Towards a zero footprint architecture

Our decisions hold the key to this 21st century environmental enigma.

Is it really possible to go 'zero'?

Consider this. Every act and process putting together a building nowadays involves huge amounts of energy and impacts the environment. Let us assess a few areas:

1. Utilisation of materials to build- virgin, reused, recycled or otherwise
2. Extraction of the raw materials
3. The transportation of these materials
4. The manufacture of building materials..
5. The generation of direct and indirect wastes, and pollution.
6. The consumption of materials in operations- water, energy, fuel, etc.

When we look back, not too long ago, say just over a 100 years, we find that there were hardly any emissions of any kind involved in the usage of materials for building. Energy for extraction, or the synthesis of materials involved the usage of higher degrees of human labour to compensate for any other form of energy. This was so stark that the construction of large institutional buildings like forts, palaces or temples resembled the efforts put in to build the dams of today. Having said that, in India we are still a labour intensive construction industry... which is not altogether a bad thing considering the great amounts of employment that it generates. What is required though is a drastic improvement in working environments and skill levels.

Surely some CO2 emissions and environmental fall outs did result from some construction activities (the institutional causing greater damage than the vernacular). For example, the burning of bricks used as building blocks has remained much the same as today, with vast amounts of wood/coal being used to fire the brick kilns. Sun dried bricks, or Compressed Soil Stabilised Blocks, or, rammed earth walls, using lime as a mortar, need no firing and use solar energy. If we are able to tap into renewable energy sources for construction or material production, we could make material production and usage emission free. 

An iron ore mine in South Goa that has eaten into the biodiversity rich Western Ghats!

Extraction is altogether a different matter. The energy of extraction today involves the spending of large amounts of energy for mining, excavating, etc. In earlier times, the low demand (non-institutional) dictated the rate of extraction, but a market driven new world economy exerts too much pressure here. To keep up the indices of performance, more material is extracted. I have written about this in another blog post. The methods of extraction have also changed significantly. Granite is now blasted out of the ground, while one method from the past used in some places even today , involved the insertion of wooden dowels into the ground and soaking them with water, which would expand during overnight cooling and crack the granite in the desired size. The extraction of stratified rocks like marble and sandstone has seen a similar change, with the inclusion of heavy machinery  against the use of skilled manual labour who would split the marble along its grain, by driving wooden/metal  wedges into the rock. Today, more often than not, vast areas of forests are cleared to reach these raw materials. This leads to the destruction of CO2 banks and the release of these green house gases due to the rotting of this cut-down biomass. Also, forests are sponges of the earth and ensure a healthy water balance, by keeping the ground well hydrated and holding together the top-soil. Once removed, the land gets parched and erodes the soil of essential minerals for sustaining plant life. Dependent fauna are the immediate victims. The massive scale of raw material extraction today has impacts that affect the region beyond the immediate context. I am not too sure if there can be a zero impact extraction method as an alternative, but perhaps we should look at the kind of raw materials that we consume as a start. A larger use of waste as a raw material, easily re-fashionable building components, a more spread out usage of material according to geographic regions might help.

With a booming modern day construction scenario, such sights aren't
that uncommon, but what is not visible to all is the energy consumed!

Today's building materials have often travelled many a mile to get to our construction sites. We do not bat an eyelid about this specially since all aspects of our lives have ceased to be limited by matters of distance. Being a relatively large nation, geographically speaking, industry has spread its tentacles close to their source of raw materials. Vast transportation networks and corridors constantly feed stocks close to our sites relentlessly. The effort to pick up these materials for construction is usually from the local outlets, obscuring completely the energies that go into getting those materials there from the points of manufacture. There are other forces that define the distances our building components travel...  Global aspirations of the project initiator may attract faucets all the way from Europe, or, kitchen equipment from Italy, or, Paints from Korea and so on. This very global economy sometimes also creates a seemingly  improbable yet financially lucrative incentive to by overseas.... a whole lot of building materials today (as many other goods) originate in China.
Over a 150 ears ago, such sourcing would have been the exclusive habit of the kings!! The masses would invariably build what was available locally, therefore more affordable. While it is easy to talk of the use of locally available material, we ought to compliment that with supporting market incentives, upgradation of skill-sets & technologies, and most importantly a sustained education and advocacy effort to sensitise people to the ills of stretching these geographic limits. A few disincentives like a transportation emission tax could provide an encouraging nudge. 

