more sustainable solution. Currently a project started where tubes are placed inside houses with a toxic material on the gaze in the tube. With this project comes a total evaluation of the houses of people, where gaps are closed inside walls and the only entrance for the mosquito is through the tube. When the mosquito touches the gaze, it dies within seconds, and people will not get into contact with it during the night when the mosquito is most active.

It results into an extermination at small scale, which will reduce the total mosquito population but still keeps them in the environment. Besides this, people will not get less into contact with the mosquito and therefore limiting the risk on malaria. All these things considered, I think that the best solution to malaria is taming the mosquito population and protecting the people. Ambitions to eradicate all mosquitos are too extreme, and in my opinion the best way is to find a feasible middle way. These tubes, when installed at a large scale, might offer the right solution.
Before it overflows

Ram Kamath

Around a fortnight ago, the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference or COP 21 was held in Paris with the objective of achieving legally binding and universal agreement on climate change action from all the nations of the world. As I write, nations are grappling with each other to come to an agreement on limiting further global warming to two degrees by 2100. Personally, I have never been alarmed by the dystopian predictions of climate scientists. It is not that I am a non-believer of science and statistics, I just couldn’t bring myself to care about a phenomenon whose consequences would be felt 50 to 100 years from now, when I will be distant (and hopefully, happy) memory. I have always tended to live in the present and so do most humans and it is then, naturally, difficult to enthusiastically change our habits since the benefits are so far off in the future.
Around the time the COP21 began, the city of Chennai, in India, received the largest volume of rain in over a hundred years. Over a period of two weeks, the city received 500 mm of rain every day. I spent two years of my life in this city of smiling faces and friendly strangers. I watched in horror and frustration, on my computer screen, as the streets I used to walk on were washed away, bridges collapsed and cars were thrown about like they were made of plastics. When disaster strikes closer to home, you start taking notice. My home city of Cochin, located on the eastern coast of India, receives maybe even more rainfall than Chennai does and is as prone to the threat of floods. I then came across this image:

Evidently, it is the tropical countries such as India that are most threatened by rising sea levels and other adverse effects of climate change.
Following my new found interest in climate change and the associated geo-political debate, I attended a lunch lecture on climate ethics by Behnam Taebi, a professor at the TPM faculty. From the lecture, I understood that the main obstacle in reaching an agreement on limiting further global warming to two degrees is the conflict between developed and developing nations regarding the common but differentiated responsibility. The developed bloc, led by the USA, accuse developing countries such as China and India of not doing enough to fight climate change while China and India see it as unfair that they have to abandon existing growth rates and consumption patterns to clear up the mess, that from their point of view, was created by the developed bloc in the first place. After all the BRIC nations have the lowest per capita emission figures.
I do not wish to rationalise the arguments of either side but express my notion that time is running out as Chennai is flooded, glaciers shrink in the Himalayas, drought hits California and ice bergs melt in the arctic. Behnam told us about how in ethics, we do not do scientific experiments but thought experiments. To analyse climate change, ethical scientists liken the planet to a bathtub that is slowly being filled as humanity pollutes and plunders. Since the industrial revolution, unsustainable growth processes have caused the bathtub to fill up almost till the brim. Regardless of the fact that it was the advanced nations that did most of the filling, the truth is there is no more space in the bathtub. We need to act now, before the tub overflows.
Buying a fridge... oh the dilemma!

Jeffrey Ros
I am moving to a new home. And since I live at my parents, that means I will have to buy a lot of new stuff: A bed, new furniture, a washing machine, you name it. Of course, the most elementary thing to have in any household would be the refrigerator. Like any student with a limited budget, my first idea was to look for a cheap second-hand fridge. When I told my thesis supervisor about this, he told me that the smarter thing to do would be to get a new one. One which is labeled A+++ and no less than that ("since A+ is the new C", I remember him saying). The "extra" investment over a less energy-friendly model, he claims, is well worth it because you will earn it back over the lifetime of this essential kitchen appliance.

"Well, okay", I thought. "I guess that makes sense..." So I went to the store to check out the latest models with A+++ signs. And as expected, they were pretty expensive. I think the cheapest A+++ from a decent brand (some brands you just don't buy, whatever the price) is around €530,- with a rated annual energy use of 149 kWh. Way out of my budget, so I checked out Marktplaats (THE Dutch second-hand trading place) instead. There was a nice Siemens fridge for sale, only 2 years old and €100,-. I checked out the details, an A+ model with an annual energy use of 285 kWh per year. Naturally, with my supervisor's comment in the back of my mind, I do a quick calculation assuming a 7 year lifetime for a new fridge, a 5 year lifetime for the second-hand (since it is two years old) and an average energy price of 22 cents per kWh.

