Is turf green?

I stumbled across this question a few months ago while browsing the Smith news website, Grecourt Gate.  The title of the article: “Artificial Playing Field at Smith College to Benefit Athletes, Environment.” Ugh, I thought, artificial turf.  As a sometime-rugby player, I hate the stuff with a passion. Yes, you can run faster on it, but you can also lose a lot more skin.  There’s nothing a rugby player loves more than soft, natural, welcoming mud.  Then I processed the last word of the title.  Artificial turf to benefit the environment?  I had to see how they justified this.

The article heralds the installment of a new artificial turf playing field, mostly to benefit the field hockey team, but also for other athletic teams (I was relieved to note that the rugby team was not mentioned as one that would use the new field).  In terms of Smith athletics, there are a lot of good reasons to have an artificial turf field available for practice and matches.  What struck me was the assertion that the change would benefit the environment.

“Artificial turf offers a significant environmental benefit, according to John Robinson, manager of capital projects for Smith. The turf will eliminate the need for 900,000 gallons of water in irrigation each year and eliminate the use of any pesticides and herbicides on that swath of land.

“As part of the design, a sophisticated underground drainage system will catch and store rainwater and release it over time, eliminating runoff and, instead, steadily recharging the land, said Robinson.”

While the engineering student in me finds it very reassuring to be given solid numbers, the article still left me skeptical.  It seems very counterintuitive that an artificial field, made out of all sorts of rubbers and plastics, could be more “green” than an actual grass field.  After all, the grass field sequesters carbon dioxide as it goes through photosynthesis- depending on the amount of energy and carbon dioxide spent on watering, mowing, and fertilizing it, the grass field could even be carbon negative.  A well-respected friend of mine also brought up the possibility of chemical leaching from a synthetic turf field, casting doubt on my mental conjecture that, once in place, an artificial turf field would be environmentally neutral.

Now, while it’s tempting to simply grasp my conjectures and go off the deep end, righteously ranting about Smith’s incompetence and lies, it would be extremely embarrassing to turn out to be wrong.  Hence, I’m conducting my own investigation as scientifically and professionally as possible, weighing the environmental costs and benefits of both alternatives.  As a scientist and academic in general, it’s important to keep an open mind as to the outcome of the investigation.  The best discoveries are the ones you don’t expect, and trying to force your research into the shape you want can lead to the worst sorts of ethical problems.  Who knows?  Maybe I’ll end up convinced that artificial turf is really better than the environment than actual grass.  Only time and research will tell.



Good Morning, video by lflake

How many of us like to start our day with a nice cup of coffee?  I know I could certainly use a cup right now!

As the climate action project for this year’s thermodynamics class at Smith College finishes up, we’re starting to get submissions from fellow classmates here at challenging green.  Here’s a video created by lflake and company about many people’s favorite brew:

Analyzing Carbon Emmissions, a Guest Post by cyen

Life Cycle Carbon Emissions vs. Point-of-Generation Carbon Emission

Written by: cyen

Many carbon reduction policies targeted at the power industry in the United States are concerned with reducing point-of-generation carbon emissions. These policies only take into account carbon emissions at the point of power generation and not the entire life cycle of the energy source. One such policy is the New England Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives (RGGI), which seeks to reduce carbon emissions in the New England power sector by 10% by 2017.¹

In an undergraduate group study ² done to analyze the impact of the closure of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant on future carbon emissions in Vermont, it was found that when carbon emissions for the entire life cycle was taken into consideration, what appeared to be a “clean” energy mix was not that clean after all. Even if Vermont develops the maximum amount of renewable energy that is reasonable for the state by 2020, the annual life cycle carbon emissions for the power sector will be higher than what it is now. This suggests that carbon reduction policies such as the RGGI will not have a significant impact on actual carbon emissions if the policies only take into consideration point-of-generation carbon emissions.

