Architecture and Climate Change: An Interview with Ed Mazria »

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 38

• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  mr-thoughtful

  Jan. 29, 2007, 9:19 a.m.

  Let me guess...the discussion will go something like "Global warming doesn't exist and there's no way we should conserve energy unless we feel like it..."

  "And so castles made of sand, sink into the sea, eventually..."
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Abrion

  Jan. 29, 2007, 11:09 a.m.

  Part of the interview also talks about using bio-fuel. I found another article that discusses the problems that might occur if a large switch to bio-fuel is made. What if there are a couple of poor growing seasons? Will that lead to wide spread famine?

  http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=143422007
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Virginia

  Jan. 29, 2007, 12:52 p.m.

  From the article: "...globally, and we will ask every instructor to add one sentence to every problem that they issue in their design studios. That's all we're asking them to do. We're not asking them to change the assignments - we're asking them to add one sentence.

  That sentence is: "That the project be designed to engage the environment in a way that dramatically reduces or eliminates the need for fossil fuels."

  Sounds like a good first step. As the man says we have 10 years to affect a change. My kudos to Ed Mazria.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  IAmMine

  Jan. 29, 2007, 3:17 p.m.

  "This being said, the earth is already Carbon Neutral"

  Then how come greenhouses gases (particularly CO2) are going off the charts in atmoshperic concentrations? That doesn't seem neutral to me.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  mr-thoughtful

  Jan. 29, 2007, 1:48 p.m.

  To tsteele93, I recently saw the head of the National Science Foundation state before a congressional panel that there is now more scientific evidence that globaal warming exists and its human components than there is that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.

  The age of the earth and prior weather variances are not a counter-argument.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  The18Zulu

  Jan. 29, 2007, 1:50 p.m.

  I guess we'll see in another 2,000 years. Would you let me know how it turns out...

  Steve

  The18Delta(banned)

  The18Zulu
• 
  Avg rating: (+12/-0 12)

  IAmMine

  Jan. 29, 2007, 10:01 p.m.

  "It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe."

  JoSchmo, this is simply not true. This was one book and a few articles. I wish people would stop bringing this up and making a bigger deal about one book. There was no consensus like there is today. It's not even close. I've also noticed this new argument that has been springing up lately about scientists agendas with getting grants. This is such hogwash. Let me guess you don't trust anything that comes from a consensus of scientists anymore because they all get funding to do their job? Smoking doesn't cause cancer, right?
• 
  Avg rating: (+1/-1 0)

  nobodie

  Jan. 29, 2007, 7:58 p.m.

  This subject is a can of worms not even the author can truly apprciate. I worked for twenty years in building, I've covered a wide range of jobs.

  One reason I got out of building was that the top level managers changed from building people to business people. This means that the only change we will see from this initiative will be a "rebranding" of building and design companies to "eco-friendly".

  At the present time I live in Asia. Most new buildings are steel and concrete posts and beam frameworks. Sounds eco-friendly, but a friend in an NGO is working with one concrete plant in central Thailand to change their energy sources. At the present time they use 500 metric tons of charcoal every day to heat the powdered stone and force out the water. This charcoal is being produced by cutting down Burmese rainforest.

  So, the problem is not just design in its foundation, it is economic, it is social, it is human.
• 
  Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

  alxnsc

  Jan. 30, 2007, 3:36 a.m.

  Absolutety misleading, round nonsense and a bunch of lies: "architecture - or the building sector, more generally - is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions, worldwide."

  What is missed in these idiotic phrases and diagrams is volcanic activity.

  Compare any emission of social origin to the corresponding natural emission and you will see how short the legs of these lies are!

  Let us make cheaters shut up! Enough is enough!

The first 31 comments are shown. Show all 38 comments »