Polyvinyl chloride or commonly called PVC is the third most widely produced plastic. PVC is mostly used in construction now. It can be used as water pipes, sewage pipes, or used on the coating of electrical wires. There are other uses for PVC such as sports and clothing. PVC seems to be a great product, but it has problems. The problems with PVC come from how it is made and what toxics the process gives off.

The process of making PVC is very hazardous to the workers and the environment. PVC gives off dioxin. Dioxin is the worst carcinogen in the world today. Once this carcinogen gets into the body, it can cause cancer and many other health problems. The environment also takes a hit from dioxin. The carbon dioxide given off during this process goes into the atmosphere with dioxin in it. The toxic air is then carried up to the North Pole by the wind. Once in the North Pole, animals eat plants that have it on their leaves or in there stems. The dioxin stores inside the animals fat and never leaves the body. This animal then gets eaten by another animal in the life cycle. The life cycle keeps going and more and more animals get affected. For example, polar bears have extremely high levels of dioxin in them according to Mary Jane Derex. She told use that in recent years polar bears have been increasing steadily in dioxin levels that would kill humans. The cubs of polar bears are being born with these extremely high levels. This is part of the reason why the polar bear population is becoming extinct.

Dioxin also does not break down rapidly. It stays in the environment or in animals for a very long time. This will cause problems in the food chain for decades. It will also cause problems for humans; too. If we get really high levels of dioxin in our bodies it will kill us. The only safe way to rid the environment of dioxin is to stop making PVC. Is this really an option?

PVC has revolutionized the construction business. It is cheaper and more flexible than copper or other metals that are primarily used for piping. There are many advantages that PVC gives to construction companies. This is why PVC is still being made today. The only way to make this process stop is have a government mandate. This probably will not happen, but it should to safe the environment.

My final essay is on the construction process. I talk about how it is un-sustainable but is crucial to modern living. I draw from three out of the four guest speakers we had. They are Mrs. Katz, Mr. Wallon, and Mrs. Derex. I explain how each other them told us different things about inside and outside construction.  Mr. Wallon showed us the solar decathlon house. I used his ideas in the part of my paper on how to make construction more sustainable. Mrs. Katz was the first guest speaker who got me thinking about the construction process. She is the one that said it is un-sustainable process. There is a ton of waste left over. Living next to the new dorm getting built on the sic pack is a perfect example of this. They have dumpsters getting removed full of waste every day. This was an unbelievable amount to waste. Mrs. Derex showed use different things to be put in your house. I called this in my paper inside construction. She said that carpeting is probably one of the worst things to put into your house. It is made from petroleum and holds all the vapors from your house.

                I also got ideas from the online LEED section. This allowed me to show how contractors can build homes that are safe for the environment. BIF (Business Instructional Facility) is a perfect example of this on the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign campus. There are solar panels and many windows to allow natural light in. There were also two videos on houses like the adobe brick and stray house. This how was made from resources close to the construction site. The other how was made in cubicles and delivered to the construction site. The house was very environmentally safe. There was a garden on the roof and a gray water reusable tank. There were a lot of things that the owner put in to help safe the environment.

The place I chose to talk about is my house. It was built in the 80’s and has had improvements since my parents moved in. The house does not really take advantage of natural light. The front of the house faces south and there are windows on all four sides. The east and west side do not have as many windows as the north and south sides. Natural light does enter the home but not like we say in the Gable House. My bedroom has the most natural light in the evening because it is on the west side and the kitchen receives the most light in the morning because it is on the east side. Skylights and adding more windows on the east and west sides could help take advantage of the natural light.

 

My house manages temperature fairly well. During the spring and summer, there is a nice breeze that cools down the house except when it is one hundred degrees. In the fall and winter, the house is relatively warm. My house use to be shaded a lot better than it is today. There was a huge pine tree that covered half my house throughout the seasons, but it was cut down because we could not see out the bay window. I also had a cheery tree that covered another quarter of the house. This was replaced by a smaller tree that does not cover any of the house now. The only cover that my house has now is from a red maple tree that covers the garage. The house is very well insulated. It has the rolled up or batted insulation and also has blown in insulation. The only place where there is a draft is the laundry room. This is the room that has the oldest window in the house. This window does not do a very good job at keeping the wind out.