Admittedly, the study cited above is limited in scope and more studies need to be done before we can accurately assess the effectiveness of using point-of-generation emissions in designing carbon reduction policies. However, it is not too soon for policymakers and the general public to begin to critically evaluate the current energy and carbon reduction policies in the United States. Are the carbon reduction policies actually effective in reducing carbon emissions? How would knowledge of the life cycle carbon impact of the different energy sources change the way the public and policymakers perceive the different energy sources?

With the term “zero carbon” being used liberally by the media, it is easy to forget or not realize that there is no such thing as a “zero carbon” energy source. It is my hope that this post will help remind people that carbon emissions for energy sources are not just limited to the point-of-generation. The life cycle carbon impacts of different energy sources need to be taken into consideration in thinking about energy and carbon reduction policies.

1 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (2010). http://www.rggi.org/rggi/contact

2 A draft version of the analysis can be obtained through http://www.mediafire.com/?0bbe1d215fedd2fd10c21c2e615cdea9

A New Look

Hello there,

You may have noticed that Challenging Green has undergone a bit of a face lift.  We thought the old blog was a little drab and not quite user-friendly, so we decided to make some changes.  We hope the new look is a litter easier on the eyes and easier to use.  Please let us know what you think of the new look!

Best,

The Challenging Green Team

P.S. If you ever want to get in contact with us, we can be reached at challenginggreen@gmail.com.

Structures of Earth

At the moment I am studying the sculptures of Charles Simonds.  His art is really interesting in that he creates these tiny miniature civilizations.  His early works were little clay brick houses built into the crevices of deteriorating buildings in New York.  As his work has progressed, these miniature civilizations have grown more complex in their cultural habits and beliefs and Simonds has developed more of the landscapes he places them.  Although there is no sign of the life forms that inhabit the minuscule structures he constructs out of tiny red bricks, everything about these people which he calls the Little People can be determined by the architecture of their little dwellings and sacred places.  It is interesting because their culture is so connected to the earth as can be seen in their dwellings which follow and hug the landscapes Simonds sets up and their sacred buildings which are set up on sacred pieces of these landscapes, seeming almost to worship the earth they are flowing out of.  One of the things that I find so fascinating about these tiny building is the way in which they arise out of the earth and at any one point they can easily become part of the earth again.  Simonds shows exactly this, with little buildings both in the process of being constructed and buildings in the process of crumbling into the earth.  Even though their destruction speaks of death and ending there is something oddly calm about the whole process.  It feels natural.[1]

Looking at our own dwellings compared to these tiny buildings makes me realize how much our own buildings are really all about constant destruction.  This is a pretty strong statement for an architecture student, but when you think about how our buildings are responsible for almost half of the emitted green house gases, you realize how scarring they are to the earth.[2]

One thing that I find so beautiful about the Native American architecture after which Charles Simonds’s little structures take is its ability to mesh with the landscape around it.  I can still remember looking up at the incredible sight of the Hohokam cliff dwelling known as Montezuma Castle.  There sunken into the cliff lofted way above the surrounding landscape sat a little village.  There was no need for a wall for protection because these dwellings had taken advantage of the shelter provided by Mother Nature.  The adobe clay being a good thermal mass kept the temperatures in the dwellings at more constant levels sheltering the inhabitants from the shifting desert temperatures.

These structures are true minimalism.  These structures are truly sustainable.  After their civilizations are done with them they are free to crumble back into the dust of the surrounding landscape.

This is something that today’s architecture is missing.  We build on the earth trying to conquer it and tame it.  We attempt to change our environments instead of melding our shelters to take advantage and work with the habitat we place them in.  We build concrete jungles trying to meet all our constant wants forgetting that we only really need very little.

