Physical Benefits

In Costa Rica, sustainable tourism is no longer enough for conservation

By: Michele Bertilli
View the original article here

  • Following bold policies that promoted reforestation and private conservation in the early 1980s and 1990s, Costa Rica succeeded in significantly increasing its forest cover, which also boosted its nature-based tourism industry.
  • But the rise of mass tourism, including cruise ships, are starting to bring in environmental damage, warn the early promoters of sustainable tourism, as the industry’s value is estimated to more than triple by 2032.
  • The experts recommend shifting from pursuing sustainability to a regenerative approach, integrating local communities in tourism supply chains, and redirecting profits from mass tourism to private conservation.

LIMÓN, Costa Rica — On board Jurgen Stein’s two-seat gyrocopter, tourists can see the rainforest like never before. From the sky, the Selva Bananito Reserve looks like an endless stretch of broccoli.

“We have 11 life zones. Almost 5% of the global biodiversity exists here,” Stein says, pointing at the reserve that’s part of the Bosque de las Madres biological corridor.

Nestled in the Talamanca Mountains in southeastern Costa Rica, his private reserve stretches to the fringe of La Amistad International Park, the largest nature reserve in Central America that straddles more than 400,000 hectares (162,000 acres) of the border region between Costa Rica and Panama. Stein’s own reserve, a more modest 1,700 hectares (4,200 acres), was inherited largely from his father, who purchased the area in 1974 for farming and logging. But Stein refused to continue clearing the forest, and instead turned 1,250 hectares (3,088 acres) into an ecological reserve in 1994, keeping only a third of the property devoted to farming.

Selva Bananito is home to birds such as the great jacamar (Jacamerops aureus), anteaters like the northern tamandua (Tamandua mexicana) and the silky anteater (Cyclopes didactylus), and the Central American agouti (Dasyprocta punctata). It also hosts jaguars (Panthera onca) and pumas (Puma concolor). “When my father was 90, I gave him the footprint of a jaguar and a photo of a puma looking at one of our trap cameras. He stared at the picture and cried the whole day,” Stein says.

Birds enthusiasts can explore Selva Bananito to spot some of the 300 species that have been identified on the Lodge’s property. Image by Michele Bertelli.

Soon after establishing his reserve, Stein realized that he needed more sources of income to make up for no longer being able to log. He and his sisters saw tourism as an alternative, and in 1995 they opened the reserve to visitors. Today, guests sleep in 11 cabins built with recycled wood in traditional Caribbean style, and enjoy hiking and horseback riding in the reserve or watching some of the 300 species of birds living here. The more adventurous can also rappel down a 24-meter (80-foot) waterfall or glide from tree to tree on zip lines. And they can fly with Stein over the forest.

Over the years, Stein has become a well-known figure in Costa Rica’s ecotourism industry, including serving as vice president of the National Chamber for Ecotourism (CANAECO) and sitting on the board of the Nature Reserves Network, which represents all of the country’s private reserves. If Costa Rica has achieved worldwide recognition, he says, it’s thanks to tourism.

Tourism and conservation go hand in hand

In Costa Rica, sustainable tourism became an essential driver of the economy in the early 1980s. “We could not compete with the beaches of Mexico and the Caribbean islands. But we realized that no one had our natural assets,” Costa Rican Tourism Minister William Rodriguez López tells Mongabay.

The country implemented several bold policies to showcase its standing as home to 6.5% of global biodiversity. In 1969, it began designating the first protected areas, reversing policies stretching back to the early 1800s that had favored forest-clearing agribusiness. These earlier policies promoting deforestation drove Costa Rica’s rainforest cover as a proportion of the country’s total land area to as low as 40% in 1987. In 1995, Costa Rica turned the tide and approved a new law banning any further changes in land use and implementing a payment for environmental services (PES) program to support private conservation efforts.

Under the PES scheme, farmers and landowners receive an economic incentive for taking care of their trees through practices such as reforestation or agroforestry. The program, is funded mainly through a national fuel tax and water charge, covers 1.3 million hectares (3.2 million acres), or about a quarter of Costa Rica’s land area, and has seen 6 million trees planted since 1997.

Together, these policies have proved successful: today, forests cover 57% of the country.  According to the World Bank, Costa Rica is the first tropical country to have reversed deforestation.

Jurgen Stein points out the boundaries of the Selva Bananito Reserve from his two-seater gyrocopter. Image by Michele Bertelli.

Tourism has developed along the same trajectory: the number of foreign visitors has risen steadily; of the 2.7 million people coming to Costa Rica in 2023, 1.6 million, or about three in five, visited its protected areas. Tourism today accounts for 8.2% of GDP and 21.3% of the workforce, both direct and indirect, making it an essential part of the economy.

Over time, the tourism sector has implemented many measures toward greater sustainability. In the 1990s, the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism (ICT) created a third-party certified label to guarantee the social and environmental sustainability of its hotels and other ventures. Businesses looking to be certified must meet a range of criteria, including measuring their carbon footprint.

But local ecotourism operators such as Stein say they fear this blessing could soon turn into a curse. “Costa Rica should keep growing the seed it planted many years ago, which attracted the tourists here. The same tourists that today asked me how is [it] possible that they saw trucks loaded with giant trees,” Stein says.

The threat of mass tourism

During his frequent flights over the rainforest, Stein has witnessed an increased presence of deforestation since the COVID-19 pandemic started in 2020. He says he fears the subsequent economic crisis has pushed many local farmers toward illegal logging, damaging the country’s most precious asset. “It’s all for construction. Costa Rica is for sale. Ocean view, beachfront, whatever: we are selling our country to people who have money and want a second or third house,” Stein says.

In 2023, the public prosecutor’s office received 2,355 complaints of environmental crimes, most regarding damage to biodiversity, invasion of protected areas, violations of the forestry law, or illegal mining. Illegal logging is on the rise, especially in the country’s north, on its southern Pacific coast, and in Limón, the Caribbean coastal province where the Selva Bananito Reserve lies.

Guests of Selva Bananito can enjoy hiking, horse-riding and birdwatching. Image by Michele Bertelli.

Stein recalls flying to the border with Panama in March 2022 and spotting a track through the forest that he’d never seen before. “I flew over there again a week later, and I could already see a bulldozer and the timber,” he says. He sent the coordinates to the authorities, who subsequently arrested a group of loggers. But simply policing the damage after the fact isn’t enough, Stein says.

He notes that the farmer who allowed the logging on his land earned the equivalent of more than $100,000 for just a week of logging. For conserving the same amount of forest, he would have earned just over $3,000 in five years.

“Extraction and destruction bring more money than conservation,” Stein says.

His concerns are shared among several of the pioneers of sustainable tourism in the country. “Massive tourism is poisonous for eco-travelers,” says Glenn Jampol, chair of the Global Ecotourism Network (GEN) and owner of the Finca Rosa Blanca Coffee Farm & Inn. Jampol moved to Costa Rica from the U.S. after buying an old coffee farm. With his mother, they decided to restore the area and rent out a few bedrooms to pay for the work. And it was a success. National Geographic magazine selected Finca Rosa Blanca as one of its Unique Lodges of the World. Jampol’s coffee was also awarded the top prize for organic coffee at the World Coffee Challenge.

But Jampol says he’s worried that, by embracing mass tourism and cruise ships, Costa Rica could lose its competitive edge in the expanding sustainable tourism industry. GEN valued the global sustainable tourism market in 2022 at $3.3 trillion, and projects it could reach $11.4 trillion by 2032. “Many believe that the more tourists, the better. But it’s a lie,” Jampol says. “It is not about the price: it’s about the value, [about] an unforgettable experience. If we follow the [mass tourism] trend, we will lose all our edge.”

From sustainability to regeneration

Even the ICT, the national tourism institute, seems aware of the limits of the current model. “In a destination like Costa Rica, nature is the raw material to generate tourism. We cannot imagine growing infinitely,” says Tourism Minister Rodriguez López, adding the country’s success has been based on attracting higher-income visitors. Tourists spend an average of $1,746 and remain in the country for almost 13 nights. “We don’t want massive tourism like some other Caribbean islands, where they strive to receive 12 million tourists on an island that is smaller than our country. There is no degree of conservation there, and no sustainability by a long shot,” Rodriguez López says.

Yet, in 2022-2023, cruise ship arrivals set a new record, with Costa Rica welcoming around 350,000 visitors from 407 ships.

Glenn Jampol (far left) joins a group of visitors for a coffee tasting at Finca Rosa Blanca Coffee Farm & Inn. Image by Michele Bertelli.

“Cruise tourism is the worst social polluter: they eat everything on board, leave the garbage on the land, and work only with a couple of tour operators,” Jampol says. “We don’t want more tourism: we want better tourism.”

At the annual “Planet, People and Peace” conference organized by ecotourism association CANAECO in October 2023, many other operators voiced their concerns.

“Not everyone who lives in a touristic place is part of its value chain,” says Mario Socatelli, a consultant and speaker with more than 25 years of experience in the sector. Over his career, Socatelli has gone from managing sightseeing tour operators to flight companies. He was both a maker as well as a beneficiary of Costa Rica’s success, and he also recognizes the pitfalls.

“The World Tourism Organization estimates that the value chain of tourism covers 80% of a community, but 20% remains out of reach,” Socatelli tells Mongabay. According to him, Costa Rica should shift from pursuing sustainability to adopting a more integrated regenerative approach. “We don’t value ecosystemic services such as the importance of the biodiversity in the food production, the water generated in a protected area, the importance of a beautiful landscape,” he says.

