 |
| Photo by Daniel Suchenski |
Policies and programs operating on both local and national levels around the world have made significant strides in recent years toward promoting green building practices and specifically the three E’s of sustainability. While the approach and success of these initiatives has varied, the intent is clear. More attention and effort must be paid to, not only the environment, but the interconnectedness of the environment to everything from the economy to society and a higher standard of living for all.
The three E’s of sustainability – sometimes called the ‘triple bottom line’ – states that, not only is the environment, the economy and equitable/social benefits essential to our lives, these three things are also fundamentally interrelated. “It is a surprise to many people first learning about sustainable design that the movement and philosophy is as much about people as it is about the environment”[1] says McLennan. The irony of course being that all too often, efforts to be sustainable are framed by the media and corporations as “as contest between people and the environment or, more to the point, jobs versus the environment.”[2] This characterization is not only inaccurate as it attempts to frame up the discussion, but also completely ignores the effect poor environment has on people. Comfort and productivity are just as much a factor in the interconnectedness of the three E’s as growth and profit.
If humans expect to increase economies and expand growth through use of the environment it stands to reason that countries that manage to better protect their economies without putting undue stress on the environment will be more productive. In fact, according to a large international study conducted b y MIT “States with Stronger environmental policies consistently out-perform the weaker environmental states on all the economic measures.”[3] For example China has for decades enjoyed staggering growth in the order of nine to ten percent GDP. However recent studies are now suggesting that the cost of China’s environmental degradation may be equal or greater than its GDP growth rate. According to the United Nations Development program’s report, the damage to the ecosystem costs China about 9 percent of its GDP.[4] Even more recently, the Xinhua news agency, reporting from inside the mainland China published in September of this year that as early as 2005 the environmental impact costs China more than its annual GDP.[5] The rest of the world seems to be listening. Using China as an example to demonstrate the true costs of ignoring the holistic nature of effective progress and the three E’s of sustainability countries all over the world, including China, are instating policies and programs to stimulate sustainable alternatives, including green building practices.
This is an Excerpt only and may not be copied or cited without permission, Please contact me directly to learn more.
References:
[1] McLennan, Jason F. The Philosophy of Sustainable Design. Kansas City: Ecotone, 2004. P46[2] Ibid. p 46[3] From the Greening of Conservative America pg 23.[4]http://www.undp.org.cn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&catid=13&topic=6&sid=348&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0[5] http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/12/content_9940679.htm
The three E’s of sustainability – sometimes called the ‘triple bottom line’ – states that, not only is the environment, the economy and equitable/social benefits essential to our lives, these three things are also fundamentally interrelated. “It is a surprise to many people first learning about sustainable design that the movement and philosophy is as much about people as it is about the environment”[1] says McLennan. The irony of course being that all too often, efforts to be sustainable are framed by the media and corporations as “as contest between people and the environment or, more to the point, jobs versus the environment.”[2] This characterization is not only inaccurate as it attempts to frame up the discussion, but also completely ignores the effect poor environment has on people. Comfort and productivity are just as much a factor in the interconnectedness of the three E’s as growth and profit.
If humans expect to increase economies and expand growth through use of the environment it stands to reason that countries that manage to better protect their economies without putting undue stress on the environment will be more productive. In fact, according to a large international study conducted b y MIT “States with Stronger environmental policies consistently out-perform the weaker environmental states on all the economic measures.”[3] For example China has for decades enjoyed staggering growth in the order of nine to ten percent GDP. However recent studies are now suggesting that the cost of China’s environmental degradation may be equal or greater than its GDP growth rate. According to the United Nations Development program’s report, the damage to the ecosystem costs China about 9 percent of its GDP.[4] Even more recently, the Xinhua news agency, reporting from inside the mainland China published in September of this year that as early as 2005 the environmental impact costs China more than its annual GDP.[5] The rest of the world seems to be listening. Using China as an example to demonstrate the true costs of ignoring the holistic nature of effective progress and the three E’s of sustainability countries all over the world, including China, are instating policies and programs to stimulate sustainable alternatives, including green building practices.
This is an Excerpt only and may not be copied or cited without permission, Please contact me directly to learn more.
References:
[1] McLennan, Jason F. The Philosophy of Sustainable Design. Kansas City: Ecotone, 2004. P46[2] Ibid. p 46[3] From the Greening of Conservative America pg 23.[4]http://www.undp.org.cn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&catid=13&topic=6&sid=348&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0[5] http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/12/content_9940679.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment