I first discovered and joined Urban Green Council’s Emerging Professionals about three years ago when I first moved to the city. I was looking for a job in the architecture industry and wanted to meet like-minded people and share my passion for sustainable design. I felt welcomed into a tight-knit group from my very first meeting and have continued to gain valuable personal and professional relationships ever since this time. I became more and more involved with the group, volunteering to help organize events and making connections with an ever broader group of professionals. The relationships I made quickly introduced me to my current position, architect at Kohn Pedersen Fox, which has afforded me incredible experiences over the last three years.

Continuing to be involved with the Emerging Professionals has led to many leadership opportunities throughout the years. I served as an EP co-chair for one year, learning to engage a broad group of people in new and exciting ways. I moderated a successful panel discussion, Sustainability from the Bottom Up, which gathered industry leaders to to share their insider perspectives and forecasts for the future of green building. It was a great opportunity to interact with more experienced sustainability pros in a very tangible and meaningful way. Most recently, I was elected to the Urban Green Council Board of Directors, serving as the Emerging Professional representative and working to influence the future of the organization and its influence within the industry and city as a whole.

As I transition into the role of an “Emerged Professional,” I continually look back on my three years of experience and am grateful for the support and opportunities offered by the Emerging Professionals and Urban Green Council.  Through my experiences with the group, I have made valuable industry connections, gained valuable professional skills, and honed my leadership abilities. These qualities have easily transitioned into my architectural practice, affording me opportunity to take on more responsibility on projects and within the office. I look forward to many more years ahead working with Urban Green Council and taking this valuable knowledge and experience back to my architectural practice at KPF.

Urban Green Council is introducing a new member level for sustainability-minded recent college grads under 30. The Emerging Professionals membership is now available and has all the benefits of our regular membership. We hope to make this a permanent part of our members structure based on participation, so please sign up today! 

Students at Explore Charter School in Brooklyn

Recently, Director of Programs, Tiffany Broyles Yost and I were invited to speak about sustainability in the classroom at Explore Charter School, a K-8 public school in Flatbush, Brooklyn. At Urban Green Council, most of our educational events are geared towards building professionals, so it was a nice change to meet with middle school students newly introduced to the world of green building.

We took the opportunity to speak with the students about USGBC’s Center for Green Schools’ Green Apple initiative to provide healthy and environmentally responsible schools. We wanted to discuss how schools with clean air and plentiful access to daylight have more engaged students and that better acoustics and more comfortable classrooms enhance productivity and alertness.

This information was not news to the 7^th and 8^th graders at Explore. Our first question to them was, “Why does it matter if your school is green?” The first student to answer said it mattered because schools need to be a healthy environment, so children can learn and take care of the planet for the future. I was impressed! As we presented images of “green” schools, the students immediately recognized the sustainable features, including everything from skylights to bicycle racks. The students also spoke of the difference between their school’s current location, in a large building with plenty of operable windows, and its previous location, inside an “old warehouse” with fewer and smaller windows. They described how hot it had been, which made it difficult to concentrate, or worse, made them tired.

Throughout our presentation, Tiffany and I emphasized the importance of conserving resources and how “using less” is really the first step to going green. By simply turning off lights, students can help lower the school’s energy use. The students also offered several ideas for renewable energy sources, citing biomass and geothermal among the more common solar and wind. To end our discussion, we talked about some innovative systems, such as soccer balls that generate power, solar backpacks, and energy producing sneakers. The response was fantastic!

In addition to being a nice change from the office, our visit to Explore was an extremely encouraging experience. The students already had a firm grasp on sustainable practices and how they can positively impact their environment. They are now more aware of the benefits of green buildings and will inevitably bring that knowledge home to their families. As they continue through school, they’ll want to attend green colleges and eventually work in green offices, creating a demand for sustainable building. That’s a good sign.

Panelist David Ropeik at Cooling on Climate Change

Urban Green pulled together a fascinating conference last week on the current science of climate change, exploring how it is impacting the building industry and why polls reveal public skepticism on the subject.  The format included two excellent panels and a short keynote by the distinguished scientist and activist, Dr. James Hansen.  There was a lot of intellectual firepower on display, including fascinating data on perceptions of climate change from Lisa Fernandez at Yale, and deep discussions of the role of the building industry.  David Ropeik, a risk perception consultant and the author, most recently, of How Risky Is It Really? Why Our Fears Don’t Always Match the Facts, offered the most unexpected perspectives of any speaker and clearly challenged our assumptions about how to effectively message on climate change.

