Doron Bracha Apr 28, 2014 03:03
Member
|
Interesting proposal, the author is clearly knowledgeable and passionate, but I think more clarity is needed. I've browsed the proposal and the article in the link, found it somewhat laborious to go thru all the data on the different topics, and eventually I didn't really understand the main point, or the main solution that was proposed.
Regarding trees, no doubt they are wonderful in many ways, but keep in mind they don't store CO2 forever, eventually they release it when they die and decay:
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=826
Planting trees would certainly help, but it wouldn't resolve the real issue, which is reducing our consumption and our overall carbon footprint.
As for green building rating systems, indeed those should be improved to encourage true green design, by questioning whether a new building really had to be built, and whether the scope of construction was justified (perhaps the same functions could have been done in a smaller building). For example, building a 5,000 sq. ft. single family home, with 7 bathrooms and a pool, should not be considered green, no matter how many green 'bells and whistles' in has.
On a brighter note, there are some other standards out there, for those who are interested in going more sincerely green:
https://ilbi.org/lbc
http://www.passivehouse.us/passiveHouse/PHIUSHome.html
Cheers !..
|
Huynh Phu Dat Apr 29, 2014 03:22
Member
| Proposal contributor
Can you spent a little of time read the comment here ? Thank you . I don't bring all information here because this is just green building . All are conservation of absorbing CO2 value of environment Can you read this link and 19 comments , a real information
https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300210/planId/3808
p/s : about plants : many scientists and civil engineers, they all think that any carbon absorbed by the biosphere is just recycled back into the atmosphere within the next year or so ...as that biomass dies and decomposes into methane or carbon dioxide and water. If you think that , I think you're bad at protecting environment . It’s just make me think that all these people protect environment really bad at effect or they’re not at effective at all . If plant 100 trees and 1 tree die after 1 or 2 years or even 10 tens trees die , yes I can accept that but with all 100 trees die or here all scientists and civil engineers think 100 % percent tree die . so fire all people work to keep trees , plants alive when they can’t do their work good , actually , if 30 % plants die is enough to consider about the effect of their work . If we earn money by keeping trees , plants alive , we only can continue our work and earn money if we can keep them alive . Plants have many different type , some are good at against hot weather or cold weather , some can against bugs , some can absorb huge CO2 , value , we should choose the best in our opinions . All kind of plants some day will die . But more day they can live , more CO2 can be absorb . So if we plant more plants , and more plants only alive in 10 years , and in 10 years , it make absorbing CO2 of Earth bigger than emitting CO2 of Earth so that is 10 years we decrease CO2 of atmosphere . And ten years Earth’s weather become stable and 10 years less Climate Change ‘s disasters . Before they die or we should never let they die ( ^ ^ ) , they already absorb a lot of CO2 of atmosphere . And before they die , we have time for a next generation of plants will grow to continue absorb CO2 . And when the plants of this generation die , we need value of next generation plants bigger or can absorb bigger CO2 value than emitting CO2 value of dead plants of this generation . Considering about Earth of the past , perhaps the Climate is stable because even trees , plants still die everyday , but living trees are large enough to absorb all emitting CO2 of dead trees , plants .
|
Huynh Phu Dat Apr 29, 2014 03:47
Member
| Proposal contributor
Destroy 1 area which absorb 1000 lbs CO2 per year , if we protect environment , we must find another area , plant 1 tree or some trees can absorb 1000 lbs CO2 . If not , Earth lost 1000 absorbing CO2 value . Key point . Law system , Green design don't have this key point . We build our cities , towns without this absorbing CO2 standard some thousand years . We are not protect environment or we make Earth absorb , store , soak CO2 less than the environment before we build our cities , towns . Only absorb CO2 smaller .
|
Huynh Phu Dat Apr 29, 2014 04:10
Member
| Proposal contributor
Before we build government buildings , we destroy plants can absorb 1000 lbs CO2 , after we build the buildings , the law don't force us plants some trees which can absorb 1000 lbs CO2 . 7 billions people , no one do this . Global Serious error of design if we focus on absorbing CO2 of environment before and after we build buildings .