New:
- Investment cost per year = 530 / 7 = € 75.70
- Energy cost per year = 149 kWh * 0,22 = € 32.80
- Total yearly cost = € 108.50
2nd hand fridge
- Investment cost per year = 100 / 5 = € 20
- Energy cost per year = 285 kWh * 0,22 = € 62.7
- Total yearly cost = € 82.70
It looks like the second hand is the cheaper option, but the price difference for each year is not as much as I'd expected. So what if, hypothetically, I would have bought a 10 year old fridge from a fellow student for, say, a crate of beer (€15 for Heineken). Let's hope it will survive for two years and see what it will cost me on the "long term". I'm going to assume a yearly use of 380 kWh per year[1]
- Investment cost per year = 15 /2 = € 7.50
- Energy cost per year = 380 kWh * 0,22 = € 83.60
- Total yearly cost = € 88.60
Well, look at that. A yearly cost that is higher than the more energy efficient second hand option, and on top of that I will have to buy myself a new fridge in two years. And even if it does hold out for 5 or even 7 years, the cost of energy alone is more than the total yearly cost of the €100 fridge. That cheap bargain doesn't look so cheap after all, does it?

So what is the morale of this story? The improvement in energy efficiency for refrigerators has been quite large during the past years. So if you currently own an old fridge, it might be a good idea to look up what it costs you yearly, compared to buying a new one. Chances are that would probably do your wallet and the environment a favor by buying a new one. However, does the same rule count in 10 years from now? That depends, but I doubt it. Where the increase in energy efficiency has been impressive in the past few years, it will become harder every year to increase it even further. At some point a limit will be reached. Perhaps the same efficiency increase can still be reached percentage wise, however 10% of a lot is a bigger net save than 10% from a device which is already quite efficient. So your gain in terms of hard cash will probably be a lot less. But that is then. This is now. So change those fridgies, people!

P.s. in case you are now wondering what kind of fridge I got... I settled for a new A+ rated Samsung model, because it had a cool metallic color, it was on sale and came out as best choice by the consumer's association. Of course, as a scientist, I should know better than to blindly follow their advice... I know... But hey, my budget was quite restricted and so was my time... which directly points out a flaw when one assumes that people will always buy the "most rational" choice. But that is brainfood for another time...

[1] http://www.milieucentraal.nl/energie-besparen/apparaten-en-verlichting/huishoudelijke-apparaten/koelkasten-en-vriezers/
Automated vehicles. The future of transportation is expected to be bright - for some parts of the world.

Eugenia Kanli

Working on the topic of mobility I have come across several interesting papers on the development of transportation in the future. The visions created for 2030 and on show potential for impressively developed technologies, integrated in the transportation networks. Comparing these visions with the current situation, all over the world, the pictures do not match at all. Especially considering the economic crisis that influences the one country after the other and also the political conflicts happening at the moment, it is a bit hard for someone to predict such a bright future.

From the Automated Vehicles symposium, of 2014, it is estimated that by 2030 full automation, in cars, will have been achieved. This will mean a totally new reality in transportation. Car owning will belong to the past and a car-sharing system, centrally controlled and with many automations integrated, will replace it. This vision refers to the wealthiest countries. However, in the developing countries mobility will also be moving to this direction. At least this will be the intention, even if realistically thinking, for some places of the world it will remain a dream. The financial situation and the interest of people in using such technologies are supposed to define the speed of this new car-culture integration in the different countries.

There are multiple benefits created by this development for people and the environment (reduction in fossil fuels consumption, safer travelling etc.). In addition to this, the comfort standards are impressive, as travelling is transformed to a leisure activity. It is clear that the life quality standards will skyrocket at some parts of the world, like the northern part of the United states, Australia, Germany and many other of the European countries. But such a scenario will possibly not thrive in many others.

Thanks to the ambitious researchers, technological development exceeds our expectations every day. The motto ”What you can imagine you can also do” gains ground and sectors like medicine, electronics, automations present innovations every day. Stakeholders all around the world are willing to invest their money in the most economically beneficial innovations. The automated vehicles are one of them, as well designed, luxurious cars have always been used by their owners as way to demonstrate their “power”. Therefore, the experts are constantly trying to move a step further. The speed of all these developments does not run in parallel with the progress in the other sectors of the world societies, by means of societal matters/social inequality, worldwide peace, life standards etc.

My question is if this way of developing the world is actually sustainable. When at some parts, like India and its surroundings, no innovation will be available the harm for the environment will still exist), but United States will be in the place to host the most sustainable solution. To my eyes, an incentive for the development of every sustainable system is its economic attractiveness. The focus is mainly on making profit and on a second level on decreasing the environmental impact of transportation. To keep all the parts of the world alive, rich countries will have to invest in poorer ones, as a small pay back for what these countries have suffered. As we all know, underdevelopment is not a mistake they made, but the result of long term universal political and economy games. Moreover, a sustainable world can be achieved only if all the parts of it become healthy.

From my point of view, the main role of innovation and sustainability in new technology should be to heel the real problems that places all over the world suffer from and not to provide extra luxury. In other words, instead of enhancing an asymmetric model of world development, to combine technological developments with social innovations. To my eyes, this could lead to a more sustainable world future.

