The Architecture of Change

In February, 2007, I watched a televised teach-in sponsored by the American Institute of Architects and the New York Academy of Science. The speakers included Dr. James Hansen of NS.S.A. and Dr. Ed Mazria, a member of A.I.A. and the founder of a non-profit called Architecture 2030.

While all of the section are informative, I was particularly impressed by Dr. Mazria's presentation and the 2010 Imperative that his organization is championing. Here is the simple truth, known then and still valid. You can not solve the problems of climate change without addressing the building sector. If you do take on the building sector, then many of the other diminish in scale and the time frame to finish the job becomes much more manageable.

The title of Dr. Mazria's talk was Resuscitating a Dying Society. His original proposal was to get strong backing for what he called the 2010 Imperative. Many people listened, but few acted. Had they done so, I don't think we would be facing the possibility of a failure in Copenhagen. Had they done so, we would not have had to listen to the Palin-ites chanting "Drill, baby, Drill."

Now, however, more and more architecture firms are taking up the challenge. I quote from an Architecture 2030 release date Sept. 28, 2009. (2010 will soon be here.)

Building Sector Leaders Call for
Steep Energy and Emissions Cuts

SANTA FE, NM - Twenty-four of the largest and most influential architecture, engineering, and development firms based in the U.S., which are responsible for a combined $100 billion in building construction annually, have joined forces with Architecture 2030, a leading non-profit research organization, to call on Congress to update national building code standards to meet steep and achievable energy reduction targets.

Specifically, this group is pressing the Senate to pass the building energy reduction targets in Section 241 of the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S. 1462) and incorporate timelines to reach carbon-neutral buildings by 2030.

Now we know what the Republican response will be: Lie, obfuscate, delay until it is too late. The leader of the charge is Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. The initial Press announcement has already been made. A major chance was missed when OK failed to replace him in 2008.

So, here is the next challenge, for those who believe in thinking globally and acting locally. Attend the next meeting of your local planning commission and demand that they only approve projects where the architecture meets the standard laid down by Architecture 2030, that the Cities where you live only deal with architecture firms who have signed on like those listed.

This is not for you and me. It is to resuscitate a dying society for our children and grand children until the 7th Generation.

Constitutional Reform: 7th Generation and Ecuador Part 2.

In an earlier post, I commented primarily on the 7th Generation Amendment proposed for the US Constitution. In this post, I want to spend more time on the new Constitution of Ecuador. There are similarities, but the differences I believe are substantial and lead me to the conclusion that the 7th Generation Amendment is more in tune with the current US Constitution and more likely to find adherents in these United States.

Click Read more! for my rationale.


Let me begin this by again quoting a section from the new constitution of Ecuador.

Nature or Pachamama [the Andean earth goddess], where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution. Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognition of rights for nature before the public bodies.

There are three key aspects of that statement.

• it extends rights to all of nature and not just to people.
  
• among those rights is the right for any part of life to continue to evolve according to natural processes.
  
• it gives non-citizens of Ecuador the right to provide representation for nature before any public body in Ecuador. This extension would, for example, allow lawyers for the Rainforest Alliance to bring suit in Ecuadorian courts for harm done to the rainforest's flora or fauna or any species of it.

This formulation would leave out two things that are specifically included in the 7th Generation Amendment, air and water. These may be dynamic systems but are not living in any sense of that word, especially not in the sense that they have DNA and the mechanism for evolution.

For all of their apparent similarities, these turn out to be very, very different. The essence of the 7th Generation Amendment is the fact that it places two very particular entities into the commons and then mandates that we protect the commons for posterity. It also provides that Congress can add to, but not subtract from, these common heritages.

Importantly for consideration at this time, the 7th Generation Amendment makes us consider the future without the necessity of having an to deal with the creationism vs. evolution controversy. For this very reason alone, the Ecuadorean formulation could never be enacted in these United States.

Constitutional Reform: 7th Generation and Ecuador Part 1.

I have been trying to get my head around the differences between two short statement about man and our relationship to nature. One has been around for a while. In fact, in one version, since before we became these United States of America coming from the tradition of the Iroquois. I have referred to it before here and here. It is called the 7th Generation Amendment.

The right of citizens of the United States to use and enjoy air, water, wildlife, and other renewable resources determined by the Congress to be common property shall not be impaired, nor shall such use impair their availability for the use of future generations.

The second is new but getting a lot of press recently in Nature or even the LA Times. It is a short section from the text of the new Constitution of Ecuador.

Nature or Pachamama [the Andean earth goddess], where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution. Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognition of rights for nature before the public bodies.

Both are short, simple statements. Both have their origins in the world view of the indigenous peoples of these countries. Yet, I find them to be very different. Click Read more! for a fuller discussion of the 7th Generation Amendment. I will have to post again tomorrow on the Ecuadorian Constitution.


I started this because I wanted to make the 7th Generation Amendment the focal point of Green Party Earth Day events. I believe in what it says. I also believe that the championing of ecological wisdom in this manner can being people back to the Green Party.

At the same time, I have a friend who told me that they much prefer the statement from the Ecuadorian Constitution and I want to understand why. The same person objected to the word "use" in the phrasing of the 7th Generation Amendment.