The solution would be to integrate the whole community into the value chain of tourism. “It is not only about the product or the hotel, but also about the whole territory,” Socatelli says, citing successful examples of rural tourism in Colombia and Italy. He also says the country has no time to waste in finding the right balance between being a popular destination and preserving the ecosystem, because market trends are already changing.

In the meantime, Stein says he’d be satisfied simply by seeing some of the profits generated by mass tourism pouring down into his conservation efforts.

“A hundred and eighty thousand tourists on cruise boats dock in Limón every year,” he points out. “Couldn’t they give us 5% of their profits for the water that they receive [through our reserve]?”

Banner image: Nestled in the Talamanca Mountains in south-east Costa Rica, the Selva Bananito Reserve spans over 1,250 hectares (3,088 acres). Image by Michele Bertelli.

The Growing Environmental Risks of E-Waste

Published By: Geneva Environment Network
View the original article here

About E-Waste

E-waste, electronic waste, e-scrap and end-of-life electronics are terms often used to describe used electronics that are nearing the end of their useful life, and are discarded, donated or given to a recycler. The UN defines e-waste as any discarded products with a battery or plug, and features toxic and hazardous substances such as mercury, that can pose severe risk to human and environmental health.

According to the UN, in 2021 each person on the planet will produce on average 7.6 kg of e-waste, meaning that a massive 57.4 million tons will be generated worldwide. Only 17.4% of this electronic waste, containing a mixture of harmful substances and precious materials, will be recorded as being properly collected, treated and recycled. Many initiatives are undertaken to tackle this growing concern, but none of them can be fully effective without the active role and correct education of consumers.

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) also indicates that e-waste is one of the largest and most complex waste streams in the world. According to the Global E-waste Monitor 2020, the world generated 53.6 Mt of e-waste in 2019, only 9.3 Mt (17%) of which was recorded as being collected and recycled. The fourth version of the Global E-waste Monitor 2024 shows an increasing trend in the generation of e-waste as by 2022, the world generated  62 billion kg of e-waste,  (7.8 kg per capita). Only 22.3 percent (13.8 billion kg) of the e-waste generated was documented as properly collected and recycled.

E-waste contains valuable materials, as well as hazardous toxins, which make the efficient material recovery and safe recycling of e-waste extremely important for economic value as well as environmental and human health. The discrepancy in the amount of e-waste produced and the amount of e-waste that is properly recycled reflects an urgent need for all stakeholders including the youth to address this issue.

Tne United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) also estimated in a 2015 report “Waste Crimes, Waste Risks: Gaps and Challenges in the Waste Sector” that 60-90 per cent of the world’s electronic waste, worth nearly USD 19 billion, is illegally traded or dumped each year.

Environmental Risks

E-waste can be toxic, is not biodegradable and accumulates in the environment, in the soil, air, water and living things. For example, open-air burning and acid baths being used to recover valuable materials from electronic components release toxic materials leaching into the environment. These practices can also expose workers to high levels of contaminants such as lead, mercury, beryllium, thallium, cadmium and arsenic, and also brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and polychlorinated biphenyls, which can lead to irreversible health effects, including cancers, miscarriages, neurological damage and diminished IQs.

A 2019 joint report “A New Circular Vision for Electronics – Time for a Global Reboot” calls for a new vision for e-waste based on the circular economy concept, whereby a regenerative system can minimize waste and energy leakage. The report supports the work of the E-waste Coalition, which includes the ILO, ITU, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, UNU and Secretariats of the Basel and Stockholm Conventions.

According to the report, the improper handling of e-waste is resulting in a significant loss of scarce and valuable raw materials, including such precious metals as neodymium (vital for magnets in motors), indium (used in flat panel TVs) and cobalt (for batteries). Almost no rare earth minerals are extracted from informal recycling; these are polluting to mine. Yet metals in e-waste are difficult to extract; for example, total recovery rates for cobalt are only 30% (despite technology existing that could recycle 95%). The metal is, however, in great demand for laptop, smartphone and electric car batteries. Recycled metals are also two to 10 times more energy efficient than metals smelted from virgin ore. Furthermore, mining discarded electronics produces 80% less emissions of carbon dioxide per unit of gold compared with mining it from the ground.

In 2015, the extraction of raw materials accounted for 7% of the world’s energy consumption. This means that moving towards the use of more secondary raw materials in electronic goods could help considerably in reaching the targets set out in the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Climate Change

It is also worth considering the effects electronic goods have on climate change. Every device ever produced has a carbon footprint and is contributing to human-made global warming. Manufacture a tonne of laptops and potentially 10 tonnes of CO2 are emitted. When the carbon dioxide released over a device’s lifetime is considered, it predominantly occurs during production, before consumers buy a product. This makes lower carbon processes and inputs at the manufacturing stage (such as use recycled raw materials) and product lifetime key determinants of overall environmental impact.

Lack of Recycling

Recycling rates globally are low. Even in the EU, which leads the world in e-waste recycling, just 35% of e-waste is officially reported as properly collected and recycled. Globally, the average is 20%; the remaining 80% is undocumented, with much ending up buried under the ground for centuries as landfill. E-waste is not biodegradable. The lack of recycling weighs heavily on the global electronic industry and as devices become more numerous, smaller and more complex, the issue escalates. Currently, recycling some types of e-waste and recovering materials and metals is an expensive process. The remaining mass of e-waste – mainly plastics laced with metals and chemicals – poses a more intractable problem.

Circular Approach for Electronics

A new vision for the production and consumption of electronic and electrical goods is needed. It is easy for e-waste to be framed as a post-consumer problem, but the issue encompasses the lifecycle of the devices everyone uses. Designers, manufacturers, investors, traders, miners, raw material producers, consumers, policy-makers and others have a crucial role to play in reducing waste, retaining value within the system, extending the economic and physical life of an item, as well as its ability to be repaired, recycled and reused.

Changes in technology such as cloud computing and the internet of things (IoT) could hold the potential to “dematerialize” the electronics industry. The rise of service business models and better product tracking and takeback could lead to global circular value chains. Material efficiency, recycling infrastructure and scaling up the volume and quality of recycled materials to meet the needs of electronics supply chains will all be essential. If the sector is supported with the right policy mix and managed in the right way, it could also lead to the creation of millions of decent jobs worldwide.

International E-Waste Day

Each year, International E-Waste Day is held on 14 October, an opportunity to reflect on the impacts of e-waste and the necessary actions to enhance circularity for e-products. ​​​​​International E-Waste Day was developed in 2018 by the WEEE Forum to raise the public profile of waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling and encourage consumers to recycle. Learn more about the activities for each edition below:

  • International E-Waste Day 2023
  • International E-Waste Day 2022
  • International E-Waste Day 2021

Role of Geneva

Organizations are listed in alphabetical order

Basel Convention

The overarching objective of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal is to protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects of hazardous wastes. E-waste is categorized as hazardous waste due to the presence of toxic materials such as mercury, lead and brominated flame retardants are considered as hazardous waste according to the Basel Convention. In addition, transboundary movements of hazardous and other wastes, including e-waste ending up in dumps, are deemed to be illegal traffic under the Basel Convention, Article 9.

As part of the Convention, the Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE) was launched at the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention, on 23-27 June 2008. PACE is a multi-stakeholder partnership for governments, industry leaders, non-governmental organizations and academia to tackle the environmentally sound management, refurbishment, recycling and disposal of used and end-of-life computing equipment, taking into account social responsibility and the concept of sustainable development, and promoting the sharing of information on life cycle thinking.

Furthermore, the Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI) was launched in 2002 on the environmentally sound management of end-of-life mobile telephones. Under the MPPI five technical guidelines (awareness raising – design considerations, collection of used and end-of-life mobile phones, transboundary movement of collected mobile phones, refurbishment of used mobile phones, and material recovery/recycling of end-of-life mobile phones) were developed.

Under the Basel Convention, Parties and other stakeholders have also been working on a set of global policies on specific challenges related to the trade of WEEE and used equipment through the technical guidelines on transboundary movements of electrical and electronic waste and used electrical and electronic equipment, in particular regarding the distinction between waste and non waste, which was adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention, on an interim basis, in 2019. The guidelines focus on clarifying aspects related to transboundary movements of e-waste and used equipment that may or may not be waste.

E-Waste Coalition

In addition, on 21 March 2018 at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum, seven United Nations entities signed a Letter of Intent paving the way for greater collaboration in the area of e-waste management in developing a UN E-Waste Coalition. Its aims include a commitment by the signatories to increase collaboration, building partnership and supporting Member States to address the global WEEE challenge. Further to this, at the 2019 WSIS Forum, three new UN entities signed the Letter of Intent.

The coalition brings together the following organizations, the majority based in Geneva:

  • ILO
  • ITC
  • ITU
  • UNEP
  • UNU
  • United Nations Human Settlement (UN Habitat)
  • United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
  • United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
  • World Health Organization (WHO)
  • Secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions

The coalition is supported by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the World Economic Forum, and was coordinated, until 31 October 2020, by the Secretariat of the UN Environment Management Group (UNEMG). UNEP is now hosting the temporary secretariat of the coalition.