Manufacturing today is a complex science, involving complex systems, resulting in complex products.... and ever so often a set of complex (read harmful) residues/wastes. In the yearning for 'long-lasting' solutions we have taken complex engineering to higher and higher levels, and devised materials that are made of  unbreakable bonds. Be it the plastics that cater from protective sheeting to transparent screens, the laminates for flooring or cladding, the chemical veneers for roof and wall covering/protection, the non abrasive tiles that span our floors (and walls),.... the resulting side-effects are equally strong in their environmental impacts. High energies needed for manufacture of these complex bonds result in high CO2 emissions, Chemical by-products take a toll on our air, soil and water as emitted pollutants, and the products themselves end up leaching poisonous chemicals into their built environs over their lifetimes. For example, Volatile Organic Compounds like lead, Mercury and Arsenic are spewed by most chemically coated surfaces from paints to laminates to carpets. Bituminous compounds used in waterproofing (and in road tops) break up relatively quickly and leach into the ground, contaminating the local aquifers. Perhaps the trick is to stick to near natural states of materials, like earth for construction, bamboo/wood for building structures, lime/mud for wall plaster, stone as cladding and building block, etc. Physically fashioning a natural material to suit an application involves no further chemical contamination, whereas chemically altering compounds is saddled with these toxic extras.

The sun sets behind the smoke stacks of one of our many industrial backyards.

There are scores of materials today that claim to be energy efficient. But we have to put that in context. Energy efficiency in usage (while good) need not be energy efficient in manufacturing. Also, energy efficiency only implies a betterment from the current benchmarks, and does not mean that they are energy positive. Furthermore, when one refers to a zero energy building, a common term today, one normally means the net energy consumption during its lifetime, which does not include the energies that went into the making of the building and its building components. Depending on building use, the energy in building (or embodied energy of building) could be equal to the total energy consumption of the building in its operations. Thus the often used term for zero energy building refers mainly to the operational energy equation, and is not therefore truly zero energy.

I have covered the topic of consumption in an earlier post, and it takes very little to understand that consuming less would have a proportionately lesser footprint. So far, we have seen that we have big decisions to take in the choice of materials to reduce the upstream environmental impacts during extraction, transportation, manufacturing and utilisation. Is it possible to occupy a truly zero ecological footprint architecture? Many examples exist, in our past, in our rural hinterland and in some truly commendable contemporary projects, that hint at the fact we can get there. The necessary ingredient for that though is a complete overhaul of our thinking and gaining insights into our every decision in the building process, from design to occupancy. I remember a Star Trek episode which spoke of a race that chose a passive and low tech living against the high-tech unbridled alternative, for very much the same reasons... to preserve a way of life! 

Seeking an alternate world- Making sense of going green with respect to the modern day development paradigm

Times they are a changing. Boy, can you feel it or what? Never before in modern, post industrial times has the common man been so aware of changes in rainfall, temperature, freak weather... the list is endless. Every other day, we read about new records being toppled in the these very categories. Climate and weather occupy more and more space in our newspapers alongside burgeoning development, pollution, and infrastructure woes. The mood is sombre and sometimes on edge, predicting various doomsday scenarios. There are calls for action, change, and even questioning the very way of life that we have grown so used to.