Ropeik walked the audience through the current neurological research on risk perception, all of which supports the sense many of us have had over the years- that something as abstract and slow moving as climate change does not appear to motivate most of us to change our behavior.  Ropeik points out that very few of the tools we use to assess risk are cognitive- most of them are subconscious.  Our brains are wired to focus on things that will impact us directly, right now or in the very near future.  Threats that are catastrophic are deeply important, but chronic issues barely register on our internal threat scale.  Most of us in the environmental community act as if the simple communication of additional knowledge will cause people to change their minds- the more facts people know about climate change the more they will be motivated to change behavior.  But a deep body of research (and probably if we are honest with ourselves and our own experiences) tells us this simply is not the case.  People are not generally motivated to significantly alter their behavior because of threats to other species, or threats to our own that are likely to occur years from now.  Mr. Ropeik’s distillation of this context colored all the other discussions at the event and made for lively discussion.  In this context, Mr. Hansens’ slides communicating the impact of climate change through bar graphs and statistical plots seemed, though intellectually rigorous and important research, seemed somehow not up to the task at hand.  Based on Mr. Ropeik’s presentation I came away with the overwhelming sense that we need to find new ways of communicating that humanizes climate change and describes how it will impact each of us directly.

Which is not to minimize the critical importance of Hansen’s presentation.  For those of us familiar with his work and the work of his colleagues on the IPCC it was exciting (though sobering) to see the latest research on climate change.  Hansen pointed out that we have increased the amount of atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 390ppm, with every indication that average global temperature will increase by 2 degrees within a century.  The last time this happened, sea levels were 15 meters higher than today.  Already, significant changes are moving through the system.  The extent of arctic sea ice at the end of the melt season, as reported elsewhere, is reduced by half.  And the sea ice is significantly thinner, so the actual mass has been reduced by three-fourths.  This is a monumental shift that augurs more changes to come.  In addition, the % of land mass that experiences extreme weather events annually (droughts, flooding, fire) has increased 10 times since about 1920.  Dr. Hansen’s primary concern today are impacts that might be irreversible- like losing the ice sheet altogether, or a melt off of the Greenland ice sheet, or climate zones that move so fast that it triggers mass extinctions and failing ecosystems.  These are sobering but very real possibilities in our near future.

To produce a reduction in greenhouse gases Dr. Hansen proposes a “fee and dividend” policy that would ramp up a tax on carbon emissions and distribute the collected money equally among the population.  The funds would not go to the government and if current subsidies were removed it would level the technological playing field.  With our political establishment locked in a sweaty wrestling hold that allows for considerable activity but no resolution, it is highly unlikely that Hansen’s proposal will be enacted, or even discussed seriously.  But considering such a proposal allows us, at a minimum, to contemplate the high degree to which our current system is reliant on petroleum, and the significant degree to which the “market” is currently weighted in favor of the fossil fuel industry- which dominates energy subsidies despite being wildly profitable and flexes its lobbying muscle to influence almost every aspect of federal and state energy policy.  As Dr. Hansen stated, “the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.”  His fee and dividend proposal would remove the embedded advantage of the wealthiest industries and if ramped appropriately would spur innovation. Activism and individual action, Dr. Hansen points out, are wonderful but without a price signal that makes carbon emissions pay something like their share of externalized costs there will be little movement on the issue.  In fact, he seemed almost concerned that making buildings and other users of energy more efficient simply reduces demand and drives the price of oil down, incentivizing others to burn it.

Some years ago, Gore Vidal recommended that the world would be considerably improved if we simply swapped the cost of a university education with the cost of an intercontinental airline ticket- thereby making education available to all and significantly reducing the swarms of tourists senselessly marauding the globe.   Whatever the merits of this improbable idea, Dr. Hansen’s “fee and dividend” proposal might go a long way to achieving Vidal’s dream.  In a world where there is no tax on aviation fuel- the “market” will have to change significantly for us to re-assess how we do things. Without a bold move like carbon tax it is difficult to feel confident about our prospects for combating climate change.  As we wait (hopefully not in vain) for such a solution to gain traction, it is heartening to consider how much we now know about how our brains function. Amory Lovins likes to say, “The good news about climate change is that it is cheaper to fix than it is to ignore.”  The bad news might be that we are not well equipped to deal with it.  Despite this, I found myself invigorated as I left the conference.  We are truly beginning to understand how, at a primal, subconscious level, we respond to long range threats. This knowledge suggests a way of crafting our messages that might actually compel a majority of us to take the threat of climate change seriously.  Nothing could be more important, though I can’t expect my saying that to change your mind.