Only recently has the idea of meshing earth and structures together become a more common thought in our society, even though it was utilized thousands of years ago.  Some prominent figures who have promoted this concept of meshing nature and buildings together are Ian McHarg, Ken Yeang, and William McDonough. Ian McHarg was a landscape architect whose ideas place nature at the center with urban planning being developed based on the environment in which it was being placed.  Similar in focus, yet more extreme in this age where change is becoming increasingly more crucial, is Ken Yeang, a Malaysian architect.  He and McHarg both share the view of ecological systems as complex overlaps of systems; yet, where McHarg desired that urban planning just work around an environment in an attempt to preserve that environment, Yeang seeks to create a more complex interweaving of the environment and our urban infrastructure.  His ideas go beyond simply seeking to sustain the environment around us and into integrating the natural environment into our built environment to encourage the prosperity of both.  His buildings typically have plants growing out of the sides of them.  Interestingly enough, when Yeang discusses his green buildings he notes that it is important not be caught up in just slapping what we consider to be “green” technologies on a building to make it eco-friendly, but rather considering the specifics of the each building’s situation and making choices based on these specifics and what will bring the building closer to be just another environmental system.

Another architect with a vision for sustainable building is William McDonough. Besides looking at the built environment on the macro-scale, McDonough also looks at the built environment on the micro-scale.  In collaboration with chemist Michael Braungart, McDonough has focused a great deal on the production of the materials we use to create our environments and what happens to these materials at the end of their life.  He is concerned with producing better products that can be safely reintegrated into the environment after their use has been exhausted.  He is also concerned with making products that are chemically safer in general, pointing to the number of products we use daily that are toxic.[3]

Along with his tiny dwellings Simonds also created a life size structure called Growth House constructed with sacks filled numerous flowers and vegetables waiting to grow and break through the canvas.  The structure stood about 10 feet in height and was a round building with a diameter of 150 feet.  Though primitive in form it is a vision for a future in which humans once again operate in harmony with nature.[4]

---

[1] Celant, Germano. “Charles Simonds’ Anthropomorphism.”  Charles Simonds. Paris:  Galerie nationale du Jeu de Paume, 1994. Print.

[2] Hawthorne, Christopher. “Turning Down the Global Thermostat.” Metropolis Oct. 2003. Web. 25 April 2010.

[3] Middlebrook, James. “Green Machine for Living”. Landscape Studies 100. Smith College. Wright Hall, Weinstein Auditorium, Northampton, MA. 8 Feb. 2010. Lecture.

[4] Celant, Germano. “Charles Simonds’ Anthropomorphism.”  Charles Simonds. Paris:  Galerie nationale du Jeu de Paume, 1994. Print.

From Stormwater Management to Artful Rainwater Design

When rain events happen precipitation ends up in various domains. A fraction of precipitation infiltrates into the soil, a fraction of precipitation is taken up by plants, and a fraction of precipitation is evaporated into the atmosphere. The precipitation left over, that runs offs hard impermeable areas of lands, is known as stormwater. As development and thus impervious area have increased, more water has become stormwater runoff. This can cause many environmental problems such as flooding, and carrying pollutants to surface water. Stormwater management infers many utility goals which include: conveyance, detention, retention, filtration and infiltration of the stormwater. A relatively new term “Artful Rainwater Design” explores the ways of dealing with stormwater in ways that are both environmentally friendly (utilize best management practices) and a site amenity. However the concept of stormwater systems as a site amenity is not new. Some of the amenity goals of this concept include: Convenience, Education, Recreation, Safety, Social Interaction, Public relations, and Aesthetic richness.  10^th @ Hoyt, a courtyard apartment in Portland, Oregon is arguably one of the top examples of artful rainwater design in the United States. Here water in conveyed from the roof through copper downspouts and is detained in below grade cisterns, during which water is circulated in ornamental fountains. The water is then slowly released into the districts stormwater system.  This work of art has many amenity values which include education, social interaction, and aesthetic richness. Another such example of artful rainwater design is Siskiyou Green Street in Portland, Oregon. Here the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services added bump outs to extend the curb line, these curbs are filled with thickly plants sedges and ferns, and intersected by river rock dams and weirs. These extension catch stormwater thus serving as biofilters. Artful Rainwater Design is a concept that is very beneficial because it can raise property values, increase public exposure and education, and encourages maintenance of stormwater management systems by adding them as clear added value.