Within this environment of climate change and demands to reduce emissions of green house gases our nations are preoccupied with pushing up growth indices in order to convince themselves, and others who they hope to attract investments from, that we are doing fine. If anything at all, the 2007-09 recession years have shown us that current models of development and modern day economics have serious flaws. This model implies that nations have to keep ticking to stay above. In other words, this means that we have to keep selling, keep consuming, keep producing, keep extracting, keep mining,.. to project a healthy rate of growth. Sales have to be better than before to ensure that a business is afloat, no matter if the consumer needs it or not. This has lead to a world of misinformation, exaggeration and titillation.We buy because we dread the fall-outs of not doing so, we buy because we feel that we are being benefited, we buy because we feel we are doing well and we also buy because we don't want to feel left out. Along the way we have grown to believe in these globally disseminated messages of size, gloss and finesse. Modern day economics have meant that we have lost, or are rapidly losing, any connects with the way we lived earlier. With that is the disappearance of traditional knowledge systems of carrying capacity- how much to take, when to take, how to give back and so on. What all this means is the struggle to resurrect ourselves from the graves of climate change is arduous. The important question is 'how can we maintain both modern day growth economies, and do less harm to the environment simultaneously?'

20th Century Economics necessitates increased consumption. Today's green initiatives are overwhelmingly about clean energy. While this is essential, you cannot forget other aspects of sustainability. The old adage, 'too much of anything isn't good...' is perfect to describe the situation. For the building industry to do well, it necessitates more building (whether we need it or not); the building materials sector too needs to keep doing better that they did last year to retain value in the market; this only means more raw materials needed and so on. The same applies to the Automobile, Fishing, FMCG, Textiles, and essentially every fathomable industry. We have already out-consumed natures bounty in many ways. Entire oceans of fish are vanishing, various ores and minerals have been 'mined' dry, forests have been denuded....it gets clear where this is headed. The growth based valuation of modern day economics is sending us over the precipice.

So how do we see any credible green initiative in today's context? Essentially, it is about painting a picture of an alternate world. To borrow the slogan of the World Social Forum- "Another World is Possible".Are the answers all there? Gosh no! Each initiative is about exploring possibilities and building on promising ones. We need to stop looking for overarching solutions for current day problems, and rather find what is most appropriate to us in our respective regions. Some solutions may cross borders, yet many more would be specific and limited. As professionals, serious about seeking out alternate models of development, we need to  recognise what our roles are in the prevailing economy. We are either catalysts of change, slowing down the processes of decline, or, are charting new courses development wise. There are always the nay-sayers who would label such thinking as regressive, but they act as if there exists no other possibility.

What is important are the choices that we make. We need to constantly ask ourselves questions like, 'is this good for me in the long run?', or better yet 'Is this sustainable?' before we act on our choices. It is a tough one no doubt. This 'recent past' in the context of human history is also 'the memory of our times'. The challenge is unlearning the trappings of our lifetimes and seeking connects with the past and possible futures that would ensure long term sustainability. We have begun to get connected like never before... it is important we stay the course.

How green are cement, steel and bricks ?

I saw this query on an Internet group a while back and felt it was important to pen down my thoughts on this. I have been talking about this for a while now, but never got down to writing about it. So here goes.

Cement, steel and the standardised burnt clay brick

To arrive at a better understanding on how green these materials are, one would have to address this from different perspectives:

• From an embodied energy perspective
• From a scale of consumption perspective.
• From a regional impact perspective
• From a construction vs livelihood perspective

Embodied Energy

An IGH Projection

Cement and steel are processed materials, that consume a lot of energy in their making. Modern day Cement mainly is a mixture of various components, essentially lime, and other binders.
Cement from the time of the Romans, has been a binder material used for making building components adhere to another. Lime was an crucial part of this mix. Other pozzolanic materials like volcanic ash, etc were also added by other groups.  In pre-industrial times, the production of cement did not involve much more than animal driven and human labour.... from the extraction of raw materials right down to the production of the cementitious mix. Today of course, cement production involves the use of generated energy (driven by electricity, diesel, coal, etc)
Steel in construction is an industrial era contribution (barring a few earlier usages), and has become a mainstay in all forms of construction. In the 5000 plus years of civilisation history, it is interesting to see that a material that was never ever used in construction , has become an integral component of all construction in just over a 150 years (not that this bad in itself)..

A projection by IGH

Burnt Brick production has remained the same over the past many centuries, but the standardisation since the British times has seen an inefficiency in the burning process. In earlier times, bricks came in all sizes and shapes primarily due to the differences in clay compositions between regions, resulted in better burning. Today, the standard burnt clay brick is 9" x 4.5" x 3", all over the country.