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)

Founded in 1906, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is the world’s leading organization for the preparation and publication of International Standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies, known collectively as “electrotechnology.”

IEC provides a platform to companies, industries and governments for meeting, discussing and developing the International Standards they require. All IEC International Standards are fully consensus-based and represent the needs of key stakeholders of every nation participating in IEC work.

International Labour Organization (ILO)

The only tripartite U.N. agency, since 1919 the International Labour Organization (ILO) brings together governments, employers and workers of 187 member States, to set labour standards, develop policies and devise programmes promoting decent work for all women and men. More than 1.2 billion jobs depend on a stable environment and ecosystems. ILO’s Green Initiative aims to scale up the its knowledge, policy response and capacity to manage a just transition toward greener economies and a sustainable future.

In addition, the Green Jobs Programme signals ILO’s commitment to act on climate change and to promote resource efficient and low-carbon societies. Decent work is a cornerstone for effective policies to green economies for achieving sustainable development. This implies that efforts to reduce adverse environmental impact must lead to socially just outcomes with employment opportunities for all.

International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

Founded in 1865 to facilitate international connectivity in communications networks, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is the United Nations specialized agency for information and communication technologies – ICTs. ITU’s Development Bureau (ITU-D) has been given a mandate to “assist developing countries in undertaking proper assessment of the size of e-waste and in initiating pilot projects to achieve environmentally sound management of e-waste through e-waste collection, dismantling, refurbishing and recycling.” (WTDC Resolution 66). To this end ITU-D is developing e-waste guidelines to help countries identify best policies. It is also carrying out an electronic waste management project, and recently launched a new partnership to help improve global e-waste statistics.

ITU, in cooperation with the United Nations University (UNU), have joined forces to form the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership​ (GESP). Its main objectives are to improve and collect worldwide statistics on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). The GESP also raises visibility on the importance of compiling WEEE statistics and delivers capacity building workshops using an internationally recognized, harmonized measurement framework. The initiative informs policy makers, industries, academia, media and the general public by enhancing the understanding and interpretation of global WEEE data and its relation to the SDGs.

The publication of the Global and Regional E-Waste Monitors are key achievements of the GESP which highlight global growth in the generation of WEEE. These reports also introduce the wider public to the global WEEE challenge and include national analysis on WEEE.

International Trade Centre (ITC)

The transition to a digital world is offering unprecedented opportunities for innovation, entrepreneurship and growth, and how the global consumption of electrical and electronic equipment is generating extraordinary amounts of e-waste. Large dumps sites around the world have been created due to the e-waste generated.

One of the key challenges for the more environmentally sound management of e-waste in developing countries is linking the informal and formal e-waste processors and providing coaching opportunities to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

SMEs and industry associations can play a key role in unlocking collaboration within values chains to ensure more circular and sustainable approaches. The International Trade Centre (ITC), in collaboration with other signatories of the E-Waste Coalition will use their expertise to help solve these pressing issues.

The ITC has a growing focus on environmental sustainability and social inclusion as important elements for SME competitiveness and for fostering Good Trade. ITC will contribute with these experiences to the important work of the e-waste coalition.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

UNEP has provided several reports and guidance manuals on dealing with e-waste. The Chemicals and Health Branch is leading UNEP’s activities on chemicals and waste and is the main catalytic force in the UN system for concerted global action on the environmentally sound management of chemicals and waste.

World Health Organization (WHO)

A WHO report on e-waste and child health Children and Digital Dumpsites, released in June 2021, calls for urgent effective and binding action to protect the millions of children, adolescents and expectant mothers worldwide whose health is jeopardized by the informal processing of discarded electrical or electronic devices.

As many as 12.9 million women are working in the informal waste sector, which potentially exposes them to toxic e-waste and puts them and their unborn children at risk.

Meanwhile more than 18 million children and adolescents, some as young as 5 years of age, are actively engaged in the informal industrial sector, of which waste processing is a sub-sector. Children are often engaged by parents or caregivers in e-waste recycling because their small hands are more dexterous than those of adults. Other children live, go to school and play near e-waste recycling centers where high levels of toxic chemicals, mostly lead and mercury, can damage their intellectual abilities

Children exposed to e-waste are particularly vulnerable to the toxic chemicals they contain due to their smaller size, less developed organs and rapid rate of growth and development. They absorb more pollutants relative to their size and are less able to metabolize or eradicate toxic substances from their bodies.

Switzerland and the Canton of Geneva

Retailers, manufacturers and importers are obliged to accept used items of electrical and electronic equipment, in which they deal, free of charge. This obligation also applies if the customer does not purchase a new device or appliance. Consumers, in turn, are obliged to return equipment. The disposal of used equipment through municipal solid waste or bulk waste collections is prohibited. These regulations are contained in the Ordinance on the Return, Taking Back and Disposal of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (ORDEE).

Specialized disposal companies dismantle the electrical and electronic equipment partly manually and then process it mechanically. Problematic components (mercury switches, PCB capacitators, batteries) are dismantled or separated and undergo special disposal. The remaining fragments are separated. Fractions that can undergo material recycling are produced in this way: plastics, iron, aluminium and tin, zinc, nickel and precious metal alloys.

The dismantling and separation of equipment into fractions is mainly carried out in Switzerland. The other processing stages are often carried out abroad because non-ferrous metals processing systems, in particular, are not available in Switzerland.

In accordance with the Ordinance on Movements of Waste (OMW), electrical and electronic equipment is classified as “other controlled waste”. Waste disposal companies in Switzerland that accept such equipment require the authorization of the canton in which the equipment is located. The export and import of such waste requires the authorization of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). Export to states that are not members of the OECD or EU is prohibited.

In the Canton of Geneva, electronic waste should also be sorted separately by consumers and businesses, in addition to various actors from Recycleurs de Genève.

Rethinking plastic packaging

We’re completely rethinking our approach to packaging to use less, better or no plastic.

View the original article here

The challenge

Plastic is a very useful material for getting our products to consumers safely and efficiently. It’s often the lowest carbon footprint option compared to other materials. However, plastic is ending up in our environment. This has to stop.

Global research has shown that without action, twice as much virgin plastic will be created and three times more plastic could flow into our oceans by 2040. The plastic we produce is our responsibility. It’s clear we must reduce the amount of virgin plastic we use and completely rethink our approach to packaging. We must also keep plastic in use for as long as possible in a circular loop system. That means we need much better systems to collect, process and repeatedly reuse it.

We’re working hard to make progress in our business, but we can’t turn the tide on plastic pollution alone. To achieve a circular economy for plastics, we need strong commitments to be supported by systems-level change. Policy and regulation can play a critical role in tackling plastic waste, improving waste management infrastructure, and creating the right enabling environment for a circular economy. That’s why we’re calling for a global UN treaty with legally binding targets.

We also support policies like Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), where companies pay for the collection of packaging – a key ask of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty. We believe that well-designed EPR schemes are a game-changer in tackling plastic pollution. They ensure money is invested back into waste management and packaging innovation, and hold businesses to account for the packaging choices they make. In 2021, we signed a public statement with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation calling for the implementation of well-designed EPR policies, recognising that, without EPR, packaging collection and recycling is unlikely to be meaningfully scaled. Read more about how we’re using our voice to fix the broken plastic system through our advocacy and partnerships.

Our mantra and framework: Less plastic. Better plastic. No plastic.

We’re making progress towards our ambitious plastics goals, guided by the following framework:

  • Less plastic: cutting down how much plastic we use in the first place through lighter designs, reuse and refill formats, and concentrated products which use less packaging.
  • Better plastic: making sure the plastic we use is designed to be recycled and that our products use recycled plastic. 
  • No plastic: using refill stations and formats to cut out new plastic completely and switching to alternative packaging materials such as paper, glass or aluminium.

Our actions on all three are key to delivering our virgin plastic reduction goal. Due to our step up on recycled plastic, we’ve reduced our virgin plastic footprint since 2019 by 18%.

Our plastic packaging footprint

We use a variety of different plastic packaging types for our products.

Our total plastic packaging footprint – including virgin and recycled plastic – is made up of 68% rigid packaging materials, with bottles, such as those used for fabric cleaning liquid, shampoo and body wash, being the biggest contributor. Flexible packaging makes up 31% of our footprint, with sealed flexible packs and pouches, such as laundry detergent bags, contributing the most. The remaining 1% is made up of tubes, for example, those used for toothpaste

Less plastic

Sometimes a complete rethink of how we design and package products is the best way to reduce plastic. Reducing the amount of material in a product by just a few grams can make a huge difference across an entire product range. Over the last decade we’ve already cut the weight of our packaging by a fifth through better and lighter designs.

We’re encouraging consumers to think of bottles of our cleaning and laundry products as a ‘bottle for life’ – just like a ‘bag for life’ they might use for shopping. For instance, our OMO laundry customers can use their 3-litre bottles for life.

Ultra concentrated products help us give consumers the same products but with much less plastic and smaller packaging. Comfort’s ultra concentrated laundry formulas offer a smaller dosage than any other product on the market. Our Love Beauty and Planet concentred shampoos and conditioners provide the same number of uses with half the plastic.

Our Beauty & Personal Care brands are challenging our throwaway culture too. Dove has started a beauty ‘refillution’ with its first-ever durable, stainless steel refillable deodorant case which is designed to be used for life.