-Echols, S.P. (2007). Quantity quality amenity. Retrieved from

http://www.artfulrainwaterdesign.net/

-Echols, Stuart, & Pennypacker, Eliza. (2008). From Stormwater management to artful rainwater

design.   Landscape Journal, 27(2), 269-290.

-Rodes, B.N. (Ed.). (2007). 10th @ hoyt courtyard.

-Thompson, J.W., & Sorvig, S. (2000). Sustainable landscape construction. Washington D.C:

Island Press.

-Ludwig, K.H.C. (2001). Waterscapes. Basell, Switzerland: Publisher for Architecture.

Please check out the following link for more information regarding artful rainwater design!!!

From Stormwater Management to Sustainable and Artful Rainwater

So-called Green Buildings by Riled, guest blogger

At Smith College I have been hosting an alternative tour of Ford Hall throughout the spring, with four tours offered so far (three private, one open to the campus community). The tour uses the building site and its history to examine relationships among colleges, corporations, and communities. One aspect of the tour is to consider how these relationships manifest themselves in the rhetoric around green buildings and sustainability.

The College’s publicly stated reason for constructing Ford Hall was to house the engineering program at Smith, and the program’s emphasis on sustainability was to be reflected in educationally oriented sustainable building features. However, greater emphasis was ultimately placed on LEED certification, in which the building must meet specified standard criteria to receive a seal of approval from the U.S. Green Building Council, a non-profit trade group.  Some might call this `green-washing,’ because LEED certification provides the building with the appearance of sustainability, while shirking other potentialities. For example, Ford Hall is a laboratory building with any number of chemicals being used every day. These chemicals enter fume hoods, and are vented directly to the atmosphere. While this is standard practice at academic institutions because the amount of chemicals emitted is small, sustainable thinking has moved far beyond the idea that “infinite dilution is the solution to pollution.” Moreover, the ventilation system in the labs, designed to deliver a large number of air changes per hour — even in those labs that do not require it for safety – translates to a great deal of unnecessary energy lost in heating the building.

Similar green-washing efforts can be found at Ford Motor Company. Their famous River Rouge Plant, the birthplace of assembly line manufacturing, had become a brownfields site. Ford made it over into a state-of-the-art green building. Andy Acho, Ford’s top environmental officer, came to speakin 2003 at Smith about Ford’s eco-accomplishments at the Rouge. An Environmental Science and Policy student asked an astute question: why is Ford’s commitment to sustainability reflected in its plant, but not in the fleet average fuel efficiency of the cars they manufacture?

Some architects have not jumped so readily onto the green building bandwagon, opting instead for preservation of existing buildings as the true green alternative. Architect Carl Elefante, noting the significant energy and materials embodied in existing buildings and the energy and materials costs of demolishing old buildings and building new (albeit green) ones, says “The greenest building is…one that is already built.” One study found that even with 40% recycled materials it can take 65 years for energy efficiency gains in a green building to make up for the energy lost in demolition and construction.

And what of those demolished buildings, the community that inhabited them, their neighbors and friends? If we include the Green Street community in our consideration of Ford as a green building, we cannot conclude that this project was sustainable.