A great amount of energy goes into the manufacture of modern day cement, bricks and steel .There is a dearth of consistent data on the applicable embodied energy for these materials, primarily due to the varying conditions of production, sources of energy and scales of operations. However, if one does consider the potential contribution to CO2 emissions by these materials used today, the significance is apparent. On average a 1000 sft residential unit (independent house or apartment) would result in the emission of anywhere between 45 to 72 MT of CO2 into our atmosphere. In the context of over a 100 1-million plus population cities in India alone, and with an ever burgeoning urban population this is significant.

Consumption

A file picture of iron ore mining activity in Bellary, Karnataka.
Photo: M. Ahiraj, The Hindu

What is even more significant is the rate of production of these materials in the last 100 years (post the industrial revolution). The modern global economy has created a mad rush to urbanise and has pushed rural populations to cities in search of greener pastures. The combined effect of Business, Growth and Migration has led to a boom in construction activity for business, residences and infrastructure to support this. The rate of consumption is fed by a hitherto unseen rate of extraction of raw materials and production of construction materials and components.
This consumption has great side effects. Beyond the CO2 emissions, up-the-chain environmental damage due to pollution, afforestation, and harm to ground water is grave and has resulted in changing the surface of our planet like never before. Transport of these materials has meant the creation of further construction corridors and which has led to massive atmospheric pollution due to petroleum exhaust (incidentally, never before has petroleum been burnt in such a scale as in this period). The large scale construction activities that we see in our cities and towns today create dust and air-pollution, causing health hazards like never before.

Regional impacts
Change is inevitable, but it is the nature of change that has to be examined. There has been tremendous and rapid transformation in the way we build, originally from a construction material/system point and eventually in the forms that the architecture has taken. This change is more of an imposed change, fuelled by industry set up in independent India and also by the great aspirations of the Indian masses. Agendas set by early politicians and subsequent governments further added to the modernisation of India. This trickled down to built form, but has resulted in a complete alienation (and extinction in many cases) of building traditions and regional architecture. Cement, steel and the modern day brick rode this wave of change. RCC, cement and 'sariya' (reinforcement steel) are now household words, and almost every contractor and mason knows how to work with these materials (at least has a working knowledge). These materials are now unshakeable and integral components of construction in urban India. They are considered as the solution to all evils of what is perceived of as 'kucha' works. So deep is the knowledge loss that current day construction workers hesitate (and refuse) to apply traditional materials and systems that were prevalent only half a century ago..

Construction labour at a site

A disappointing outcome of the latter half of the 20th century in India is the emergence of a monoculture in architectural form that has taken over its urbanity. While nationhood united diverse people and cultures, the direction construction has taken ever since is leading to the wiping out of this very essence of diversity. What is more ironic is that numerous studies done over the past couple of decades have shown the limitations and inability of this architecture/built form in providing appropriate occupant thermal comfort, colour and character, and so on. Yet we persist. While change that is inherent (or from within) is understandable, un-reined change with no care for the consequences is not.

Construction vs livelihood
Resources followed the money. Skill-sets needed for RCC construction were simple and were honed, whereas traditional building know-how became unviable over the years. Industry supplied cement, steel and the standardised burnt-clay brick to every nook of this country, while traditional skills were limited to small regional (maybe even sub-regional) extents. Therefore, a moving populace (mostly rural folk looking for better incomes) picked up what would earn them an income irrespective of where they locate to, and moreover there was a lot of jobs for the picking. This scenario is still unfolding, killing our building traditions steadily.

We see that this illustrious group of modern day materials (cement, steel and the standardised burnt brick) has a high embodied energy, cause immense environmental damage (both up and downstream), has altered the regional diversity of our building traditions and systems, and is continuing to wipe out the livelihoods of traditional crafts persons. The 'Business As Usual' scenario of modern day construction materials and systems  is unsustainable and needs an overhaul. Alternatives to these materials and construction systems are urgently necessary in the context of the ecological tilts that such human activity has caused over the last century and a half. Small gestures of reducing a bit of this or that is not going to add up as anything significant. The time for a complete re-think to redeem ourselves is now. 