Better plastic

Whenever we use plastic, we make sure we’re choosing better options – that means recycled and recyclable plastics. Currently, 53% of our packaging is recyclable, reusable or compostable[c]. This is our actual recyclability rate, which is significantly less than the 72% of our packaging portfolio that is technically recyclable with existing technology. This gap is an industry-wide challenge and is primarily driven by a lack of collection and recycling infrastructure. We’re working with local governments and partners to close this gap, while we continue to deploy new materials and technologies.

We’re keeping plastics in the system, and out of the environment, by buying recycled plastic – sometimes called post-consumer recycled plastic (PCR). We’re ramping up how much recycled plastic we use. We’ve increased our use of recycled plastic to 22% of our total plastic footprint. This puts us on track to meet our commitment of at least 25% recycled plastic by 2025.

For instance, in 2021 Hellmann’s launched 100% recycled packaging in two-thirds of its markets, Knorr launched 100% recycled plastic bouillon tubs and lids in Europe, and Swedish Glace’s plant-based ice cream comes in recycled plastic tubs. Our Dove beauty brand uses 100% recycled plastic bottles in Europe and North America (where technically feasible) and 98% of its new refillable deodorant packaging in the US is made from recycled plastic. Our Love Beauty and Planet hair and skin care brand, is also working to incorporate recycled plastic in bottle caps and pumps.

There are plenty of technical challenges that we’re tackling in our better plastic journey. We’re developing new solutions, including chemical recycling for plastics which are hardest to recycle such as multi-layered and flexible packaging. We’re also aware that not all packaging that’s technically recyclable will actually be recycled. It’s technically possible to recycle around 72% of our product portfolio. However, what is actually recycled is lower because of the lack of infrastructure in communities.

Recycled plastic packaging also has to meet the same technical and safety standards as virgin plastic – standards which are higher for food packaging. Our Magnum ice cream brand worked with a supplier to overcome this challenge and launch recycled plastic ice cream tubs (see case study below).

In our Home Care division, our dilutable laundry detergents in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay are made with recycled plastic and cost less than undiluted detergents.

Collecting and processing plastic

We can’t reach our ‘better plastic’ goals unless there’s enough high-quality recycled plastic available. There’s no shortage of plastic in the system – but there are some big challenges. Turning plastic waste and pollution into usable material relies on local collection and sorting facilities. There also needs to be technical innovation and new solutions to make collecting and reprocessing materials commercially viable.

Our business in India was one of the first to help collect and process more plastic than it sold, and we have roadmaps for achieving this in other markets including Brazil, India, Indonesia, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, UK and US.

However, we have more work to do to scale up our collection efforts. This includes direct investments, such as in the US where we’ve made a $15 million investment in the Closed Loop Partners’ Leadership Fund to help improve recycling. Partnerships in waste collection and processing, building capacity by buying recycled plastics, and supporting extended producer-responsibility schemes will also be critical to drive progress.

We’re developing technology-led solutions too. For instance in Indonesia, we’re supporting urban communities to develop systems to collect and sell waste. A digital platform called ‘Google My Business’ enables consumers to find their nearest waste banks via Google Maps. In China we’re using artificial intelligence to increase recycling rates (see case study below). And together with partners in the UK and US, we’re working to tackle the challenge of black plastic, which typically can’t be detected by waste sorting and recycling machines (see case study below).

We also need to consider the impact of the plastic system on people’s livelihoods, as plastic is frequently collected by waste collectors in the informal economy, often working under dirty and dangerous conditions and without earning adequate wages or receiving social benefits. These individuals and their communities are an integral part of the plastics solution, because without them we will not be able to scale up our collection efforts to meet our goals for a waste-free world.

This issue is a priority for Unilever, and we’ve been busy developing a global framework on how we approach and include human rights in our plastic value chain, especially for informal waste collectors who are involved in collection and processing in a number of developing markets. We’ve also been working with our peers and expert NGOs to build a common approach across industry – most notably through the Fair Circularity Initiative, which we co-founded and launched in November 2022 alongside Coca-Cola, Nestlé, PepsiCo and the NGO Tearfund. Together, we have agreed to advance and adopt the initiative’s 10 Fair Circularity Principles and are now working towards implementing them.

In India, for example, we’re working with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to create a circular economy for plastic and support the social inclusion of thousands of workers within the informal waste sector – also known as waste pickers and Safai Saathis (which translates to ‘invisible environmentalists’) – in recognition of the critical role they play.

Finding new solutions for flexible packaging

Plastic sachets allow low-income consumers to buy small amounts of products – often ones that provide hygiene or nutrition benefits like shampoo, food and toothpaste – that they would otherwise not be able to afford. However, flexible packaging, such as sachets and pouches, is particularly difficult to improve. In the long-term, we want to transition from using multi-layered sachets to mono-material sachets that are technically recyclable, and improve their collection and recyclability, particularly in our markets across Asia, where we sell more products in sachets. We’re learning there are no easy solutions. It’s a technical challenge, made more difficult by different local regulations on collection, sorting and recycling.

We’re developing new business models to reuse packaging and increase collection. For example, in the Philippines we have a sachet recovery programme to incentivise collection of post-consumer sachet waste in and around Manila. We’re also exploring how we can make sachets from single materials instead of multiple layers, making them easier to recycle. In Vietnam, we launched a trial for recyclable mono-material sachets of CLEAR shampoo. The recycled material is reused for items like refuse bags and containers, but with scale there’s potential to return it to our supply chain as recycled plastic. In Indonesia we’re testing solutions to eliminate the need for plastic by offering refill stations.

In Europe we’re members of CEFLEX, a consortium aiming to make flexible packaging in Europe circular by 2025. We contributed to an industry roadmap and guidelines exploring solutions.

We are committed to finding a solution for flexible packaging and we’re partnering with others to make progress.For instance in the UK we’ve partnered with other brands to launch the Flexible Plastic Fund to improve flexible plastic recycling rates. We’re working with Mars, Mondelēz, Nestlé, PepsiCo and UK retailers to incentivise the recycling of flexible packaging.

No plastic

No plastic means rethinking how we design products, developing whole new business models, and new shopping experiences for our consumers. It also means switching out plastic for alternative options such as metals, paper and glass.

The reuse-refill revolution

We want to help bring about a reuse-refill revolution. That’s why we’re working hard to find new ways for people to shop and use our products – for example, by buying one container and refilling it over and over again. Refills can be bought online or in a shop, or through in-store dispensing machines. A service could pick up empty containers, replenish them and deliver them back. Alternatively, people could return packaging at a store or drop-off point, as part of a deposit-return scheme (DRS).

We’ve been trialling a variety of reuse-refill models across our broad portfolio since 2018. We’ve conducted around 50 pilots across the world – testing and scaling different approaches, with the goal of making refilling our products as convenient, affordable and desirable as possible for consumers. Read more about the lessons that we’ve learnt along the way.

As we move beyond our initial ‘test and learn’ approach, we are working with partners, sharing our learnings and focusing our efforts to support an industry-wide shift towards reusable and refillable packaging at scale, in addition to scaling our own successful models. Collaboration is essential if we are going to get reuse-refill models working economically at scale.

Plastic-free packaging and products

We’re finding ways to remove plastic entirely from some of our products and packaging.

Our brands are using a range of alternative materials. Plastic-free packaging innovations include bamboo toothbrushes from Signal, fully recyclable paper food sachets for Colman’s, recyclable glass soup bottles from Knorr and paper ice cream tubs from Carte D’Or, Ben & Jerry’s and Wall’s. Persil laundry capsules now come in plastic-free boxes that can be fully recycled as paper in France. Dove’s single-bar soaps now come plastic-free and Seventh Generation also has a zero-plastic range on eCommerce channels in the US, using packaging made from steel.

We’re taking plastic out of our products too. Simple’s biodegradable facial cleansing wipes are made from sustainably sourced wood pulp and plant fibre.

Suddenly, US electricity demand is spiking. Can the grid keep up?

Data centers, factories, heat pumps and EVs are putting increasing stress on a grid that isn’t growing fast enough, new data shows.

Written by: Jeff St. John
View the original article here

A recently constructed Meta data center in Eagle Mountain, Utah (George Frey/Getty Images)

For the past two decades, demand for electricity across the United States has hardly increased. But those dynamics appear to have dramatically reversed — and U.S. electric utilities, regulators and power grid planners aren’t prepared to deal with this new paradigm of surging electricity demand.

That’s the key takeaway from a new report by consultancy Grid Strategies called The Era of Flat Power Demand Is Over. Already, massive amounts of clean energy projects are stuck waiting for grid expansions to happen so they can connect. Soon enough, data centers, factories, electric-vehicle charging depots and other major electricity users could start facing the same barriers, the report warns.

In the past year, estimates from U.S. utilities and grid operators of how much electricity demand will grow over the next five years have nearly doubled, jumping from 2.6 percent to 4.7 percent, according to Grid Strategies’ analysis. That’s far higher than the more incremental 0.5 percent annual demand growth estimates of the past decade.

(Grid Strategies)

Over the past 20 years, efficiency improvements — primarily replacing incandescent lightbulbs with fluorescents and then LEDs — have counterbalanced rising power demand from population and economic growth, giving utilities and regulators little reason to expand their power grids or generation capacity.

“I think people got used to…flat power demand,” said Rob Gramlich, Grid Strategies president.