 

Heating my house is not a difficult thing to do. My mom likes to cook a lot so the stove is a very good generator of heat. This allows for our bedrooms to become warm because the kitchen in below the bedrooms. The house also keeps heat inside; so we do not really turn the heat on that much. We only turn the heat on until the house warms up to about 73 and then we turn it back off. The house usually stays warm unless someone leaves the door open or allows cold air in.

Curitiba is a thriving city now thanks to all the improvements. The city was redesigned around people not cars. There still are roads but the city is meant for people. The first thing that was built was a City Center. This showed residents that the government was serious about change and was going to go forward with it. The next thing the government did was use existing infrastructure. They tried not to knock down any buildings and used all the roads that were built already. They just used the existing infrastructure differently.  This also along with informing the people through education helped their city. With the existing roads, the city just changed the lanes and made the middle for buses. They went to double and triple articulated buses and new shelters for waiting. This made traffic and overcrowding absolute. Curitiba also said enough with flooding and decided to use water to their advantage. They made more man-made lakes and rivers and this ended flooding.

                With this taken care of Curitiba took to fighting poverty. They built affordable houses and allow poverty stricken people to make money. They told them to pick up garbage and they got food and toys for their families. This allowed for slums to get better. Also they gave the poverty people jobs. They let them build new neighborhoods that would get rid of slums. Since they were working on their house; they were allowed to buy them at a cheaper price.

Edna Sussman’s article had many interesting points about how municipalities control and change their affect on the climate. It was a tough choice to pick one to talk about, but I chose to talk about LEED certifications. LEED certifications, to me, are the most important part in changing how our buildings affect the climate. Once cities and towns start to push their building codes to have LEED in them, then it would eliminate one major problem with the climate.  My city that is doing this with their school district is Tinley Park. The school district is District 140. The school board has begun to make all schools and administration buildings LEED certified. This is a slow process but they feel it is the best for themselves and the community. The buildings were not made LEED but they are making them like LEED buildings.

Each year, they do something to a different building to make it more LEED certified. The school district has replaced old boilers with new high efficient boilers. Along with new boilers, they have put new air conditioning units in and new windows. Both of these are LEED certified products. The long fluorescent bulbs are placed in a machine that grinds them up and does not allow any containment into the air. The janitorial staff uses products made from the environment to clean all the schools. The transportation department uses new buses that have a preheat option. This allows the bus to be heated before they are turned on so idle time is reduced.  The buses are also plugged in but they are only turned on when the temperature is low enough and stays on for a certain amount of time. The schools also shut the air conditioning of in the summer. They do not cool the school off once the students are out of school. The water fountains are cooled only during the day and are shut off at night. Hot water heaters are only on during the school day and then shut off after school hours.

As you can see, the school district is doing something every year to reduce its impact on the world. They are leading the way for Tinley Park. Tinley Park should be proud to have a school like this in their boundaries. They can boast about having one of the most energy efficient  schools in the state and in the national.

Curitiba and Bogota have both revitalized themselves with the help of Urban Planning. They both use transit to their advantage.  They also had the idea to put people before cars.  Their ideas on urban planning and everything is great. The people seem a lot happier and the country is doing great. They were both doing badly before and now they are doing great. There are still some bad parts of town, but they are working at making them safer. This would totally revitalize the country.

                They have three major things in common that I found. The first thing I noticed was that they both use articulated buses. These buses are used everywhere pretty much, but they have them working a lot faster. They are very good at moving a lot of people very fast. This cuts down on wait time and allows people to get out the city fast.

                The second thing I noticed was that they both put people before cars. They identified problem areas and tried to fix them. They tried to fix them with people not with more roads and cars. This allowed the urban planner to add greener infrastructure. Also with fewer cars, buses have more opportunity to get around faster.

                The third thing I noticed was that they both made the country better, safer, and more prosperous. They have lambs eating grass to cut down on emissions. They shut down a road every Sunday to allow people to walk or bike it. They have people living in slums collecting garbage and getting paid in fruits and vegetables. They are building new community and having the slums move there and work there.  They are essentially eliminating slums and the high crime areas. The two urban planners were very smart at what they did and how they did it.