There is an easy argument for the 7th Generation Amendment based on it's long history in some segments of our population. I went back to the short explanation that Walt Bresette wrote for Synthesis/Regeneration 9. Bresette began by identifying the problem that he was trying to address.

State and national legislatures are gutting environmental laws in a misguided effort to in response to the populist "wise use" movement and their corporate backers. The momentum is strong as the political pendulum swings against the earth.

The movement focuses on market value of private property, arguing that environmental laws are unfairly devaluing private property. A too narrow, yet effective, campaign in today's political atmosphere.

If you don't understand this problem, or think that it was something that we have solved, you have only to read my previous post today regarding the way that two "wise use" lawyers sneaked their rhetoric into the San Francisco Chronicle posing as an "article". They are still around and still talking the same property rights line, forever questioning "takings" and, especially in the West, bringing a new "iminent domain" initiative to the ballot every couple of years.

Bresette said that the answer was finally, once and for all time, to define the common property that we all intuitively know exists. He began with the air we breathe and the water we drink and the sunlight that grows our crops and soon will bring energy to all. He stopped at that, but gave to Congress the right to add to, but not subtract from, that list.

The media tells us every day that this country faces the most important challenges in several generations; some go back to the Great Depression, others even further. We are on be cusp of economic collapse and at the same time we have nearly reached a tipping point in the warming of this planet where run-away heating is a real possibility. At the close of her book Field Notes from a Catastrophe, Elizabeth Kolbert made this predicament clear.

It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.

At question is the idea, drilled into us for so long, that environmental action always comes at the expense of the economy. It was every the same since the auto industry complained about the cost of Nader's seat belts. Again, Bresette was thinking of this.

By simply attempting reform with what is available today, we remain in a stagnated "jobs vs. environment" polarization. In these complex times we must be more creative, yes proactive, and indeed accommodate all of our interests and rights, especially those yet to come.

Even today, I read that economist are saying we can rebuild the economy or we can save the planet, but we can't do both together. Well we must try.

The 7th Generation Amendment is a reminder that we have such an obligation to posterity, an obligation that we must fulfill.

7th Generation Revisited

The first 2009 issue of my home town newspaper, the Morgan Hill Times, had another of my columns. The subject was global warming and the 7th Generation Amendment. Click Read more! to read it here.. or go to the MH Times site.



Having the opportunity to write one of the first columns of 2009 is a privilege. It gives me the mental stimulus to think seriously about what I have to accomplish during the next year. The result is something of a list of topics rather than a coherent statement, but at some level it should make sense.

I spent much of Sunday moving a pineapple guava from a location where it got neither enough sun nor water to produce good fruit. By the time I finished, I was wondering why I even started the task. But then I came in and ate some roast beef with a pineapple guava chutney and I knew why.

There is nothing quite as good as the food you grow yourself. You know it is fresh. You know it is organic. You know it was ripe when picked rather than being picked green, shipped halfway across the country and allowed to ripen enroute.

My work with the EcoAction Committee of the Green Party this year has given me the impetus to spend more time than most on some issues, such as global warming. I guess that I was naive about just how much disinformation is promulgated by those in office.

One source of much obvious mis-information is Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe who is the ranking member of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. He continues to proclaim that "More than 650 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims" even though many of the names on that list have publicly demanded that he take their names off of it.

In other words, the man has no regard for truth or ethical conduct. It is embarrassing that he should have been re-elected.

It is possible that global warming is the most serious problem facing the world today. I would certainly put it far ahead of most of what we see as news on television.

Yet, we continue to get "on one hand or on the other hand" treatment of the issue, as if facts had two hands.

We can choose to act in whatever way we can or we can choose to ignore the issue.

We don't have to deal with the consequences now … but our children and grandchildren will.

I have also become convinced, mostly by hard facts, that there is not necessary antagonism between ecological sustainability and economic sustainability.

According to a study published recently by McKinsey Global Institute, the net economic cost to stabilize our climate is near zero.

The rhetoric to the contrary is always put forward by those who would rather sell you something than fix a problem.

Having gone through all of the above; developing our orchard, investigating global warming, checking the facts on the economy, studying the water problems that California can not seem to resolve, I have become convinced that we must treat some resources as part of the commons, owned by all.

I came to know of a man named Walt Bressette. A friend of mine knew him. Walt was a leader in the Chippewa spearing rights controversy in Wisconsin. My friend found him to be " … a wise, humorous, visionary man who was able to see through political baloney and get to the heart of situations."

Walt was also the head of a committee dedicated to enacting the 7th Generation Amendment to the Constitution. It makes a lot of sense to me.

"The right of citizens of the United States to use and enjoy air, water, wildlife, and other renewable resources determined by the Congress to be common property shall not be impaired, nor shall such use impair their availability for the use of future generations."

We use the the air every day … We change it by that use and, in doing so, we endanger the very life we would pass on to our posterity. Our Constitution would "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Somehow, we have forgotten that the blessings of our liberty includes the land in which we live, the air we breath, the water we use.

During the coming year, members of the Green Party will work to make the 7th Generation Amendment a reality. I ask you to join us in this.