But the combination of near-term growth in electricity use by data centers and industry and longer-term growth from electric vehicles and building heating has upended that status quo, he said. ​“Those who are actively involved in electrifying parts of the economy understand that that means more electricity demand. But it’s only been dribbling out anecdotally here and there.”

That anecdotal data has piled up. In Virginia’s Loudoun County, dubbed ​“Data Center Alley” for its remarkably high concentration of data centers, power shortfalls have prompted utility Dominion Energy to push grid planners to approve a multibillion-dollar grid expansion; some data center operators and regulators have even proposed running backup diesel generators to cover power gaps. In California, lags in grid expansions are causing monthslong wait times for getting connected to utility service, not just for major new loads like electric truck-charging depots but even for everyday commercial and multifamily buildings.

All told, grid planners across the U.S. forecast an increase of 38 gigawatts of peak demand by 2028, according to data reported to federal regulators — a pace of growth that will be hard to keep up with. Data centers and factories can be built in a few years, but it takes four years or more to build new power plants, and up to a decade or longer to build new transmission lines.

While this is a problem that goes beyond the clean energy sector, it also presents a particular hurdle for the energy transition. Not only does the U.S. need to rapidly replace existing coal- and gas-fired power plants with renewables — it also needs to grow fast enough to accommodate the surge of new electricity demand. For this new demand to be met in a way that doesn’t derail the transition away from fossil fuels, the U.S. will need to clear the way for a much speedier buildout of wind, solar, batteries and power lines.

“The main reason [tracking increases in electricity demand] is important is for infrastructure planning,” Gramlich said. ​“Transmission infrastructure in particular takes a long time. As soon as we know this load situation to be the case, we’d better act quickly.”

A sector-by-sector breakdown of where new electricity demand is coming from

Grid Strategies highlighted key demand-growth drivers across several major grid regions, including PJM, which operates the grid in all or part of 13 states from Illinois to Virginia, as well as the grid operators for California, New York and Texas, and four large utilities: Arizona Public Service, Duke Energy, Georgia Power and Portland General Electric in Oregon. 

(Grid Strategies)

Data centers and industrial facilities were among the biggest drivers of new load. New investments in U.S. data centers are projected to exceed $150 billion through 2028, driven by rising demand for cloud computing, telecommunications, digitization and artificial intelligence. Data centers already make up roughly 2.5 percent of total U.S. electricity demand, according to analysis from Boston Consulting Group — but exploding demand for AI could drive that to 7.5 percent by 2030.

(Grid Strategies)


New industrial facilities are also adding demands on the grid. The country has seen about $481 billion in commitments to build and expand industrial and manufacturing facilities since 2021, the report states. Much of that growth stems from the clean energy manufacturing boom and is concentrated in the Midwest and Southeast, which are receiving the lion’s share of battery and EV manufacturing investments spurred by the tens of billions of dollars of federal incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act.

(U.S. Department of Energy)

Not all of the emerging demands for grid electricity are fully accounted for in current load-growth forecasts, Gramlich noted. One striking example is hydrogen produced from zero-carbon electricity, supported by lucrative tax credits offered by the Inflation Reduction Act, which could add gigawatts’ worth of new power demand across the country. But with the exception of New York, grid planners’ ​“load forecasts don’t appear to be explicitly considering the implications of hydrogen fuel plants,” according to the repo

(U.S. Department of Energy)

Increased electricity demand stemming from the electrification of transportation and buildings — a key facet of the Biden administration’s climate plans — is not as granularly tracked in states outside those with aggressive policies on those fronts, such as those adopted by California and New York. In California, where policymakers have set their sights on replacing fossil-fueled vehicles and building heating systems with EVs and heat pumps, respectively, statewide electricity demand is expected to grow by about 60 percent through 2045, according to an analysis from utility Southern California Edison — a remarkable turnaround from a state that’s led the country on energy efficiency. New York expects similar increases in electricity demand over the coming decades.

How uncertainty and cost concerns have limited grid infrastructure buildout

Though it’s clear what direction power demand is moving in, ​“we don’t know enough yet to say what load growth is going to be,” Gramlich cautioned. Load forecasting is an inherently uncertain field. Some proposed data centers and factories may never be built. The uptake rates of EVs or electric-powered heat pumps for homes and buildings can’t be predicted with perfect accuracy.

These uncertainties can lead utility regulators to look askance at utility grid-expansion proposals that may exceed future needs, since their costs are passed on to utility customers via increases on their bills. Over the past half-decade or so, a number of large-scale utility grid-expansion plans have been denied by state regulators due to concerns over excessive costs.

Similar dynamics have slowed efforts within the independent system operators and regional transmission organizations that manage the grids that provide electricity to roughly two-thirds of the country’s population. Since a series of large-scale buildouts in the early 2010s, the scale of U.S. grid projects has declined significantly, with the average miles of newly built high-voltage transmission lines falling by more than half from the first half to the second half of that decade.

Several of these grid operators have approved multibillion-dollar grid buildout plans in the past two years. But those plans still tend to project lower levels of load growth than the data in Grid Strategies’ study indicates is on its way, Gramlich said. ​“It may be that everybody’s base case needs to be ratcheted up.”

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates interstate transmission policy, is in the midst of crafting proposed transmission rules that are expected to require grid operators and utilities to examine a broader set of future grid needs, including increasing demand from electrification of transport and buildings, when making their long-term grid plans.

“There should be a lot of work coming up for every region following the FERC rule,” which is expected some time in the first half of 2024, Gramlich said. ​“That rule will require a lot of planning — and the devil’s in the details in every region.


New industrial facilities are also adding demands on the grid. The country has seen about $481 billion in commitments to build and expand industrial and manufacturing facilities since 2021, the report states. Much of that growth stems from the clean energy manufacturing boom and is concentrated in the Midwest and Southeast, which are receiving the lion’s share of battery and EV manufacturing investments spurred by the tens of billions of dollars of federal incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act.

Map of U.S. manufacturing facilities announced since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act
(U.S. Department of Energy)

Not all of the emerging demands for grid electricity are fully accounted for in current load-growth forecasts, Gramlich noted. One striking example is hydrogen produced from zero-carbon electricity, supported by lucrative tax credits offered by the Inflation Reduction Act, which could add gigawatts’ worth of new power demand across the country. But with the exception of New York, grid planners’ ​“load forecasts don’t appear to be explicitly considering the implications of hydrogen fuel plants,” according to the report.

Map of planned or operational electrolytic hydrogen facilities in the U.S.
(U.S. Department of Energy)

Increased electricity demand stemming from the electrification of transportation and buildings — a key facet of the Biden administration’s climate plans — is not as granularly tracked in states outside those with aggressive policies on those fronts, such as those adopted by California and New York. In California, where policymakers have set their sights on replacing fossil-fueled vehicles and building heating systems with EVs and heat pumps, respectively, statewide electricity demand is expected to grow by about 60 percent through 2045, according to an analysis from utility Southern California Edison — a remarkable turnaround from a state that’s led the country on energy efficiency. New York expects similar increases in electricity demand over the coming decades.

How uncertainty and cost concerns have limited grid infrastructure buildout

Though it’s clear what direction power demand is moving in, ​“we don’t know enough yet to say what load growth is going to be,” Gramlich cautioned. Load forecasting is an inherently uncertain field. Some proposed data centers and factories may never be built. The uptake rates of EVs or electric-powered heat pumps for homes and buildings can’t be predicted with perfect accuracy.

These uncertainties can lead utility regulators to look askance at utility grid-expansion proposals that may exceed future needs, since their costs are passed on to utility customers via increases on their bills. Over the past half-decade or so, a number of large-scale utility grid-expansion plans have been denied by state regulators due to concerns over excessive costs.

Similar dynamics have slowed efforts within the independent system operators and regional transmission organizations that manage the grids that provide electricity to roughly two-thirds of the country’s population. Since a series of large-scale buildouts in the early 2010s, the scale of U.S. grid projects has declined significantly, with the average miles of newly built high-voltage transmission lines falling by more than half from the first half to the second half of that decade.

Several of these grid operators have approved multibillion-dollar grid buildout plans in the past two years. But those plans still tend to project lower levels of load growth than the data in Grid Strategies’ study indicates is on its way, Gramlich said. ​“It may be that everybody’s base case needs to be ratcheted up.”

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates interstate transmission policy, is in the midst of crafting proposed transmission rules that are expected to require grid operators and utilities to examine a broader set of future grid needs, including increasing demand from electrification of transport and buildings, when making their long-term grid plans.

“There should be a lot of work coming up for every region following the FERC rule,” which is expected some time in the first half of 2024, Gramlich said. ​“That rule will require a lot of planning — and the devil’s in the details in every region.”

Building new power plants instead of transmission lines could help serve these growing loads. But it’s far more efficient to expand the grid to carry power from where it’s most cheaply generated to where it’s most acutely needed.

A host of new transmission grid projects have been approved over the past few years. But they’re still not enough to connect the massive amounts of new renewable power needed to reach the Biden administration’s goals of a zero-carbon grid by 2035. Studies from the U.S. Department of Energy, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Princeton University have found the country must double or triple current transmission capacity to reach that goal.

Nor are the new power lines being planned sufficient to eliminate rising grid-congestion costs that are adding billions of dollars to U.S. consumers’ electricity costs, or to enable different regions of the country to share power in order to mitigate the risk of blackouts during extreme winter storms or summer heat waves. This new report also adds the risk of stalling economic growth to this list of threats.

