Sustainable Living and Sustainable Construction - Essay Example

Sustainable Living and Sustainable Construction Sustainable living and sustainable construction are two concepts that broadly refer to the process of undertaking human development through the use of resources aimed at meeting the needs of humans, while preserving the environment. The aim is to ensure that future generations also get the opportunity to enjoy the Earth’s resources without experiencing shortages. Sustainable living refers to a lifestyle aimed at reducing society’s or a person’s use of natural resources and personal resources. Individuals who lead this lifestyle usually attempt to cut down their carbon footprint by altering their diet, and their methods of energy consumption and transportation. Their aim is to maintain a positive symbiotic relationship with the Earth’s natural ecology by achieving a natural balance with their environment. Sustainable construction refers to the use of a process that is friendly to the environment and conservative to resources throughout the life-cycle of a building. It involves the implementation of resource-efficient and eco-friendly processes to design, construct, operate, maintain, renovate and demolish a building. For this reason, sustainable construction is also referred to as green building or green construction (Halliday, 226). Despite the obvious benefits that sustainable living and sustainable construction have on the lives of human beings and the environment in general, criticism has emerged from several quarters challenging the usefulness of these two practices. A number of well-known scholars in the field of sustainable development have raised concerns that sustainable growth is, in fact, an irreconcilable paradox, whose overall effects on the environment are largely harmful. Prof. Susan Owens of Cambridge University’s Department of Engineering pointed out recently in a sustainable development workshop in the U.K. that government programmes purported to promote sustainability are, in fact, harmful to the environment. She was particularly critical of the government’s Sustainable Communities Plan, a $22 billion housing scheme planned for South East England. According to Owens, “although it involves commendable sustainable housing projects, it does not include plans to upgrade the region’s infrastructure, water supplies, and transport systems” (Costanza, 257). Consequently, the existing infrastructure, water supplies and transport systems are strained by the new housing. Therefore, there is very little difference between this housing scheme and the ones carried out in the past. For many years now, anti-road building lobbies have been arguing that governments should cease building new roads because this will just encourage more people to travel by car, resulting in increased harmful exhaust gas emission. “Governments are taking advantage of this lobbying to cut back on spending on roads leading to deterioration of the road network” (Bleischwitz, 29). Critics are also arguing that the same logic is not applied by the government to new housing because it results in the generation of new taxes. The government simply overlooks the fact that increased housing units lead to increased road traffic in the localities concerned. These practices are understandable since many authorities, institutions, and even individuals tend to focus on reducing costs while simultaneously maximizing benefits. Unfortunately, this is often undertaken at the expense of maximizing positive impact on the environment, and often leads to environmental degradation, and wastage of natural resources. Opponents of sustainable living and sustainable construction indeed have strong arguments against the suitability of this practice for conservation of the environment. However, they overlook many crucial factors regarding this issue which make their arguments irrelevant. First of all, sustainable living and construction can only achieve their aims when they are fully adopted and implemented. Partial adoption and implementation does not meet the aims of sustainability since there is still wastage and contamination of the environment. A sustainable home is built through sustainable methods using sustainable materials that facilitate green practices. However, for such a home to be truly sustainable, it has to be in proximity to sustainable infrastructure such as public transportation services and essential services such as schools and grocery stores. A much more sustainable practice is to construct off-the-grid sustainable homes which have no need for water, sewer service, and public energy. Sustainable homes that are not off the grid may obtain purchased power through connection to a power grid, which is supplied by a power plant utilizing sustainable energy sources. In addition, sustainable homes may have a grid connection but generate their own electric power through renewable processes. Any excess power is sold to another utility through the grid connection (Halliday, 226). Individuals can enjoy the benefits of sustainable development at the personal level rather than the communal or national level through sustainable living. Sustainable living mostly involves personal decision-making by individuals to lead an eco-friendly lifestyle. Critics of sustainable development focus their arguments on sustainable construction but overlook the numerous benefits that sustainable living accrues to individuals, the society, and the environment. Firstly, sustainable living enables individuals to save economic resources. Economic resources, especially money are saved by reducing energy consumption, generating one’s power, buying second-hand and recycled products, buying goods in bulk, growing one’s own food, and cutting back on water use among many other practices whose overall impact on the environment is positive. Money saved can be used for other useful purposes such as saving for a child’s future education (Bougsty, 107). Secondly, sustainable living practices make people healthy. Walking and cycling more often rather than using a car improves physical fitness, and helps to avoid lifestyle-related diseases such as heart diseases, which results due to obesity. Buying and preparing locally-produced food is beneficial to health because such food is free of chemicals or additives, which could pose a threat to good health in the long term. Avoiding processed foods is particularly a healthy practice because scientific studies have proved that such foods results in shortened life-expectancy, although the mechanism by which they cause this effect is not yet known. Reducing meat consumption also goes a long way towards enhancing good health. All these healthy living practices play a significant role in conserving the natural environment, in addition to promoting good health. Preparing and consuming locally-produced food instead of buying processed food helps to avoid environmental contamination by non-biodegradable preservatives and additives, which are often added to processed foods. Moreover, the packaging of processed foods is often non-biodegradable and pollutes the environment. Reducing meat consumption plays a significant role in reducing global warming since up to one fifth of all greenhouse emissions originate from livestock. It also helps to slow down the loss of forest cover on Earth since forests are mainly cleared so as to pasture cattle (Mirathraratne, 254). Stapleton, a neighborhood in Denver, Colorado is a community built almost entirely using sustainable development. It occupies the site previously occupied by the Stapleton International Airport, and was built using recycled materials. All office buildings in Stapleton are LEED satisfied, and all homes take part in the ENERGY STAR program. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification is the United States’ most recognized standard in sustainable development and building, which was developed by the United States Green Building Council. ENERGY STAR is an energy efficiency program initiated by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency to help individuals and businesses save money. 93% of all Stapleton homes recycle household goods and other home products. All the airport’s runways were converted into streets, driveways, sidewalks, and bike paths. The neighborhood uses power and water supply that were previously used to power and supply the airport. Evidently, the development of Stapleton was not a costly affair since the developers utilized infrastructure and facilities that were already in place. Usually, such facilities and infrastructure are taken apart and disposed of when an installation such as an airport ceases to operate (Costanza, 253 – 260). Conclusion The case of Stapleton serves as proof to critics of sustainable development that an initiative of such a large magnitude can be successfully initiated with 100% benefits, and no negative impacts. The planning stage should be given strong emphasis to ensure that all aspects of the project comply with sustainability standards. The failures of government planning and strategizing should not be used as an excuse to label sustainable living and development as ineffective practices, which cause just as much negative impact as they cause benefits. Sustainable living and construction has to be fully compliant with ‘green’ standards in order for it to achieve its aims of conserving energy, reducing waste and preventing pollution of the environment. Works Cited Bleischwitz, Raimund. ‘Governance of sustainable development: co-evolution of corporate and political strategies’, International Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2004) pp.27–43. Bougsty, Tom. Healthy sustainable living: a vision for the future of humanity. Bloomington: iUniverse, 2012. Costanza, Robert et al. ‘The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital’, Nature, Vol. 387 (1997). pp.253–260. Halliday, Sandy. Sustainable construction. Burlington: Elsevier Ltd., 2008. Mirathraratne, Nalanie et al. Sustainable living: the role of whole life costs and values. Burlington: Elsevier Ltd., 2007. Read More