                One thing that was very different in the two was who the urban planner was and how they got their opportunity.  The Curitiba urban planner was an urban planner. He did not have any political power other than knowing a few people. He just had good ideas and brought them to the table. They town liked them and proceed with them. The mayor of Bogota was the urban planner. He had the power to change and it did not matter if people agreed with it or not. In the end, he made it great though.

                Another thing that was different is that Bogota named their bus system. They did not want people feeling like they were getting on a bus. They wanted it to be a better name and feel better (Transmillino). Curitiba just left it as their transit name. They did not care what the name was. They knew it would still work for the people.

My neighborhood is Orland Hills, Illinois. It is a small suburb of Chicago. It is a very small community of about 5,000 people. The people who live there work all over the place. There is not any non-automobile transit. The biggest thing in my town in the Wal-Mart and the strip mall the faces the Wal-Mart. My town is small enough to where you can walk from edge to edge. My town stretches 12 blocks north and south and 6 blocks east and west. We do not have any green infrastructure in my town. The only green things we have are trees and grass.

I do not think there is a center to my town. There is not a center piece to it. There are however edges that are easy to see. The town is made into a rectangle by four streets. Going east and west you can walk my town with ease. North and South may put a little struggle on you but nothing too bad. We have a lot of sidewalks to walk on and there are many trails to bike around on. I do not think I would change anything in my neighborhood for the walkers and bikers. They have a lot of room to do what they want. I would only considered 88^th Ave. to be complete because it has sidewalks, bike lane, and then the street. The street I would say that is unsafe is 159^th Street. Cars go really fast and even with a big sidewalk it is still dangerous.

I see my neighborhood not really changing in fifty years. I see Orland Hills still being a tiny town in-between to big towns (Orland Park and Tinley Park). The town may go green with the town hall and town recreation center, but other than that I do not see anything else going green. Many people may move in and out of the town, but it will still be the same. The town will not grow. It will just be a nice little suburb to families who work around the city of Chicago. The cars that they drive may become greener but other than that nothing else will. I do not plan on living there forever, but it will always be a nice place to call home. The community will always be one that anyone and everyone would want to live in. This is what makes it the best.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-06/world/world_brazil-indonesia-rainforest-eco_1_deforestation-brazil-vote-brazilian-government?_s=PM:WORLD

 

The article I chose was about Brazilian Deforestation. The article describes how Brazil has to make a decision over a “common.” This is an example of a tragedy of commons because it is a resource that will go away if everyone continues to act the way they do. We consume way too much wood and wood products. If you look around your room, you can see so many objects and goods made out of wood. With this consumption rate we have, the rain forest in Brazil and around the world are going to cease to exist.  Without trees, carbon dioxide will become more and more abundant and oxygen will become less abundant. This will cause many other environmental problems besides the two listed above.  The forest is a common area and we are taking it over without any care. Without this care, the forest will go away and eventually so will we.

There are many solutions that can be proposed and used to help with this tragedy of commons. One solution is selective cutting. Selective cutting is to only cut trees that are mature enough to be used. This would allow baby trees to grow and develop and would always have trees in the ground. Another solution is to stop cutting trees down. This would hurt the economy but would help grow back our forests. We could cut for one year and then stop cutting for three years. This would allow trees to grow and help out the environment.  Another solution would be to find out how to make more synthetic wood. This would allow us to still cut wood but a lot less. With less wood being cut means more trees growing and the environment would become stronger.

The solution I believe that would work the best is to cut less wood and find other products to use instead. We have so many smart people on this earth and such great technology, that we can come up with other goods to use in place of wood. This would free up keeping trees in the ground and make the environment better. Besides the obvious ways of making the environment better, it would also help aesthetics. Many people are now worried about how their businesses look and many owners like trees. These trees can help their business and our environment. This is a solution that I believe will work the best.

I believe “growing cooler” is a hybrid between technological and ecological sustainability. I think it is both because in the reading it talks about how technologies can help advance sustainability and how ecologically can help sustainability. I would agree with a lot of the things said in the reading; too.