Adding thought to action

"Stock Market Fear and Greed," by Paul Zanetti.

In the realm of investments and savings there are many choices we make today. For most of us middle class folks it is all about saving for the future (insurance), owning a home and hearth, buying the car that is slightly beyond our budget, making sure that our children get a proper education, a healthcare budget, and keeping something aside for the rainy day. In earlier times this kind of a savings plan may have been touted as prudence personified, and banks and other institutions goaded us into believing that good things come to people who reinvest all what they earn with them or through them.

The fact is all these investment methodologies are based on two things only! Fear and Greed! We go through life thinking that we have to have all these things at the minimum to provide well for the family and ourselves. In a world that has become an individual free-for-all with avarice predetermining all our endeavours, our understanding of who we are and what our purpose is has become murkier than ever before. The gulf between ‘battle-for-survival’ for many and ‘battle-for surviving-well’ for the rest of us has widened to such a magnitude that it has robbed us of our feelings like empathy, respect, consideration for others, and the like. We have abjectly surrendered to the machinations of the business world which thrive on exploiting our two biggest weaknesses; to reiterate, fear and greed. We are perpetually running around trying to earn more and more throughout our lifespan in the hope that money is the only palliative we will need against all ills and illnesses (catering to fear). We all agree that we need all or some of these things in some measure but can we not stop when we reach a certain point in our quests in achieving each of these things (denying greed).

In today’s world this kind of consumption orientation is having disastrous consequences for ourselves as well as the planet we live. In a bid to consume more – buy a bigger house, car, or insurance policy – we cast an inverted eye on the ramifications of our actions. Do we need a ‘bigger or better anything’ should be at least thought through. Buying a bigger home could be problematic when you are old; a car as an investment is a losing proposition all the time (high on fuel, maintenance, taxes, and insurance costs, and is a rapidly depreciating asset to boot!); eating out or eating more too often will beget ill health; hoarding multiple properties only gives you sleepless nights (high taxes, tenant issues, maintenance costs, interest on borrowed capital, etc. etc.); saving for your children’s higher education means that you expect them to be invalids who can’t fend for themselves after a certain age!

We know a lot of people are trying to change this but we call such people activists, saints, sadhus, tree-huggers, pretenders, and so on, and sweep them far away from the dustbowl of our guilt. Anybody trying to do something good about almost anything is seen with a cynical and ignorant eye. Waking up to where the world is headed (socially, politically, environmentally, and commercially) is not something to be shunned with a cursory shrug. All these aspects have a great bearing on who we are and where we are heading and should be part of the decision making process for our every action. So the next time you make an investment think through a few things apart from appreciation of the investment (property), ROI (any investment), and diesel vs. petrol (car). Our simple (or simplistic) calculations are not enough for us to understand the ramifications of our actions; the world suffers a lot when we get it wrong, and it is within the realms of our responsibility to at least evaluate all options in greater perspective.

What sets us apart? Clues to what makes communities sustainable- Spaces

This post marks the second of a series with one common theme..... highlighting the areas of living that set us apart from the way/s we lived in the past (and in some traditional/rural settlements that still persist), and which also mark us as unsustainable communities.Here is the second.