|
Mark Johnson May 17, 2014 08:17
Member
|
The before and after photos (with supporting narratives) present a "Net-Sum" story. The author at least gets an "A" for effort. Reminds us of those who insisted upon factoring the cost of fossil fuels in the harvesting, production and transportation of ethanol - a valid perspective in reaching a "net sum" valuation. Recommend looking at the 3D Printing Hemcrete project on this site. Amazing amounts of BTUs needed to produce concrete for example. Just as power companies now offer home owners "wind/solar derived" power from the grid, seems we would be well served to follow the Tesla business model for manufacturers. That is, link eco-friendly power grids coast-to-coast which support our manufacturing base. Tesla now has its first coast-to-coast network of recharging stations for its vehicles. The final eco-perspective would be calculating the total energy consumed to complete a project and where this energy was sourced, including from construction subcontractors.
|
Chad Knutsen May 17, 2014 03:16
Member
|
Aye, thanks for the nod Mark,
Heres the link to the 3D printing Hempcrete project:
https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300403/planId/1305704
|
Huynh Phu Dat May 24, 2014 09:45
Member
| Proposal contributor
Why no one talk about environmental law , green standard , it's a problem too .
|
Chad Knutsen May 28, 2014 06:17
Member
|
My friend, I think the reason folks dont want to talk about law, is because any system that tries to implement controls on a population is doomed to fail. Humans do not like to be ruled. Humans do not like to be told what to do. The way we need to educate the population is not through a system of controls, rewards, and punishments, and competition (ala the Prussian model of education). But with changing the Prussian educational model into one that incubates innovation and futurist thinking. Check ou this video for a good hint into what I'm talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFRT9JKGPcI&list=PLmWbUd3lcnj9gkifADitIVN0O5Izah_gw
Truly, in order to get people thinking green, we need to excite them about the possibilities of the future, not scare them about the problems of the present. Once people start seeing that another world is possible, they will help us all build it. Goes back to the ole' "If you build it they will come" idea. And it's true. Thats mainly why suggest this:
http://www.climatecolab.com/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300403/phaseId/1300403/planId/1305704
|
Huynh Phu Dat May 29, 2014 09:23
Member
| Proposal contributor
My friend , they're just laws of buildings , city ....... . about absorb Co2 standard , values .
|
Priti Ambani May 30, 2014 12:29
Fellow
|
Dear Huynh Phu Dat,
You have presented a lot of information here. From why I understand on your proposal you are trying to highlight the net impact of buildings by including the loss of trees and the carbon dioxide sink capabilities. Are you proposing to educate communities on the larger impacts of buildings by highlighting the loss of trees? I am not clear on the relation of your proposal to the contest problem statement.
Through this contest we are trying to educate the community on how buildings have an impact on their health and the health of the planet and greener buildings that work with the environment rather than against it (agree with Doron --not necessarily 8 bedroom homes that have a zillion green features) are better for everybody. Another thing to consider is what are ways to reach a large section of the population that are not comfortable with complex equations and calculations?
Cheers!
Priti
|
Chad Knutsen May 30, 2014 01:58
Member
|
Huynh, I definitely think you've pointed out a MAJOR flaw in our current green standards systems. I think envirotatian is correct when she says that this may be the wrong contest section for your proposal. I think it would be advisable to consider switching it into the: US Government "What new actions or policies can the U.S. government implement to mitigate climate change?" contest.
https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300401
Mark sent me your extended proposal and I am going over it today, I'll help to tighten up some of the english etc. Add my 2 cents and get it back to you guys by tonight or tomorrow.
I really dig your plan after some further time spent reading over it, I do however feel that your proposal would do very well in that other contest:
https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300401
Cheers friend, keep up the good work!
Chad
|
Chad Knutsen May 30, 2014 01:49
Member
|
In addition to the tree you mentioned in your proposal, adding Hemo into farmers crop rotations, and replacing concrete with hempcrete will certainly come into play once your updates make it into the standards books. Would you be interesting in helping to develop a Hemp Home Community (HHC) standard with Mark and I at some point?
|
Huynh Phu Dat May 31, 2014 09:45
Member
| Proposal contributor
Dear envirotarian ,
Perhaps this is a NET SUM story of absorbing CO2 of environment before and after we build green building . Green Building really need a absorbing CO2 standard of environment after we build green building . Or I meant we should plant some tree because of we destroy some tree for Green building . Calculation of absorbing CO2 .
|
Huynh Phu Dat May 31, 2014 09:06
Member
| Proposal contributor
Dear chadith ,
Thank you for inviting me . But I think I should wait until this contest end . You know , I need to update my proposal in some next day .