Volkswagen 2028 (video link):

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/08/volkswagen-releases-three-concepts-from-2028/

2014 Automated vehicles symposium:

https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AUVSI/3a47c2f1-97a8-4fb7-8a39-56cba0733145/UploadedFiles/AVS%202014%20Proceedings%20-%20Final%20%28Dec%202014%29.pdf
Dealing in waste

Mark Ernst

In a previous column I wrote about the all the things that we can learn from nature to get more sustainable. There I concluded that three things are needed to get to a sustainable world. First, we need to achieve an enormous increase in resource efficiency. Second, we have to change from a fossil-fuel economy to a solar economy. And third, we have to transform our linear, wasting and polluting way of using resources to a closed, circular way where nothing is wasted. Also for our current treatment of waste we can learn a lot from nature.

The whole subject of waste is nowadays full of contradictions. People don’t like it, it’s dirty, smelly, annoying, etc.. But it also offers a huge potential. This potential is based on the definition of waste: one can say it’s dismissive (worthless), but one can also define waste as a ‘lost opportunity’, thereby showing the potential of it. One of the most important lessons that we can learn from nature is to see waste as an opportunity.

Everybody remembers the diagrams from biology lessons that showed the hydrological, nitrogen and carbon cycles. These biological systems are all complex, closed-loop systems. The same can be said about ecosystems. Everything has a role, is used in a certain way, and when that is done, it is used in a different way. But nothing gets lost.

Another characteristic of nature is that it will use what is abundant. If there is an unused resource, an organism will arrive to occupy that niche and will evolve to benefit from the advantages provided by that resource. This is not widely used in for example architecture yet. There are only few architects that use abundant materials.

For many people this will be a questionable idea. Cause nature uses biodegradable materials, that can relatively easily be re-used, or decomposed to its raw material. But I think there is a great opportunity here to get rid of waste. If we start looking at waste as valuable materials, we will change the way we treat our world now. By re-using the materials, in whatever way, we can use fewer resources and will increase our resource efficiency. With new uprising technologies, especially in biodegradable materials, new opportunities arise to support this idea.

When I’m writing this I’m even imagining a world, where ‘waste’ is a source of income. Kids go out on the streets, trying to gather some waste, so they can hand it in to get some pocket money. If someone ones to make a bench for in the garden, he takes his waste and trades it for wood. We go back to dealing in valuable resources (raw materials) with each other. It’s a controversial idea, which will probably never get so far, but it’s interesting to think about.
About fear and cheese

Clara Moreno

Comfort zones and fearing the unknown

I love cheese. So do the four characters of the tale ‘Who moved my cheese?’ by Spencer Johnson. Despite this story is a best-seller motivational fable on how to deal with change in a business environment, I think that it shares something with sustainable development too: fear to change.

The four characters of the story –two mice and two lilliputians- represent four different attitudes towards change: quickly detecting the necessity of a change, taking immediate action, denial and resistance to change fearing bad consequences and slowly learning to change when being convinced that it can lead to something better. For the mice the cheese is simply their daily food. For the lilliputians the Cheese is a metaphor of what they base their lives on and makes them feel fulfilled.

After struggling for some time, the four of them find a deposit with four types of cheese. They all enjoy the cheese, but the mice do not lower their guard that the cheese can be gone at any time. On the contrary, the lilliputians start creating a comfort zone around their cheese and see themselves as eternal owners of it. One morning, the deposit is empty: there is no more cheese left. As a reaction to this change, the mice take action, abandon the deposit and search for new cheese while the lilliputians stay in the deposit analyzing the situation and denying the need to search for new cheese. They do not want to abandon their known comfort zone, because they fear the unknown. (Warning: spoiler! One of these two finally abandons it)

This short story presents many reflections: about simple, intuitive and decisive actions rather than complex ones; about comfort zones where no need of change is felt; about anticipating rather than only adapting to change and about willingness to change only when there is not much to lose, since something new represents risk. The story also reflects about the feeling of (un-)security, about being a prisoner of fears that paralyze and about change in a group only being possible when many people want the same change.

How does this all relate to sustainability? To me sustainable development is about changing or adapting current practices – to take more advantage of what we have, to do more with less and to envision more than solely economic growth. Many times we have talked about ‘steering or triggering change’ and about ‘drivers and barriers’ for changing current practices. I think fear of the unknown is one of the main barriers. And this is what entrepreneurship means to me: anticipating to change and pushing the current boundaries rather than ‘only’ adapting to new ones; turning the risk and fear to lose security into an opportunity to win something better…designing for an uncertain future. What I am not sure about yet is how ‘simple and intuitive’ actions as the ones described in the story can lead to sustainable development. Because being a sustainable entrepreneur does not look simple!

To finish with, I think we also need to be somewhat critical about creating change and adapting to change. We need the vision of a new state and the ability to recognize what needs change and what does not, what motivates change and where this change leads us… to avoid an addiction to permanent change and simply differentiating from the mainstream.