To understand the history of the Ford Hall project in the context of the Green Street neighborhood we need to go back to 1950, when the Massachusetts Legislature passed the Dover Amendment. This law restricts the ability of towns in the state to regulate development projects undertaken by educational institutions. And so Smith was able to buy up land on this site, demolish 26 affordable housing units and displace or disrupt half a dozen local businesses.[1]
While Smith only paid about $9 million for the properties, their estimated value is at least six times as much.[2] Because Smith is tax exempt, the city lost tax revenue with each property purchased. The revenues from these properties, were they still in private hands, would fund schools, road maintenance, and fire and police services. This puts Smith’s gifts to the Fire Department, intended as a display of the College’s civic generosity, in some perspective.
Because of the Dover Amendment, town citizens could do little to block Smith’s land purchases. Students, faculty, and staff working in Ford Hall are inhabiting the site of a 1930s apartment building that housed a number of people including Carlotta Hoffman, a Smith security guard who lived there for 12 years and paid $400/month rent — a rare find in Northampton, and one that would be nearly impossible to replace.  She felt that the College should have explored other options before displacing so many people and destroying the feel of the neighborhood.[2]
Ultimately, Smith responded to the organized efforts of community members by creating new housing options on two different sites, neither of which have a neighborhood feel, and only one of which is an equivalent distance from downtown. For those that remain in the neighborhood, Ford Hall’s character as a modern four-story lab building has permanently altered their sense of place. As one public forum participant put it, “Really, you can’t transplant a community.”[3]

1 Dewitt, S. Smith plans keep neighbors on edge. Hampshire Gazette, September 23, 2004.
2 Hanley, R. Decades of purchases give Smith College growing control over a neighborhood. Hampshire Gazette, Nov. 11, 2006.
3 Ashton, K. Smith expansion draws criticism, At forum, mayor presses Smith on plans, affordable housing. Hampshire Gazette, March 1, 2005.

Event Summary

Climate Wise Women: A Conversation on Women’s Response to Climate Change

On Monday April 12, 2010 the Climate Wise Women (Cw² or CWW) held a panel discussion at Smith College about guaranteeing a safe and sustainable future for everyone. Among the panelists were Constance Okollet the Chairperson of the Osukura United Women Network (Uganda, Africa), Sharon Hanshaw the Executive Director of Coastal Women for Change (Biloxi, Mississippi), Ulamila Kurai Wragg the Interim Coordinator of Pacific WAVE Media Network and Head of the Climate Change Team (Cook Islands, the Pacific), and Ursula Rakova the Executive Director of Tulele Peisa (Carteret Islands, South Pacific). However, due to a prior commitment to her community, their mass relocation to Papua New Guinea, Ursula Rakova was unable to attend the event that evening.

Each of the panelists spoke about their experiences as witnesses and survivors of the ravage caused by climate change and collectively discussed what would likely be replicated globally as extreme weather becomes more common. Okollet, a farmer from eastern Uganda, spoke of the flood in 2007 and 2009 that destroyed her village and their food supply and the sickness that it spread. No sooner had they recovered from the damage of the flood when the village was struck again, this time by drought that once again not only destroyed their food supply but dried up their water supply and killed off their livestock; Hanshaw , once a cosmetologist, spoke of her experience with hurricane Katrina and what it was like to come back and find “everything that you once had, that you had worked for” to be gone within a matter of seconds leaving “no traces that a community had once even existed” there; and Wragg spoke of drying riverbeds and eroding shorelines that caused major ecological changes within her community over the years.  After each had a chance to tell her story and speak of the first hand experiences that had turned their skepticism into action a short question and answer session, moderated by Erin Ailworth from the Boston Globe, was held.

What is “green”?

As little leaf buds start to unfurl all over campus here at Smith College, we can’t help but turn our minds towards their color.   “Green” is not just a color. According to Sarah Perkins, blogger for The New Green Economy Blog, “Green is understanding, respecting, and incorporating the lifecycle of any given product, by-product, material, and/or additives of such product into the designing, manufacturing, storing, delivering, installing, and restoring the individual materials and product to an equally, or superior, reusable form.” [1].  Recently, it’s become a pop-culture craze, a label ascribed to any practice or product which benefits the environment (or at least, harms the environment less than some equivalent practice or product).  For those of us who are in favor of environmental protection, it’s gratifying to see our pet notions grow popular.  At the same time, the sheer lack of discrimination with which “green” is applied to products and corporate projects is alarming. “Green” is such a widely-used label that almost anything can wear it unchallenged.