Transmission projects can take more than a decade to move from planning to construction, and they can be blocked by permitting and legal challenges at multiple points. Regional grid-expansion proposals can be scuttled due to conflicts between the utilities and states they connect over how to fairly allocate and distribute the costs of building them.

Federal action on this front has been limited as well. To date, Congress has failed to act on proposed legislation to offer tax incentives to transmission projects, to require minimum amounts of transmission between regions or to give FERC more authority to override state-by-state objections to new projects. But members of both parties in Congress ​“should care enough about infrastructure to support economic growth in this country,” Gramlich said.

This Toronto Building Is a Model for a Post-Pandemic Office

It’s small, wood, local, efficient, and it has the best bike room in town.

By: Lloyd Alter
View the original article here

Exterior in the evening of the building. Leaside Innovation Centre

The future of the office post-pandemic has been a subject of many posts in the last few years. I have written that we will be living in a hybrid world, with “one foot in the real world, one foot in the virtual, and everything will be flexible and adaptable.” I have suggested that we will see the return of the satellite office in the 15-minute city, in a new hub-and-spoke world. Oh, and the new office buildings will be made from low-carbon materials and nobody is going to want to work in a building without seriously good ventilation.

That’s why I was so intrigued by a new office building proposed for Leaside, in a former industrial area of Toronto that first transitioned to big box stores but now appears to be evolving again. The Leaside Innovation Centre (LIC) is being developed by Charles Goldsmith, designed by Greg Latimer of Studio CANOO, and engineered by David Moses, who is known for his expertise in mass timber construction.

The LIC is a five-minute walk to a new transit line and is surrounded by very expensive homes in desirable residential areas. Basically, it’s what could be ground zero in a Leaside 15-minute city, and may well attract tenants and buyers from the immediate area.

Leaside Innovation Centre

Like many new office buildings, it is built of mass timber. On their website, they list the benefits:

“Mass timber structure is the contemporary equivalent of the beloved industrial warehouse structures that have populated the downtown core for well over a century and are now being repurposed for housing and office space to meet the needs of the 21st century. The mass timber structure (comprised of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) floor plates and glulam beams and columns) is substantially lower in its carbon footprint than steel or concrete. The harvesting of renewable forest products to fabricate CLT captures atmospheric carbon helping to mitigate the impact of climate change by storing the embodied carbon in the finished product. In addition, the CLT structure weighs approximately 25% less than a comparable concrete structure reducing the load on the foundation and allowing for reduced concrete use in the foundations.”

Leaside Innovation Centre

What Is CLT?

It’s an acronym for Cross-Laminated Timber, a form of Mass Timber developed in Austria in the 1990s. It’s made of several layers of solid dimension lumber such as 2X4s laid flat and glued together in layers in alternating directions.

CLT can work as a two-way slab, and when you have beams it can often be less expensive to use Nail-Laminated Timber (NLT)—learn about the different LTs here—but Latimer of Studio CANOO tells Treehugger they wanted longer spans matching those in the parking garage for maximum material efficiency. They are also getting their CLT from Element 5, the new supplier in St. Thomas, Ontario (on Treehugger here). Latimer tells Treehugger the finish on their CLT is far better than you can get from NLT or from other suppliers.

There’s still lots of glass! Leaside Innovation Centre

Many office buildings are clad in floor-to-ceiling glass, including mass timber structures where the developers want to show off the beauty of the wood. Unusually, the Leaside Innovation Centre is clad in prefabricated thin brick panels with only a 40% glass-to-wall ratio. They note this allows for much more insulation, reducing the size of the mechanical systems. Latimer tells Treehugger they are looking at triple-glazing the windows as well, but he also notes that it is much easier to furnish the building when the walls are not all glass, and you get much more efficient office layouts.

Building science expert Monte Paulsen has discussed this many times: all-glass buildings are not sustainable even if they are made of wood. In our coverage of the building that Paulsen is criticizing I mentioned those in passing, but it should be taken far more seriously. It is good to see that Latimer and Studio CANOO are doing exactly that.

In my now-archived review of Joseph Allen’s book “Healthy Buildings,” I noted that after the pandemic, tenants and buyers will have lots of options and will be demanding more fresh air, more filters, more air changes.

“The dramatic drop in the demand side of the office market means that tenants will get to be picky, and they are going to go for the buildings that have the best ventilation; developers will be competing to offer the most and cleanest fresh air, the biggest heat recovery ventilators (so that you get lots of air without lots of heating and cooling costs). Any office building that doesn’t offer this stuff is going to be a see-through (a building with no tenants where you can look in one side and see right through to the other) in short order.”

The LIC is doing exactly that: “Mechanical ventilation air supply will be treated with Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) and MERV 13 filters to improve indoor air quality, and minimize the amount of airborne contaminants, germs, bacteria and viruses entering the building.”

Latimer explains that the UVGI “explodes the RNA of the virus” and that the system is the same as being done in the fanciest buildings by engineers like ARUP.

Ground Floor Plan. Leaside Innovation Centre

Latimer also tells Treehugger the building is designed with active transportation in mind: There is currently parking for 30 bicycles and it is not stuck down the ramp in the parking garage, but conveniently sits on the ground floor space smack beside the main entrance, along with two showers. That’s very impressive. When I asked if 30 bikes were enough, Latimer noted they are looking at stacking systems to get in more.

Leaside Innovation Centre

It is a tribute to the success of the mass timber industry that small buildings are getting almost too common to cover anymore. As Monte Paulsen demonstrates, people are also getting a lot more critical. It’s like judging the freestyle skiing and snowboarding at the Olympics; you’ve got to really perform, and you have to have more than one trick.

The Leaside Innovation Centre has lots of moves that make it interesting, not just the relatively locally sourced mass timber but the location, the mechanical systems, the cladding, and yes, the bike room. If people are going to get dragged back to the office, this is where they will want to go—close to home, lots of light and fresh well-filtered air, a little biophilic goodness from all the wood, nice amenities, and a glorious bike locker.

It well may be the model of a speculative office project in the post-pandemic world.

Why a sustainable blue recovery is needed

By Mukhisa Kituyi, UNCTAD Secretary-General, Dona Bertarelli, UNCTAD Special Adviser for the Blue Economy
View the original article here

A woman repairs fishing nets in Thailand / ©tong2530

The world’s seventh largest economy based on GDP doesn’t belong to a single country, and isn’t even on land, yet it’s valued at around $3 trillion annually, and supports the livelihoods of more than 3 billion people.

It’s the ocean.

Worryingly, the ocean and the blue economy it supports are not only in severe decline, the current mode of operating is no longer sustainable.

We all rely on the ocean, which covers two-thirds of our planet, to regulate our climate, provide us with food, medicine, energy and even the very air we breathe. Put simply, without a healthy ocean, there is no life on Earth.

But the natural assets that the blue economy depends on are fast eroding under the pressure of human activities.

For example, 34% of all fish stocks are exploited at unsustainable biological levels or overexploited, while 60% are maximally sustainably fished or managed.

This means that we have reached a celling, as 94% of all wild stocks are already being fully utilized, with about one-third exploited in an unsustainable manner.

Further, the ocean is becoming acidic due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide being absorbed by it. Rising water temperatures have killed up to half of the world’s coral reefs, and by 2050 there could be more plastic than fish in the ocean.

Most of the more than 3 billion people who rely on the ocean for their livelihoods live in developing countries. About 90% of all fishers live in these countries too.

Also, 80% of the world’s goods are transported via maritime routes. And between 30% and 50% of the GDP of most small island developing states (SIDS) depends on ocean-based tourism.

Ocean health equals human health and wealth

We are at a crossroads in history. We can’t afford to continue mismanaging this important global resource whose health is intimately tied to ours. Investing in biodiversity, conservation and sustainable practices is key for a peaceful and prosperous future.

A regenerative and equitable blue economy that is sustainable must be a vital part of the world’s social and economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. It will help cushion us against future global crises by enhancing the resilience of ecosystems and thus livelihoods.

Thankfully, implementing a blue economic approach is possible under the guidance of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

UNCTAD has identified the pillars of such an approach: economic growth, conservation and sustainable use of the ocean, inclusive social development, science and innovation, as well as sound ocean governance.

Towards a deep blue vision

We envision a blue economy that derives value from the ocean, seas and coastal areas, while protecting the health of the ocean ecosystem and enabling its sustainable use.

We need to diversify towards economic activities that will have a lower impact on ecosystems, while sustaining livelihoods and stimulating job creation.

New areas of opportunity include marine bioprospecting, ocean science, sustainable aquaculture, renewable energy, low-carbon shipping, blue finance as well as ecotourism and blue carbon.

The total “asset” base of the ocean is estimated at $24 trillion, excluding intangible assets such as the ocean’s role in climate regulation, the production of oxygen, temperature stabilization of our planet, or the spiritual and cultural services the ocean provides.

Instead of focusing only on the returns from harvesting and extracting the ocean’s resources, we need to realize the monetary value of conserving marine life.

For example, economists from the International Monetary Fund estimate that a great whale is worth $2 million alive, but just $80,000 once dead, as it absorbs the equivalent in carbon dioxide of 30,000 trees each year.

All hands on deck

Governments around the world can set a new course. We know the overwhelming cost benefit of nature-based solutions. It’s possible to combine production from the ocean while protecting its economic, social and environmental value for the future.