            To begin with, it is technological sustainability because of all the technologies that are described in the reading. For example, they talk about increasing the fuel efficiency in cars. This would help a lot because then cars would use less gas. With using less gas, we would emit less carbon dioxide. Another new technology would be changing the composition of gas. They talk about this and say that it could emit less carbon dioxide. There is a draw back from this though. With all of these new technologies, we are always expanding. Our VMT (vehicles miles traveled) is expanding rapidly. We are driving longer and getting stuck in traffic more. With this happening, the carbon emissions are staying the same. We can lower the output from cars, but if we don’t lower our VMT then we are still going to get hotter.

            In addition to technological sustainability, I think there is some ecological sustainability. The reading says that if we would build houses closer to our cities, than we could walk and ride our bicycles. This would not be new technology but would be smarter for the environment. Also in lecture, were talking about growing cooler. We discussed ways on how to become cooler. We can stop using so many fossil fuels or change the way in which we mine fossil fuels. The ways we mine now are very disruptive to the earth and sometimes they can turn horribly wrong. For example, the BP oil spill. The way we were drilling for oil was a new way and it went wrong. Then the oil spill happened and it went downhill. Also, we can add green vegetation to the surroundings and grow cooler.

            With all of this, growing cooler is a viable option for the world. It can help us make a better world for all of the generations to come. With the idea, people should start to come to the idea that something needs to happen. You may not agree what the article says, but everyone agrees that something needs to be done. Growing cooler is a very good idea to help us preserve the earth.

Places that we do not care about have become desolate. There are parks and plazas that have been built that no one uses. They are beautiful places but are never used. When people try to fix them or make them usable, the architect or the city usually complains and nothing is ever done. People in other cultures go to these unused places on their own. There does not have to be a fair going on to use these places.

 We have built cities and towns that we do not care about, because the past couple of decades all people wanted were houses and towns to call their own. There was never any thought put into slowing down or maximizing the area we already use.  For example, the Lincoln-Way schools in Frankfort, Illinois prove this point really well. There used to be only two Lincoln-Way schools now there are four. The last one they built is enormous and is only half-way full. How can a multi-million dollar school be built and half of it is used.

My hometown of Orland Hills, Illinois is a place worth caring about. We are a small town in the south suburbs of Chicago. We are only about five thousand people in population. There have been no major crimes in Orland Hills history even when it was named West Haven.  The town has developed its youth baseball and football programs into really good teams. The town is a great place to raise a family. The biggest place in my town is Super Wal-Mart. The town does many things for the residents. They redo streets every year and put on events. One major even is for the fourth of July. It is the weekend before the fourth. No other town I know does this. The celebration is all weekend long. There are live bands and many festivities for people of all ages.

The major reason why Orland Hills is worth protecting is because of the people. The residents would do anything they could for another resident. During the winter, there are always the younger children out shovels the elderly peoples driveways and sidewalks. During a real bad snowstorm, local snowplow trucks helped the city keep the streets cleaned. During the spring, summer, and fall, the children are out mowing the lawns of the elderly. Everyone knows they do not need to help but they still do. It is like an unwritten law that you will help out Orland Hills people. Many people do not respect Orland Hills as a town because we are so small. We are small but we are also a close knit town that always stays together.

Smill’s argument, through his reading, provides support for technological sustainability. It shoes this because he talks about new technologies to help with energy. For example, he talks about forests of wind turbines and using crops as a fuel source. All of these are technological and shows the nature needs to keep up with technology.  If it does not than it could be passed and ruined.  He also explains that modern societies are based on huge flows of energy. We need more technology to make this happen. If we do not have more technologies to fulfill this need, than we could run out of resources.

                In 2112, we could very well be running out of resources. Our need for energy will not be fulfilled. Many people will go hungry and not have a way to get food. Our houses will be cold and hot depending on the temperature outside. There will not be any lights on at night. All of our gadgets and televisions will be useless. The temperatures will be unbearable and many people will struggle to live. Food will be hard to grow and harvest without energy sources. People will become scavengers and start to steal anything and everything they can. The police will not have any way to stop this and the laws will be useless. Everyone will be on their own and the strongest will survive.