To drive the point further, try thinking about the things you associate with the word “green.”  What comes to mind?  Grass, plants, maybe some green object that happens to be near you.  Reducing carbon emissions, planting trees, saving electricity, turning down the thermostat, recycling, buying local and eating less meat, maybe even saving the whales- all these ideas relate back to one word.  This is great, because there truly are many things any of us can do to benefit the environment, but sometimes it’s hard to know what action actually has the most impact.  Some things are theoretically better for the environment than an existing alternative, but are much less “green” than other existing alternatives.  For example, buying Poland Spring’s new eco-shape ® bottle is theoretically better for the environment than buying another water bottle which uses more plastic and is not recyclable [2], but in most places in the US you could just drink tap water out of a reusable water bottle, and save a whole lot of carbon emissions related to transportation and plastic manufacturing.

You can’t trust everything that calls itself “green.”  Many companies “greenwash” their products (that is, give them token green makeovers) so that they will appeal to consumers’ sense of environmental responsibility [3]. Obviously, there are large problems with this.  These companies are misrepresenting their products’ actual benefits, leading consumers to believe that buying product greenwash is the best thing they could do to save the planet.  Even more deeply flawed, however, is the influence of consumerism in the green movement.  “Green” has become, ultimately, a product label- another tool to give products the extra edge.  This is exactly the opposite of what any environmental movement should be about.  In order to protect the environment, we need to cut down on our consumption, not buy more!  This New York Times article makes a great elaboration on the problems with “green” consumerism[4].

In summary, the green movement can’t be taken at face value.  Making informed decisions on what is “green” and what is not takes research and critical thinking.  Perhaps because of my scientific background, every time I hear something described as “green” I immediately want to see a full presentation, including flow charts and graphs, showing me why.  Don’t worry! This level of analysis is impractical in our everyday lives, but general familiarity with the life cycles of products can give a lot of insight into how “green” it is.  If you’re really curious, sometimes you can find life cycle assessments of products.  Life cycle assessments (or LCAs) show all the energy, inputs, emissions, and potential pollutants involved in a product’s production, use, and disposal or recycling [5].  It’s a very comprehensive view that gives huge insight into a product’s or practice’s environmental impacts.

The green movement is flawed, but it represents something that has been long in coming: a widespread concern for the effect of human actions on the biosphere.  Our purpose is strong, but we lack the information to direct it.

References

[1] S. Perkins, “What Does Green Mean?”, The New Green Economy Blog. August 20, 2009. [Online]. Available: http://www.thenewgreeneconomy.com/blog/What-Does-Green-Mean-.html#tb. [Accessed: April 14, 2010].

[2]Poland Spring, “The Eco-Shape ® Bottle.” polandspring.com. [Online]. Available: http://www.polandspring.com/DoingOurPart/EcoShapeBottle.aspx. [Accessed: April 14, 2010].

[3] Greenpeace, “Greenwashing: Clean up your act, NOT your image.” stopgreenwash.org. [Online]. Available: http://stopgreenwash.org/. [Accessed: April 14, 2010].

[4] A. Williams, “Buying Into the Green Movement.” New York Times Fashion & Style. July 1, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/fashion/01green.html. [Accessed: April 14, 2010].

[5] U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Life-Cycle Assessment.” epa.gov. March 17, 2008. [Online] Available: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/lcaccess/. [Accessed: April 14, 2010].

Climate Change Basics, Part 2

On Tuesday I talked about the science of climate change, as well as some of the more pessimistic predictions scientists had made about climate change. Today, I want to address some of the controversy surrounding it. To do so, I wanted to examine some arguments against climate change and present my own reactions to some of these debates, both as a way to sort out my own feelings about the subject and as way to reveal my own bias.