Coastal countries must prioritize ocean, marine and coastal resources and ecosystems in their strategies for trade, the environment and climate change as well as in their actions to promote sustainable development.

Countries such as the Seychelles are walking the talk. It has declared 30% of its waters protected areas, well beyond the 10% target set by SDG14, restricting activities in the protected area to balance economic needs with environmental protection.

Other nations rising to the challenge are Vanuatu, which is producing and consuming renewable energy from wind turbines and coconut oil, as well as Fiji, which banned single-use plastic this year to stem the pollution of its waters.

Science needs to drive these efforts and inform policymaking and regulations. The UN Decade of Ocean Science, which starts next year, will be an opportunity to maximise the benefits of effective science-based management of our ocean space and resources.

Regulation is key

Regulation is of prime importance for food security and to ensure harvesting and trade in marine resources is transparent, traceable, certified, sustainable and safe, to meet consumers’ growing need for sustainably sourced products and services.

Sustainable biodiversity-based value chains, products and services in ocean-based sectors should adhere to internationally agreed criteria of sustainability, such as the blue BioTrade principles.

As part of this effort, UNCTAD and the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea are launching the first-ever oceans economy and trade strategy in Costa Rica.

In addition, a pilot blue BioTrade project to make the queen conch value chain more sustainable in the eastern Caribbean region is on the cards.

Ending harmful fisheries subsidies

Harmful fisheries subsidies must end, and governments need to shift the allocation of public funds to fish stock management and ecosystem restoration, instead of fuelling overcapacity, overexploitation, inequalities, human and wildlife trafficking.

UNCTAD has been supporting negotiations on fish subsidies at the World Trade Organisation by providing a safe platform for dialogue and targeted research on key options and alternatives for a multilateral outcome.

Binding measures to be taken by governments include finalizing negotiations of the High Seas Treaty to enable the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Decarbonizing shipping

International shipping and coastal transport can reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by investing in low-carbon technologies and operations, reducing pollution and promoting greater digitalization for better monitoring, energy efficiency and lower emissions.

New technologies and satellite data can combine data sources that are enabling unprecedented insights into the ocean, in terms of mapping, surveillance and enforcement.

Such transparency is uncovering more than illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. We now have insights into the economics of fishing on the high seas, the relationship between IUU fishing and bonded labour and where to best establish marine reserves, and the capacity to provide data for enforcement.

Deploying blue finance and marine-based research

Innovative financial instruments such as blue bonds and blended financing are needed to fund the shift towards more sustainable ocean sectors. For instance, in 2019, Morgan Stanley, working with the World Bank, sold $10 million worth of blue bonds with of the aim solving the challenge of plastic waste pollution in oceans.

Investment in applied marine-based research, development and knowledge sharing should also be increased. To this end, UNCTAD has established regional centers of excellence with partner institutions in Vietnam and Mauritius, enabling the sharing of experiences, technical knowledge and fisheries’ inputs. 

SIDS and coastal communities are vital to preserving the ocean and will need global support to conserve and develop a blue economy that benefits not only local populations but humanity as a whole.

Longer-term, countries around the world need to expand ocean and sustainable blue economy literacy, especially among vulnerable populations, and increase understanding of gender considerations.

We need more individual and collective action if we are to build a sustainable blue economy that leads to prosperity for all.

Reimagining the office and work life after COVID-19

By Brodie Boland, Aaron De Smet, Rob Palter, and Aditya Sanghvi
View the original article here

The pandemic has forced the adoption of new ways of working. Organizations must reimagine their work and the role of offices in creating safe, productive, and enjoyable jobs and lives for employees.

COVID-19 has brought unprecedented human and humanitarian challenges. Many companies around the world have risen to the occasion, acting swiftly to safeguard employees and migrate to a new way of working that even the most extreme business-continuity plans hadn’t envisioned. Across industries, leaders will use the lessons from this large-scale work-from-home experiment to reimagine how work is done—and what role offices should play—in creative and bold ways.

Changing attitudes on the role of the office

Before the pandemic, the conventional wisdom had been that offices were critical to productivity, culture, and winning the war for talent. Companies competed intensely for prime office space in major urban centers around the world, and many focused on solutions that were seen to promote collaboration. Densification, open-office designs, hoteling, and co-working were the battle cries.

But estimates suggest that early this April, 62 percent of employed Americans worked at home during the crisis,1 compared with about 25 percent a couple of years ago. During the pandemic, many people have been surprised by how quickly and effectively technologies for videoconferencing and other forms of digital collaboration were adopted. For many, the results have been better than imagined.

According to McKinsey research, 80 percent of people questioned report that they enjoy working from home. Forty-one percent say that they are more productive than they had been before and 28 percent that they are as productive. Many employees liberated from long commutes and travel have found more productive ways to spend that time, enjoyed greater flexibility in balancing their personal and professional lives, and decided that they prefer to work from home rather than the office. Many organizations think they can access new pools of talent with fewer locational constraints, adopt innovative processes to boost productivity, create an even stronger culture, and significantly reduce real-estate costs.

Before the pandemic, the conventional wisdom had been that offices were critical to productivity, culture, and winning the war for talent. Companies competed intensely for prime office space in major urban centers around the world, and many focused on solutions that were seen to promote collaboration. Densification, open-office designs, hoteling, and co-working were the battle cries.

But estimates suggest that early this April, 62 percent of employed Americans worked at home during the crisis,1 compared with about 25 percent a couple of years ago. During the pandemic, many people have been surprised by how quickly and effectively technologies for videoconferencing and other forms of digital collaboration were adopted. For many, the results have been better than imagined.

According to McKinsey research, 80 percent of people questioned report that they enjoy working from home. Forty-one percent say that they are more productive than they had been before and 28 percent that they are as productive. Many employees liberated from long commutes and travel have found more productive ways to spend that time, enjoyed greater flexibility in balancing their personal and professional lives, and decided that they prefer to work from home rather than the office. Many organizations think they can access new pools of talent with fewer locational constraints, adopt innovative processes to boost productivity, create an even stronger culture, and significantly reduce real-estate costs.

The reality is that both sides of the argument are probably right. Every organization and culture is different, and so are the circumstances of every individual employee. Many have enjoyed this new experience; others are fatigued by it. Sometimes, the same people have experienced different emotions and levels of happiness or unhappiness at different times. The productivity of the employees who do many kinds of jobs has increased; for others it has declined. Many forms of virtual collaboration are working well; others are not. Some people are getting mentorship and participating in casual, unplanned, and important conversations with colleagues; others are missing out.

Four steps to reimagine work and workplaces

Leading organizations will boldly question long-held assumptions about how work should be done and the role of the office. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. The answer, different for every organization, will be based on what talent is needed, which roles are most important, how much collaboration is necessary for excellence, and where offices are located today, among other factors. Even within an organization, the answer could look different across geographies, businesses, and functions, so the exercise of determining what will be needed in the future must be a team sport across real estate, human resources, technology, and the business. Tough choices will come up and a leader must be empowered to drive the effort across individual functions and businesses. Permanent change will also require exceptional change-management skills and constant pivots based on how well the effort is working over time.

We recommend that organizations take the following steps to reimagine how work is done and what the future role of the office will be.

1. Reconstruct how work is done

During the lockdowns, organizations have necessarily adapted to go on collaborating and to ensure that the most important processes could be carried on remotely. Most have simply transplanted existing processes to remote work contexts, imitating what had been done before the pandemic. This has worked well for some organizations and processes, but not for others.

Organizations should identify the most important processes for each major business, geography, and function, and reenvision them completely, often with involvement by employees. This effort should examine their professional-development journeys (for instance, being physically present in the office at the start and working remotely later) and the different stages of projects (such as being physically co-located for initial planning and working remotely for execution).

Previously, for example, organizations may have generated ideas by convening a meeting, brainstorming on a physical or digital whiteboard, and assigning someone to refine the resulting ideas. A new process may include a period of asynchronous brainstorming on a digital channel and incorporating ideas from across the organization, followed by a multihour period of debate and refinement on an open videoconference.

Organizations should also reflect on their values and culture and on the interactions, practices, and rituals that promote that culture. A company that focuses on developing talent, for example, should ask whether the small moments of mentorship that happen in an office can continue spontaneously in a digital world. Other practices could be reconstructed and strengthened so that the organization creates and sustains the community and culture it seeks.

For both processes and cultural practices, it is all too tempting to revert to what was in place before the pandemic. To resist this temptation, organizations could start by assuming that processes will be reconstructed digitally and put the burden of proof on those who argue for a return to purely physical pre–COVID-19 legacy processes. Reimagining and reconstructing processes and practices will serve as a foundation of an improved operating model that leverages the best of both in-person and remote work.

2. Decide ‘people to work’ or ‘work to people’

In the past couple of years, the competition for talent has been fiercer than ever. At the same time, some groups of talent are less willing to relocate to their employers’ locations than they had been in the past. As organizations reconstruct how they work and identify what can be done remotely, they can make decisions about which roles must be carried out in person, and to what degree. Roles can be reclassified into employee segments by considering the value that remote working could deliver:

  • fully remote (net positive value-creating outcome)
  • hybrid remote (net neutral outcome)
  • hybrid remote by exception (net negative outcome but can be done remotely if needed)
  • on site (not eligible for remote work)

For the roles in the first two categories, upskilling is critical but talent sourcing may become easier, since the pool of available talent could have fewer geographical constraints. In fact, talented people could live in the cities of their choice, which may have a lower cost of living and proximity to people and places they love, while they still work for leading organizations. A monthly trip to headquarters or a meeting with colleagues at a shared destination may suffice. This approach could be a winning proposition for both employers and employees, with profound effects on the quality of talent an organization can access and the cost of that talent.