Spaces and communities

Who doesn't like, appreciate or even want a palatial bungalow? What is there not to like.... unless you are thinking of the maintenance costs and other costs of residing in a place like this. Space by itself has become a statement of class. Take a look around... the various peddlers of real estate scream out at you dishing out the larger living rooms, the larger bedrooms, and even larger dining tables.... all for a similar sized family unit. Even the specifications are near similar... the difference however, is the price. Nowadays, there seem to no bounds to what one 'wants' as space, expect perhaps the depth of our pockets.
There are some odd outcomes though..... if one buys into a builder development, then the volumes seem to have shrunk. Wonder why? Floor-to-Ceiling heights now hover at a near universal range, between 9.5 feet to 10 feet. What is ironical, is that this remains nearly the same no matter which city, or, geography we live in. This reduction in space (also reflected in the thinness of walls, is due to the builder maximising on achievable floor area. Most individuals building their own homes would do the same mainly because of costs.... be it due to the direct costs of extra material or due to the paucity of space.
How does space matter? A larger volume would mean more air to warm or cool. Too much or too little space could mean 'thermal discomfort'. Ever wondered why volumes of human habitation shrunk in extremely cold regions.... a lower volume meant lesser air to heat up, and lesser surface area exposed to the outside. More significantly, the heights of these spaces were always kept low.... to prevent any heated air to rise above. In humid regions, the spaces would not be bound, and would allow the free movement of air bringing comfort to the inhabitants. Along the same lines, higher ceilings were common in hot-dry conditions. To further aid this, courtyards were integrated to create a kind of thermo-siphon, venting out the stale hot air from the adjoining spaces, which in turn drew in fresh cooler air from the outer faces. In some cases, Jaalis (delicate stone carved screens) were provided on these outer surfaces, which absorbed the heat from the incoming air. Semi-covered and open spaces played as important a role as covered rooms. Verandahs provided shade in hot regions, and performed open to the breeze spaces in humid regions. Open terraces were rest areas in the hot nights of the northern plains.

Through history, the larger consumers were always the wealthy and ruling classes, and the masses lived in far humbler accommodations shaped by what their need and the hand-me-down knowledge systems. Uncannily, the building forms and methods were also sensible architectural outcomes for each specific geography.
Forget palaces, forts, tombs and temples for a bit, but when one thinks of traditional settlements space and form seem to vary from one region to another. What is starkly different when one compares much of these vernacular forms to present day times is how things were never over-sized. Perhaps the reason is obvious. More space meant more material to provide for an envelope, to provide for finishes and for other aspects of insulation, etc.It also made sense that there was a lot of manual labour involved in the movement of material, and therefore restricting the quantities needed made sense. I am guessing that was one of the prime reasons why material was not moved from very far (surely energy of travel did not figure beyond a monetary sense). Nonetheless, there are lessons here for the these times. In some ways, it is still evident today, in areas which are poorly connected by roads.... a boon if you ask me.
Space also has a clear impact in terms of Aural quality, light quality,and even affect our psychology (I am not referring to any Vaastu/Feng Shui psycho babble)... Many of us know the feeling of claustrophobia in small tight spaces. However, each of these have to be seen in conjunction with other aspects of other finishes. For example, the density, geometry and smoothness quality of the surfaces have an impact on the reflective quality of a space; the size, direction and nature of opening has an impact on light and air movement.... and therefore inside temperature. Shapes of any enclosure may also mean an interesting impact on you both financially and psychology. We already know that more surface area, the higher exposure to the environment... therefore more heat gain or loss, and more surface exposed to rain. The larger the space, the heavier the structure..... therefore greater the anchorage or sizing of foundation.

I did an interesting exercise once (thanks to a great teacher I had the opportunity to work with); I compared two spaces with the same area, one a square and the other a rectangle.... I found that the square space would less to build than the rectangular space, assuming they were built using the same methods and systems. Why? The answer is pretty simple really (once again, not some un-understandable explanation of energy lines and directions, which once cant get). The square has a smaller perimeter than the rectangle... and therefore the total wall area (keeping the height the same) would also amount to less. Extend this to less openings required, etc. Less materials per square foot, and so lower costs. This also meant that the square space was less exposed to the elements, and therefore gained and lost much less heat (if oriented similarly), meaning lesser internal temperature changes, providing for a more comfortable internal environment. You can see how space could also affect health.
I am not advocating a standard usage of square shapes as a result, but only emphasising the need to understand the impacts a space could have on us. From a sustainability point of view, traditional buildings had the advantage of having evolved an architecture with region specific forms and hence a more appropriate building vocabulary. Isn't it time we reconnected once again?

Survive in Style- a slogan for Sustainable living

Gluttony by Alex Falco

"Survive in Style".... don't write this slogan off too soon. The slogan can surely be bettered, but focus on the essence. This slogan has been put forth with some thought and much deliberation on what a sustainable world could be like. Over consumption, greed, mass production, clones, all seem to represent the world we live in today (at least most of us). This is no more just some Hollywood take on the 'big, bad world of tomorrow'. Any course correction or advice that may be required today to ensure that we don't slip into such a dismal abyss seems to scream 'HALT', or, 'SLOW DOWN' to arrest the rate at which we are gorging on our environment. When one ponders the ideal pace of development (or living) that could be sustainable, nothing seems more convincing than one where we take only what we need... in other words enough to survive.