Thank you ,
God Bless .
|
Mark Johnson Jun 13, 2014 07:06
Member
|
Hello Huynh - Please check your inbox. Sent you a draft cover letter addressed to 5 EPA offices - Headquarters, 2 EPA Divisions and 2 EPA Regional offices. If OK with you, I will prepare 5 hardcopy packages for mailing. Each package will have a cover Letter summarizing your project objectives and enclosures will be composed of the calculations you made regarding the Ohio and Georgia projects (with Google Earth photos of each location). Let us know and we'll get the info in the mail! An EPA response will likely take at least 20-30 days. Onward! Mark
|
Huynh Phu Dat Jun 13, 2014 09:26
Member
| Proposal contributor
Hello Mark . I checked the mail box , read the cover letter , it's good . You can send it . I hope you insert my proposals link and use my full name Huynh Phu Dat , not just Huynh .
I send you a reply email 2 days ago , if you didn't have it so email system have error . I just send you another email .
God Bless .
Thank you for helping me , Mark and Chad !!!
|
Huynh Phu Dat Jun 13, 2014 09:25
Member
| Proposal contributor
I update proposal with forest policy analyzing .
|
Mark Johnson Jun 17, 2014 09:14
Member
|
We are planning to mail the packages to the 5 EPA offices (per above comments) sometime on Wednesday. Glad you agree with the proposal cover letter. I believe we've put together a package which will get noticed by the EPA. If we don't hear anything within about 20 days, we'll do a friendly, courteous follow up. The EPA offices chosen are closely aligned with your project objectives. Gave A Great Day! Mark
|
Huynh Phu Dat Jun 17, 2014 09:47
Member
| Proposal contributor
Hello Mark
Thank you for helping me !!!
|
Mark Johnson Jun 17, 2014 10:00
Member
|
You are very welcome. I really appreciate your sincerity and you are DRIVEN - It shows. Yep, we will get your project in front of top EPA officials. They should respect your ideas.
Mark.
|
Huynh Phu Dat Jun 18, 2014 03:38
Member
| Proposal contributor
Hello Mark
Just a wish I can warn people and my conscience can feel not to bad . Do you know the feeling when you know they were wrong , you try your best but still can't warn them . It's me .
Hope we can success .
|
Mark Johnson Jun 18, 2014 08:53
Member
|
You get an A+ for effort and sincerity! Yes, you should feel good.
Today, I mailed your project statement cover sheet, photographs (images of OH, GA land mass), and other project info to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- 5 different EPA addresses.
We should hear something within 30 days. Let's hope.
Great working with you Huynh! Mark
|
Huynh Phu Dat Jun 18, 2014 08:25
Member
| Proposal contributor
Hello Mark
|
Huynh Phu Dat Jun 18, 2014 08:40
Member
| Proposal contributor
Thank you , Mark
|
Huynh Phu Dat Jun 30, 2014 03:41
Member
| Proposal contributor
Update Agriculture , livestock , CO2 , methane , tax , solution . Really hope you will support my proposals .
|
Huynh Phu Dat Jul 4, 2014 10:49
Member
| Proposal contributor
Update The Impact of Proposal “ Global Serious Errors of Design of the World , Environmental Laws “ on climate change with result :
Absorb 2 329 559 574 804 tons CO2 > Emit 595 245 000 000 000 tons CO2 in 15 years , if 1 year we emit 39.683 billion tons CO2 .
|
Songsoptak Akash Jul 7, 2014 08:59
Member
|
Sorry, I do not have enough knowledge to understand this proposal!
|
Huynh Phu Dat Jul 7, 2014 10:06
Member
| Proposal contributor
Hi songsoptak ,
I will try to explain . First , I hop you like math . About the main idea of this proposal , As - Is - States VS To be States , this is a way 1 Catalyst call this problem . A NET SUM story .
1 building destroy 100 trees which absorb CO2 to build , after we build the building , we must plant AT LEAST 100 trees which absorb CO2 right , overcome environmental damage , right ?
Can you understand this idea ?
Huynh
|
Mark Johnson Jul 20, 2014 12:54
Member
|
Hi! The EPA has not responded and it's been about 30 days. Hope to hear soon. Good Wishes. GB, Mark
|
Huynh Phu Dat Jul 22, 2014 09:19
Member
| Proposal contributor
Yes , thank you . Perhaps they don't have anything to protect their buildings .
|