The following was blogged live from our Fall Conference on September 18, 2012 – Cooling on Climate Change: Designing the Message.

In this first panel discussion this morning, speakers outlined a few key points that we can all use to capture the attention of varying audiences.

Elliot Diringer, C2ES says climate change is complicated by a number of conflicting characteristics.  Because it is a global phenomenon that affects cultures and landscapes in different ways, our message must be adaptable to different audiences around the world.  This, he says, is further complicated by the fact that the effects of climate change are still somewhat uncertain and being experienced sporadically and in different forms (if at all), making it difficult for individuals to understand the importance of taking immediate action.

Lisa Fernandez, Yale Project on Climate Change Communication shares her research showing that in the US, surveys show that the public perception of climate change has declined over the past few years as a result of the economy and unemployment, decreased media coverage, unusual cold weather, an effective “denial industry” and increasing political polarization.  She goes on to say these studies have also demonstrated that there are six different levels of climate change perception (alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful, dismissive), all of which require tailored engagement strategies.  Each audience interprets facts differently to construct their own understanding of the issue.

David Ropeik, Author and Consultant at David Ropeik and Associates, wrapped up the powerpoint presentations with a summary of the science behind how our brains actually process information.  He outlined the five components of risk perception, only one of which addresses the conscious, which is our ability to reason.  All other components come from our subconscious and deal with how we use mental shortcuts, circumstantial generalization, and common social influences to assess the risk associated with a certain event.  In summary, Ropeik illustrated that risks will not seem applicable to the individual if they don’t concern the individual on a level that is personal, local, and immediate.

Speakers agreed that effective messages must maintain credibility for the movement by staying close to facts outlined by current scientific research but counting on science alone won’t work. Spreading this knowledge is important, but that appealing to an individual’s (or a culture’s) emotions, values, and ideology also play a critical role in messaging effectively.  Finally, the message must appeal to the current social, political, and economic forces that are impacting an individual’s current perspective.

If you’re taking notes, write this down for tips to create and effective climate change message:

-        Present scientific data and consensus that climate change is real

-        Convey the real risks and impacts that climate change has on humans and focus on health consequences.

-        Portray linkage to recent extreme weather conditions

-        Avoid referring to climate change as an idea

-        Remind your audience that it’s solvable through immediate action

More to come in the next panel (The Role of the Green Building Industry) as we look to our “non-scientist validators”  to speak out to other key audiences.  Stay tuned for an update!

This month Urban Green will be holding a conference on climate change communication with the goal of bringing together some critical thinkers for a candid discussion about climate change messaging and action.  The topic of this conference derived from a few questions that have been nagging environmentalists for some time now. Why don’t some people believe climate change is happening? Or for that matter, that it’s caused by humans?

This of course excludes those with a vested interest in denying the science (“big oil” etc.).  Instead I’m talking about those individuals who actually aren’t convinced by the overwhelming scientific evidence, not those who are pretending not to believe it for financial or political gain.  A recent poll released by the Brookings Institute in July reveals that “belief” in climate change is literally changing with the weather. Of the 62% of Americans who believe global temperatures are rising, approximately half of those came to this conclusion because of weather changes or warmer temperatures.

What does this mean? It means talking about climate change is more complicated than just explaining the science.  In a recent New York Times article, Beth Gardiner spoke to leading researchers in the field of climate psychology about the inherent difficulty we have engaging “with the more abstract, global dangers posed by climate change.” It’s a fascinating article that concludes that the pitch is as important as the message.  To reach the roughly 40% of Americans who don’t believe and those who will no longer believe when the mercury falls, we’ll want to adjust our narrative.

There’s been a swell of research into this topic from a variety of highly focused academic centers over the last few years, including American University School of Communication, The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication (YPCCC), and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (4C), among others.  A collaborative report from the YPCCC and 4C, Global Warming’s Six Americas in March 2012 and November 2011, argues Americans can be described as part of one of six groups in terms of belief in climate change: Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, or Dismissive. Nearly 40% of American adults fall into the two most concerned groups while only 25% are in the least concerned groups.  Understanding these categories and the values of these individuals will help us communicate more effectively about climate change.