'To survive' does bring images of a rudimentary existence devoid of any character. Many an argument on thriving vs 'merely' existing have been made, which demonstrate a great discomfort to change this 'business as usual' scenario. But, to survive does not mean merely existing. I feel that this is the ideal condition for human expression in the form of art and craft. It is an innate human desire to attribute oneself with higher standards of order and beauty. When applied this art/craft takes on different expressions, based on geography, natural resources, community, socio-economic forces, etc.... therefore the word 'style'.

Interestingly, when you check for synonyms for 'survive' in a thesaurus, you get- 'stay alive', 'live on', 'continue to exist', 'endure', 'subsist'..... seems to me a lot like 'to sustain oneself perennially', or, 'being sustainable'. The connotations indicate to me the wisdom of living in a manner that one meets their needs in order to see a continuity of a species.
Similarly, when one checks for 'style' you get- 'method', 'way', 'technique', 'chic', 'elegance', 'flair', 'grace', 'design', 'shape', 'comfort', 'luxury', 'grandeur'.... and so on.

Consider what it could mean from the perspective of architecture and buildings. Firstly, we would create spaces that we need, and do away with wasteful space. This could also mean less materials per square foot. In other words, a much more efficient usage of space and materials. This would free up otherwise poorly spent finances for more crucial things like infrastructure for water, for energy, and surely for better crafted components. So, more specs and better quality for the same. We have innumerable examples to show us that less need not be boring, or conversely, we also know that more does not always mean better. An architecture which is based on a 'stylish survivalism' (could not resist throwing that in), would purposefully look for a higher craft element, with better workmanship, without overdrawing from our natural resources and therefore leaving more for all. You can see that a world that does not import from far off places, would surely encourage more local solutions, creating a far more diverse and colourful planet.

A slogan like 'survival with style' (and its variants) can also be transformed into a guide or set of rules that can define the degree of environmental impact an individual, a group, a community and an institution can have. Importantly, once adopted and applied in full spirit, it influences attitudes towards various aspects of living. This collective attitude is the single most important influencer when it comes to how we treat this planet. From the simple choice of buying biscuits or veggies in a plastic wrap from a supermarket, to, why we absolutely have to apply a metal-glass face to our buildings, to larger concerns of the kinds of businesses and therefore economies (or, vice-versa) we encourage... 'stylish survival' will at the minimum ensure a reduced pace of destruction of the environment.... and just maybe, even produce a glimmer of a sustainable future.

Going 'off-the-grid'!

What a wonderful thought. The very idea that we wont rely on those unsustainable networks! Those of us in the sustainability profession, would love to prescribe this to our listeners and clients, but what does it take to go 'off-the-grid'?
On the face of it, relieving your habitation (or, any such built environment) of central electricity and water supplies. As an extension this also means no connections to central sewerage connections.
Extending this to it's penultimate and true definition, it would mean a complete independence from anything supplied from beyond the borders of the 'off-the-grid' destination in question. So, such an establishment would be able to generate it's own power, secure it's own water requirements, manage it's own waste (including other solid waste), grow it's own food and even provide for all the necessary activities for sustainable living. This may also include livelihood skills in the form of a craft, farming, a service, that would give the the rewards to maintain the 'off-the-grid' establishment.
Is it expensive to live off-the-grid? If the we merely were to move location, without changing our lifestyles, then yes. If we consume as much power as we do today, then the size of energy need goes up and so does the capacity of any captive generation. The same applies to our consumption of other resources like water and food, and similarly can be extended to the waste that we generate. Shifting from a want based to need based living is crucial to occupy a minimal footprint, one that can be catered for and sustained. What should be aim for while going off-the-grid?

