<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">

    <title type="text">Culture Making items tagged environment</title>
    <subtitle type="text">Culture Making:Main column content</subtitle>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.culture-making.com/author/" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.culture-making.com/tag/atom/" />
    <updated>2008-11-21T22:39:26Z</updated>
    <rights>Copyright (c) 2008, Nate Barksdale</rights>
    <generator uri="http://www.pmachine.com/" version="1.6.4">ExpressionEngine</generator>
    <id>tag:culture-making.com,2008:11:21</id>


    <entry>
      <title>Even more sustainable</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.culture-making.com/post/even_more_sustainable/" />
      <id>tag:culture-making.com,2008:author/9.777</id>
      <published>2008-11-21T15:30:46Z</published>
      <updated>2008-11-21T22:39:26Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Nate Barksdale</name>
            <email>natebarksdale@gmail.com</email>
                  </author>

      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        
						
			

					<b>Andy: </b><em>“Let's conclude this series of excerpts from John Stackhouse's valuable book with this gentle and hopeful rebuke to the idea that human beings are necessarily a damaging force on the earth. I am struck by his idea that our charge is to make the earth "even more . . . sustainable." Is that possible? What would it mean?”</em><br />		
		<div class="bookcover"><img src="http://culture-making.com/media/book_stackhouse.png" /></div><p>God did not want us to leave as few footprints as possible, leaving the earth alone as much as we can. He commanded us instead to spread out, over the whole globe, and bring it all under our influence, to subdue it for its own good, to make it even more fruitful, beautiful, and sustainable, under God’s guidance and by the power he invested in it. We dare not be cowed into relinquishing this role out of shame that we have performed it badly heretofore. We must take it up afresh, do the best we can, and look forward to the <i>shalom</i> that our administration will bring, in concert with Christ’s rule, in the world to come.
</p><hr />
<div class="author" style="font-size: -1">from John Stackhouse, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195173589/cmcom-20"><em>Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World</em></a>, p. 209</div>		

	
			
			
			
		
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>How long before a new building represents a net energy savings?</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.culture-making.com/post/how_long_before_a_new_building_represents_a_net_energy_savings/" />
      <id>tag:culture-making.com,2008:author/9.551</id>
      <published>2008-11-21T15:30:46Z</published>
      <updated>2008-11-21T22:39:26Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Nate Barksdale</name>
            <email>natebarksdale@gmail.com</email>
                  </author>

      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        
						
			

			<b>Nate: </b><em>“An embodied-energy argument against teardowns. I'd love to see my economist friends take a whack at this idea, factoring in the opportunity costs of spending more money to keep an old building going.”</em><br />
<div class="author" style="font-size: -1">a <a href="http://www.kottke.org/remainder/08/07/16110.html">kottke.org</a> post, 23 July 2008</div><hr />		
		<p>Constructing new LEED-certified green buildings is all well and good, but if they’re further from your workers’ homes and you have to tear down perfectly good old buildings to do so, <a href="http://www.preservationnation.org/magazine/2008/january-february/cautionary-tale.html">the hoped-for energy savings are wasted</a>.</p>

<blockquote><p>Embodied energy. Another term unlovely to the ear, it’s one with which preservationists need to get comfortable. In two words, it neatly encapsulates a persuasive rationale for sustaining old buildings rather than building from scratch. When people talk about energy use and buildings, they invariably mean operating energy: how much energy a building—whether new or old—will use from today forward for heating, cooling, and illumination. Starting at this point of analysis—the present—new will often trump old. But the analysis takes into account neither the energy that’s already bound up in preexisting buildings nor the energy used to construct a new green building instead of reusing an old one. “Old buildings are a fossil fuel repository,” as Jackson put it, “places where we’ve saved energy.”</p></blockquote>
<p>If embodied energy is taken into consideration, a new building that’s replaced an older building will take up to 65 years to start saving energy...and those buildings aren’t really designed to last that long.
<br />

</p>
		

	
			
			
			
		
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>Before and after, around the world</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.culture-making.com/post/before_and_after_around_the_world/" />
      <id>tag:culture-making.com,2008:author/9.424</id>
      <published>2008-11-21T15:30:46Z</published>
      <updated>2008-11-21T22:39:26Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Nate Barksdale</name>
            <email>natebarksdale@gmail.com</email>
                  </author>

      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        
						
			

			
<p>The United Nations Environment Program has just launched this <a href="http://na.unep.net/digital_atlas2/google.php">Google map-enabled site</a> with before/after satellite images showing environmental change over the past few decades: cities grow, forests are converted to farmland, glaciers shrink. We&#8217;re making something of the world, both for better and for worse.
</p><br />

	
			
			
			
		
      ]]></content>
    </entry>


</feed>