The 7th Generation

I had the idea that it would be a good thing for Greens to make an issue over the 7th Generation Amendment. I first learned about it when reading more about Winona LaDuke. You can read her comments on the amendment here. I like the way that she starts.

The preamble to the US Constitution declares that one of its purposes is to secure "the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity." Shouldn't those blessings include air fit to breathe, water decent enough to drink and land as beautiful for our descendants as it was for our ancestors?

From that basis, she argues for the adoption of a 7th Generation Amendment to the Constitution. Please click Read more! to see what I can glean from that.


From what I can see, the major backers of the 7th Generation amendment were Native Americans. LaDuke was one. The late Walt Bresette also wrote well on this issue. He gave the background but also got the crux of modern legislative practice.

Iroquois Chief Oren Lyons, in an interview with Bill Moyers, said that Benjamin Franklin turned to the Iroquois among others in trying to shape a better form of government. Apparently he listened and included elements of Iroquois governance including the concept of posterity.

Franklin's posterity, found in the Preamble, was the Iroquois concept of providing for the 7th generation. Chief Lyons said that as the Iroquois leaders contemplate policy they must always factor in how today's decision will affect the 7th generation into the future.

It is clear to see that the questions of what would secure the blessings for our posterity do not come into the discussions about cleaning up the air from diesel smoke, or preserving the water in the California Delta. The future generations barely become a concern when talking about global warming even though that is the ultimate challenge for all future generations and most likely the one on which we will all be judged.

This will end up being a series of posts. There is too much to consider: politics, work load, group focus and on and on. Getting to into one single post is difficult. However, like they have written at Treehugger, the current burst bubble economic catastrophe may just be the impetus we need as well as providing the time to get something done.

The Venus Syndrome:

Dr. James Hansen (N.A.S.A.) gave a major speech at the annual convention of the American Geophysical Union. He changed the title of his talk after the program was complete, and so had to explain that fact. It is now entitled:
Climate Threat to the Planet: Implications for Energy Policy and Intergenerational Justice.

Those who are so inclined may download both the PowerPoint presentation
or as a PDF file. I have much more to say, and will call attention to those sections that really brought me up short. Click Read more! to understand just how dangerous these times are.



I want to talk about a single term from Dr. Hansen's title. Intergenerational Justice is not a phrase that I have heard before, but the implications are self evident to anyone who has read / heard Winona talk about our obligations to the 7th Generation.

For those who have talked about Ecological Wisdom on this list recently: Les, Howard, Linda, this is not new what is new is the following from Dr. Hansen's notes:

I will argue that we have a much sharper knowledge of global climate sensitivity than is usually stated.
Also the Faustian bargain that we have cut for ourselves is nastier than has been recognized.
And I will emphasize some important missing observations.
The scientific method and perspective have relevance that reaches beyond pure science. The urgency of implications for energy policy is not yet adequately recognized by governments, but it must be. The implications for intergenerational equity deserve greater attention.

There is a sense of urgency in what he says now, a tone that was not there before. In fact, the email that he sent out tonight with the links to his material was given the subject: The Venus Syndrome. Venus, the planet where a run-away greenhouse gas effect keep the surface temperature far higher than would allow human life to continue.

As I plowed through Hansen's presentation, I came to this point (Chart 43) where Hansen tells us what he really thinks about our "Faustian bargain."

In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.

From that event, there would be no return, no human life.

I stop at this point, not because I want to scare you, but rather because I want to call attention to an interview that Georges Monbiot conducted with Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency. I suggest that you watch the video that the Guardian put together. In this interview, Birol admits that for many years, his agency has been forecasting peak oil based on a rate at which existing oil fields are being depleted. In 2008, for the first time, they actually measured it and the difference was almost double. In other words, we will hit peak oil between 2020 and 2030 no matter what we do. According to Monbiot:

So burn this into your mind: between 2007 and 2008 the IEA radically changed its assessment. Until this year's report, the agency mocked people who said that oil supplies might peak. In the foreword to a book it published in 2005, its executive director, Claude Mandil, dismissed those who warned of this event as "doomsayers". "The IEA has long maintained that none of this is a cause for concern," he wrote. "Hydrocarbon resources around the world are abundant and will easily fuel the world through its transition to a sustainable energy future." In its 2007 World Energy Outlook, the IEA predicted a rate of decline in output from the world's existing oilfields of 3.7% a year. This, it said, presented a short-term challenge, with the possibility of a temporary supply crunch in 2015, but with sufficient investment any shortfall could be covered. But the new report, published last month,
carried a very different message: a projected rate of decline of 6.7%,which means a much greater gap to fill.

The alternatives that Birol was willing to discuss were to tap the Canadian tar sands.

Birol says we need a "global energy revolution" to avoid an oil crunch, including (disastrously for the environment) a massive global drive to exploit unconventional oils, such as the Canadian tar sands.

In other words, he is willing to strike the Faustian bargain that Hansen fears so much. If there were ever a time when we need to change our consciousness, when we need to call out again for a 7th Generation Amendment to our Constitution, that time is now. If not now, there may never be a 7th Generation.