• Consume minimal power and water, (which involves consumption changes due to lifestyles).
• Use technology pragmatically and look for simple solutions- go low tech as against high tech as the cost of replacement may be higher or may make you reach beyond the local region. It is important to tap into look skills as much as it is important to use local resources.
• Look for appropriate solutions- for example, use biomass for heating if it is abundant and you can do it without polluting, solar thermal for all heating, use,hydro where you have the potential and most importantly, size these technologies appropiately.
• Harvest maximum water and manage it responsibly,
• Eat what you can grow, and
• Generate minimal waste, so that it's management is not harder than what it ought to be.

To some of us these may seem romantic notions, to others impossible to achieve. The truth is that we are so engrained in our urban lifestyles that any such shift results in symptoms from mind strains to serious struggles to adjust to this 'off-the-grid' existence. Ever wonder, why it is so easy for a farmer to live in those conditions, while the very thought of abandoning all things that are processed or packaged seems like a nightmare? The answer is the decades, if not generations of this urban conditioning. just a century ago, most of us would have been considered as leading more or less sustainable lifestyles. In a relatively short time, we have become dependents and slaves to our wants.
Giving up the former lifestyle is akin to a de-addiction process... but the results are just as rewarding... a non-toxic lifestyle. It seems that any 'off-the-grid' sustainable proposition should be much more than mere infrastructural and technological solutions, and should also extend to include other aids like life-transitioning skills, opportunities to identify and improve on independent skill-sets and activities towards enabling individuals to adapt. Such initiatives could include integration with local communities and intra-community involvement. In time, such off-the-grid communities would be able to create their own identities and become true symbiotic entities... far removed from their gluttonous urban counterparts.
What a wonderful thought... again.

How do we begin to truly comprehend sustainable consumption?

Let me admit that this is going to sound really far fetched and probably is.
I think that we have to get some essential data to come to a true understanding of what would constitute sustainable consumption and therefore sustainable living decisions.

• First we would need to record (and constantly update) our consumption; right from food, down to the clothes we wear, the books we read, the fuel/energy.water we consume, the materials we use to build our cars, our homes, roads, and so on.
• Next, we would need to further break this down to the raw materials that go into each of these items. For example, a cup of coffee would have coffee, milk, sugar, chicory, the packing material (and it;s constituents), the fuel consumed in transporting to your nearby store and then to your home. Similarly, for all the other things that you end up consuming... from the list you generated above.
• Then, we would need to map the earth for the quantities of raw material that exists today. This mapping would have to be as exhaustive as there are materials that we consume. While doing this, we should also map the physical footprint occupied by each resource.
• Finally, we would have to keep a tab on the rate at which we are withdrawing these various raw materials.

Only when we have the above facts, that it sure seems like a lifetime (or many) of data collection, can we begin to understand the implications of how we can get sustainable. Against each consumption statistic, we can map the existing stock, and the exhaustion time based on the rate of withdrawal. Some decisions could be like this:

• When we cut down on one, we increase the life of the stock. If we need to increase the stock (for example; a crop), then we look at other areas where we can start production.
• Decisions on moving from one unsustainable material to another that we consider green today, can be gauged by the above point. However, we would also have to understand the implication of increasing the consumption of one particular material. Take for example fuel- When we move from petroleum fuel to say bio-diesel from crops... then consumption on that crop would increase, leading to a pressure to convert other existing crops (and these could be low income food crops) into bio-fuel generating varieties. The result could mean lesser stock of food crops for all.

Steps towards sustainable consumption and sustainable living could follow these steps:

• Reduce consumption with controllable limits of the mean
• Rate in terms of criticality each resource (stock)
• Rate in terms of sustainability each resource (resources that can cater to a much larger consumption and can be replenished at nearly the same rate)
• Rate in terms of sustainability each technology/process/product (where each of these means the least impact on the sustainability of other resources, and a greater degree of replenishing the raw material consumed in the process)
• Encourage/incentivise/penalise to ensure that consumption moves from far more critical stocks/technologies/processes/products to sustainable stocks/technologies/processes/products. This would also mean encouraging and driving directions of new technologies
• Encourage/incentivise reduced consumption.
• Continue this process.