                In 2112, we have met our energy goals. People have cut back on energy consumption. We still have all of our gadgets but use the sparingly. The earth has gone back to the normal cycle and the temperatures are going back to normal. We still have some hot spells but they are bearable. We have enough food for everyone and people have cut back on being overweight.  Cars run on water and emit no green house gases. Permafrost in the poles has once again begun to freeze and methane is not going into the atmosphere.  Hurricanes are weaker when they reach land and water levels are back to where they were hundreds of years ago.  Companies are using water as a power source and emitting hydrogen gas. This helps bring down the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. With this brings more rain and fewer droughts. The crops are growing better than ever. We have corn knee high by the fourth of July and do not use fertilizers. It is such a great place to live now.

Ecological footprint is a term used to describe the impact of humans on Earth. The startling fact is that if everyone lived like an American, we would need four earths to handle all the resources consumed. This is absolutely absurd. How can Americans use so many resources? We need to really find some way to control this.

            It is possible to use more than one year’s worth of biocapacity because of all the industries we have. Ever since the industrial revolution, we have been consuming more and more as Americans. Most of us do not really know we use this much. When you really put your mind to it, you can discover a lot about how much we use. For example, having electricity at the switch of a button adds a lot to the biocapacity. Driving, television, lights, iPod charging, and many more use some form of energy that adds to the biocapacity. Add this along with all the coal and natural gas power plants and you get a very high biocapacity.

There are many consequences to using this much biocapacity. The major one is adding to the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is a gas that is the major contributor to global destabilization. Carbon dioxide is the major gas that is given off when all of these energies are produced. With this happening permafrost is becoming unfrozen. With this happening methane is being let off and into the atmosphere. Methane is a worse green house gas than carbon dioxide. It is about 24 times worse than carbon dioxide is. This means that methane holds in the sun’s radiation a lot more. With more radiation being held in, the earth heats up and cause global warming or global destabilization.

If we do not stop all this energy consumptions, it may be the downfall of humanity. Reversing this trend will become increasingly hard because more and more damage will be done. Many scientists believe that if the earth raises two degrees Celsius, we may never be able to turn it around.  The earth would become hotter in many places that are not supposed to be hot. The storms will get more severe. Climates will change throughout the world. Droughts and heat waves will become more common; too. With all of this happening, reversing them would be a long hard battle and probably would not be successful. This is why we need to control what we use and how much we use.

In David Orr’s reading, he said sustainability is technological or ecological. There were many arguments he put up on both sides. People who believe in technological sustainability say that every problem has a technological answer or an economic answer.  They also believe that nature should change with the humans.  When new technology comes out, nature should evolve with it and become better with it.  They also believe that man should not have any limits due to nature. It is almost as if man is above nature and nature should keep up with man. Technological advocates according to Orr also believe that economic growth is more important than ecological growth. Nature is not anything without man and his money. Orr also says that since technology keeps growing and man keeps getting better, how it can harm nature in the end.

Ecological sustainability is pretty much the opposite of technological sustainability. Orr says that advocates of this believe that nature is on top of man. Nature was here before man and will be after man.  He also says that ecological is a moral issue with man.  Before all this new technology man lived fine before. Man has to break away from this and go back to thinking about nature being on top. Along with this, man needs to control what he wants and needs. We are consuming so much more than ever before and this harms nature. Without nature we are not anything. So Orr says that we should watch what we do and take from nature.

Orr and Robinson created this typology because they want to show people different ways of sustainability. If I did not read this, I would have never known that there are two types of sustainability. I would not have known how people think man and nature are related. Orr and Robinson are showing how two sides disagree on how to become sustainable. People are always open to their opinions. These two readings show what is happening to the world. People should become more involved and try to understand how to help the world out.

An “in-between” scenario is nuclear power and how sustainable it is. It is considered to be one of the cleanest forms of energy and is recently new. It is a new technology and does not really affect nature. It can be considered between the two because of how it helps both out.  Nuclear power helps nature out because it is elements being transformed into uranium.  This is also a relatively new technology. The only problem is man has to be smart with it. This is an “in-between” scenario that could bridge the gap between the two sides. In the end everyone really needs to sit down and think about nature. Nature is what produced us. If we do not take care of nature; nature could take us out.

I would not a say anything in particular peaked my interest in urban sustainability. I think just walking around and watching the television had me thinking about it. I would really like to learn about how “green” is not really “green.” You hinted at it today in class, but I would really like to know more.