Once we’ve sorted this out, we’ll have to move on to the next and more challenging question.  If we all agree climate change is happening now and is a significant threat to our well-being, why aren’t we taking more action?  What specifically and practically can the green building industry do to combat climate change?  How do you fight climate change when you’re primary role is not a climate change warrior?

To hear more about these ideas and to participate in the discussion, join us for “Cooling on Climate Change: Designing the Message” on September 18 at Bloomberg. For more information and to register, please visit our website.

The media coverage of the earthquake that devastated Haiti and the city of Port au Prince on January 12, 2010 stopped long ago, creating a silence that allows many of us to remove the event from the list of immediately pressing concerns.

For a moment, let us think back to 2010 when initial reports stated that the total cost of the earthquake was between $8 billion and $14 billion and the death toll was approximately 316,000.   Later, in June 2011, the International Organization for Migration reported that an estimated 634,000 people were still living in displacement camps (New York Times).  Now, two and a half years after the natural disaster, hundreds of thousands are still living without safe housing and much of the infrastructure in Port au Price remains in disrepair.  Tent camps and damaged buildings provide unstable housing for those remaining in the city, while others have moved to the countryside to build homes with tarps and sheet metal. The crisis is far from over, and the need to build more permanent housing and infrastructure in Haiti still persists.

During times like these, it seems that our role as architects, engineers, developers, and builders is obvious.  The concepts of social entrepreneurship, social architecture, or social engineering have been around for a long time, all of which revolve around the goal of mitigating a social problem through conscious organization, planning, or design.  Shortly after news of Haiti’s earthquake reached this country, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) committed to helping the people of Haiti rebuild and recover from the disaster.  The current USGBC-led initiative, Project Haiti, is an effort to build a LEED-certified orphanage in Port au Prince.  Once complete, the Orphanage and Children’s Center will provide shelter and safety, immediate care, and a hopeful future for children.

Upon hearing about USGBC’s effort to raise money for this noteworthy project, the Urban Green Council Emerging Professionals came on board to support the cause.  At a fundraiser on August 15, 2012, the group raised over $1,700 to be donated to USGBC and used exclusively for expenses related to the design and construction of Haiti Orphanage and Children’s Center.  The evening was a cultural celebration with a brief presentation of the project and a performance by local Haitian drumming group, La Troupe Makandal.  A generous donation of raffle prizes from the Four Seasons Restaurant, TJ Allan, Rachel Goldfarb, Volta, Alexandra Weiss Designs, and Urban Green Council contributed to the funds raised.  See photos from the event here.

This project has been designed as a model for high-performance green building practices that can be tailored to any culture.  As sustainable builders, we cannot just rebuild buildings and infrastructure; we must “rebuild them better”. Project Haiti aims to inspire and teach how construction can both minimize impacts on the environment and, through maximizing energy and water conservation, be financially sustainable.  Sponsored by USGBC with partnership from the Foundation L’enfant Jesus and pro-bono design by HOK, Project Haiti has been recognized as a Commitment Maker by the Clinton Global Initiative.

The Urban Green Council Emerging Professionals are a dedicated group of young professionals who work to create a network of leaders in the field of sustainability.  Led by a core group of volunteer leaders, they develop opportunities for involvement through Urban Green Council to further generate momentum for the green building industry.

Want to learn more about how the green building industry is practicing “social design”?  Urban Green Council’s conference Cooling on Climate Change: Designing the Message on September 18, will examine how the green building industry should be responding to climate change by asking questions such as: How can the green building movement better communicate the threats of climate change?  What role do designers, developers, operators, and other real estate professionals have in climate change activism?  What role does marketing play regarding climate change in the green building industry?  How are marketing strategies adjusted for clients who are uninterested in mitigating climate change?

Urban Green Council relies on our interns to help with our monthly educational programs, assist with fundraising, and work on developing our national certificate program GPRO. The Fall 2012 Internship season is upon us, and we wanted to take this opportunity to introduce you to our summer interns and thank them for their incredible work over the past three months.

JESSICA JOANLANNE
[GPRO Intern] Recent graduate from the New York School of Interior Design with an MPS in Sustainable Interior Environments.

Interning at Urban Green Council has been such an amazing experience!  The entire staff is truly dedicated to spreading the message of sustainability, and I am so happy for the opportunity to learn from them and contribute to their mission.  Working on GPRO has been especially rewarding, because I’ve been able to apply so much from my recent graduate studies to the development of the different course modules.  After this internship, I hope to implement all that I’ve learned to advance my career in the field of sustainable design and advocacy.

JAMIE KLEINBERG
[Research Intern] Graduate of Tufts University with a B.S. Chemical Engineering

As a research intern, I have been working on the 90×50 project, which aims to describe the energy efficiency measures necessary to reduce citywide greenhouse gas emissions 90% below 2010 levels by the year 2050. It is truly an eye-opening project, and I hope to see a greener New York City as a result of it! Working on 90×50 has taught me so much about the careful interaction between scientific research and feasible policy. I am so thankful for the opportunity to see the project through to its end, and I expect to use what I’ve learned about sustainability in all of my future endeavors.

NATALIE SELZER
[GPRO Intern] A California native and recent Tufts University graduate with a B.A. in environmental studies and English. 

The past three months at Urban Green Council have been a great learning experience. Working on GPRO curriculum development allowed me to combine my two primary interests—urban sustainability and writing/editing—in a really interesting way that I hadn’t experienced before. It opened my eyes to a new set of professional possibilities in environmental education and training, which I may not have otherwise considered. I was also lucky to work with the small, dedicated staff of GPRO. They gave me both independence and support, and really involved me in the big projects they were working on. They welcomed me as a part of their team, and I was able to learn so much about sustainable building practices, curriculum development, and the nonprofit workplace because of their inclusive attitude. Once my time with Urban Green Council ends, I hope to pursue a career in environmental journalism or communications (anything that involves both words and the environment!).

CHARLOTTE STANLEY
[GPRO Intern] California native with a B.S. in Environmental Science from UCLA.
I’m so glad I got the opportunity to continue my spring internship at Urban Green Council through the summer. As a member of GPRO’s curriculum development team, I gained additional responsibilities and helped with research, writing, editing, and more for the Construction Management and Operations & Maintenance modules. I’ve really enjoyed all aspects of my internship and I’m excited for my next step – joining Urban Green’s staff full-time as GPRO’s Curriculum Associate!

Best of luck to Jessica, Jamie, Natalie, and Charlotte on their future endeavors! We are now accepting applications for our Fall 2012 internship positions through the end of August.

All else being equal, the bigger your apartment, the bigger your impact on the environment. More square feet generally means more lighting, more heating and cooling, and more embodied energy in construction and furniture. It also takes more cleaning supplies and paint to keep things looking spiffy. So wouldn’t it be nice to have a smaller place and reduce your footprint?

According to the NYC Mayor’s Office, there are 1.8 million one- and two-person households in New York City, but only one million studios and one-bedrooms. So despite the cost savings and ecological benefits, you might not always have the option to choose that right-sized apartment.To help close the gap with appropriately-sized and affordable smaller units, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) launched the adAPT NYC competition yesterday, which will seek proposals to develop replicable designs for residential buildings containing “micro-units,” apartments smaller than currently allowed by code. Individual units are expected to measure 275-300 square feet.

In this pilot program, Mayor Bloomberg will waive certain zoning regulations on a Kips Bay site owned by the city to allow HPD to issue an RFP for the design, construction, and operation of a micro-unit rental building. The goal appears to be both to provide affordable housing as well as inform potential changes to regulations affecting buildings with smaller housing units.

The small house movement has been preaching the benefits of mini-homes for years, and the Brits are building homes less than half the size of those on this side of the pond. While New York City already has denser living conditions than the rest of the US — part of the reason its environmental footprint is comparatively reduced — increased choice and affordability will help keep the NYC housing stock flexible for the needs of the market.

This seems like a great idea from both an economic and sustainability perspective. Choosing smaller apartments can help your pocketbook, your energy bill, and the earth. We look forward to taking a tour of the first built micro-units…one at a time.

Like me, you have probably worked in an office where you dutifully separated out your paper for recycling only to see a custodian later throw everything into one garbage bin. That’s what happens even in our building, owned by Vornado, one of the greenest commercial owners in the industry.

Don’t worry, this is supposed to happen. In office buildings, almost everything you throw out is paper and waste haulers don’t mind pulling out the rest of your non-recyclable trash. That is, unless that trash is wet food waste. Water and food kill paper. So, the goal of recycling programs in New York offices is to keep them away from regular dry waste.

An effective office recycling program will encourage tenants to dispose all their wet, food waste in kitchen bins rather than at their desk. By using transparent trash bags, everything can be thrown in together, with the wet waste easily identified and pulled out at the recycling plant.

So if you are one of the legion of New Yorkers who eat lunch at your desk, when you are done please use that kitchen trash bin!