3. Redesign the workplace to support organizational priorities

We all have ideas about what a typical office looks and feels like: a mixture of private offices and cubicles, with meeting rooms, pantries, and shared amenities. Few offices have been intentionally designed to support specific organizational priorities. Although offices have changed in some ways during the past decade, they may need to be entirely rethought and transformed for a post–COVID-19 world.

Organizations could create workspaces specifically designed to support the kinds of interactions that cannot happen remotely. If the primary purpose of an organization’s space is to accommodate specific moments of collaboration rather than individual work, for example, should 80 percent of the office be devoted to collaboration rooms? Should organizations ask all employees who work in cubicles, and rarely have to attend group meetings, to work from homes? If office space is needed only for those who cannot do so, are working spaces close to where employees live a better solution?

In the office of the future, technology will play a central role in enabling employees to return to office buildings and to work safely before a vaccine becomes widely available. Organizations will need to manage which employees can come to the office, when they can enter and take their places, how often the office is cleaned, whether the airflow is sufficient, and if they are remaining sufficiently far apart as they move through the space.

To maintain productivity, collaboration, and learning and to preserve the corporate culture, the boundaries between being physically in the office and out of the office must collapse. In-office videoconferencing can no longer involve a group of people staring at one another around a table while others watch from a screen on the side, without being able to participate effectively. Always-on videoconferencing, seamless in-person and remote collaboration spaces (such as virtual whiteboards), and asynchronous collaboration and working models will quickly shift from futuristic ideas to standard practice.

4. Resize the footprint creatively

A transformational approach to reinventing offices will be necessary. Instead of adjusting the existing footprint incrementally, companies should take a fresh look at how much and where space is required and how it fosters desired outcomes for collaboration, productivity, culture, and the work experience. That kind of approach will also involve questioning where offices should be located. Some companies will continue to have them in big cities, which many regard as essential to attract young talent and create a sense of connection and energy. Others may abandon big-city headquarters for suburban campuses.

In any case, the coming transformation will use a portfolio of space solutions: owned space, standard leases, flexible leases, flex space, co-working space, and remote work. Before the crisis, flexible space solutions held about 3 percent of the US office market. Their share had been growing at 25 percent annually for the past five years, so flexibility was already in the works. McKinsey research indicates that office-space decision makers expect the percentage of time worked in main and satellite offices to decline by 12 and 9 percent, respectively, while flex office space will hold approximately constant and work from home will increase to 27 percent of work time, from 20 percent.2

These changes may not only improve how work is done but also lead to savings. Rent, capital costs, facilities operations, maintenance, and management make real estate the largest cost category outside of compensation for many organizations. In our experience, it often amounts to 10 to 20 percent of total personnel-driven expenditures. While some organizations have reduced these costs by thinking through footprints—taking advantage of alternative workplace strategies and reviewing approaches to managing space—many corporate leaders have treated them largely as a given. In a post–COVID-19 world, the potential to reduce real-estate costs could be significant. Simply getting market-comparable lease rates and negotiating competitive facilities-management contracts will not be enough. Real-estate groups should collaborate with the business and HR to redo the footprint entirely and develop fit-for-purpose space designs quickly—in some cases, by creating win–win approaches with landlords.

The value at stake is significant. Over time, some organizations could reduce their real-estate costs by 30 percent. Those that shift to a fully virtual model could almost eliminate them. Both could also increase their organizational resilience and reduce their level of risk by having employees work in many different locations.

Now is the time

As employers around the world experiment with bringing their employees back to offices, the leadership must act now to ensure that when they return, workplaces are both productive and safe.

Organizations must also use this moment to break from the inertia of the past by dispensing with suboptimal old habits and systems. A well-planned return to offices can use this moment to reinvent their role and create a better experience for talent, improve collaboration and productivity, and reduce costs. That kind of change will require transformational thinking grounded in facts. Ultimately, the aim of this reinvention will be what good companies have always wanted: a safe environment where people can enjoy their work, collaborate with their colleagues, and achieve the objectives of their organizations.

Why COVID-19 Raises the Stakes for Healthy Buildings

by Kristen Senz
View the original article here

Like it or not, humans have become an indoor species, so buildings have a major impact on our health. That’s why the Healthy Building Movement is gaining momentum, say John Macomber and Joseph Allen.

Will you ever again step onto a crowded elevator without hesitation? Reach for a doorknob without concern (or gloves)?

Easing social distancing restrictions might reopen businesses, but as long as memories of COVID-19 lockdowns are still fresh in people’s minds, the experience of being inside an office building most likely will not return to “normal.”

Even before the pandemic struck, there were plenty of reasons to be concerned about air quality and ventilation in the buildings where we live and work. After all, healthier indoor environments don’t just keep us from getting sick—they also enhance cognitive performance.

“OFFICES WITH THE PREMIER HEALTH STORY WILL GET THE PREMIUM RENT AND GET THE TENANTS, AND THE OFFICES WITH A LAGGING HEALTH STORY WILL LAG.”

To convey to managers the benefits of the healthy building movement, John D. Macomber, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School, recently wrote a book about it: Healthy Buildings: How Indoor Spaces Drive Performance and Productivity, to be published April 21.

Although facilities managers might think they’re saving a few dollars on electricity and air filters, “There’s just no reason anymore to economize on airflow and filtration,” Macomber says. “That just doesn’t make any sense. It’s a cheap way to help people be healthier.”

Together with co-author Joseph G. Allen, a professor at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Macomber explores “nine foundations for a healthy building” and studies how simple tweaks to increase air flow and quality can have dramatic effects on workers.

But the economic benefits don’t stop there. Macomber expects that a growing public focus on health measures will drive major changes across a variety of industries, but especially in travel and hospitality. Increasingly, Macomber postulates, savvy business leaders and landlords will begin to leverage healthier indoor spaces as recruitment tools and sources of competitive advantage. Anxieties over COVID-19 are likely to accelerate these trends, he says.

“I think awareness is heightened, and in this economy there’ll be a drop in demand for space, both for apartments and offices,” he says. “With those two things together, I think that the offices with the premier health story will get the premium rent and get the tenants, and the offices with a lagging health story will lag.”

Many elite companies already use their building’s efficiency or grandeur to send a signal to customers and workforce talent. As a result of the global pandemic, Macomber expects an emphasis on indoor air quality and other healthy building measures will diffuse through the rest of the economy.

As the country begins to return to work, concerns about the spread of infectious disease will “make it easier than ever to invest in the basics of a healthy building, notably around ventilation, air quality, water, moisture, and security,” says Macomber. “Those aren’t expensive to begin with. So, I think those will propagate through pretty quickly, and they’ll be must-haves, because the cost is not relatively very high, and the benefit is extremely high.”

As anyone who has ever felt sleepy on a stuffy airplane can attest, poor ventilation impedes cognition. “Casinos figured this out a long time ago, pumping in extra air and keeping the temperature cool to keep you awake at the gaming tables and slot machines longer,” Allen and Macomber write.

But through scientific, double-blind studies of workers in offices with various levels of air quality and flow, in which the workers were compared with themselves to gauge differences in personal performance, the authors of Healthy Buildings can quantify these effects.

Across all nine dimensions of cognitive function, which include things like “strategy,” “focused activity level,” and “crisis response,” performance was dramatically improved when study subjects worked in the optimal conditions (with high rates of ventilation and low concentrations of carbon dioxide and other harsh compounds).

“Think about that for one second—simply increasing the amount of air brought into an office, something nearly every office can easily do, had a quantifiable benefit to higher-order cognitive function in knowledge workers,” Macomber and Allen write.

Macomber is careful, though, not to make the leap from enhanced performance to increased productivity, because productivity involves so many different factors.

Among the nine foundations for a healthy building (see graphic) is “security,” a term the authors expect will take on a broader meaning in a post-pandemic world. Building security will involve monitoring not just who enters and what they are physically carrying, but also what they might be carrying internally. In addition to metal detectors, infrared scanners at building entrances will take visitors’ temperatures, to help prevent the spread of viruses and other pathogens, similar to technology already in place at some airports.

As people begin to internalize the collective nature of public health, sharing of personal health and air quality metrics—using wearables and smartphones—could lead to new applications that provide real-time information about the conditions inside buildings. Imagine an app that does for public health what WAZE has done for traffic congestion, Macomber says.

“There is going to be substantially more awareness and interest on the part of the public, in terms of the quality of the spaces that they’re occupying, and they’ll be selective about their airplanes and about their cruise ships,” he predicts. “And pretty quickly they’ll be selective about their apartments and their offices as well, and they’ll share that information with other people.”

WELL Building Standard – The Next BIG Thing in Business

Written by Zack Sterkenberg
View the original article here

Our world is getting greener by the day. As a global community, we are trying vigorously to recycle more, waste less, and become more efficient in everything that we do. Now, with the green building trend towards sustainability firmly in place, the WELL Building Standard is helping to spearhead the next big wave of change – making buildings healthier and greener for those of us who inhabit them.

The days of walking into uninspiring, lean-style working environments that carelessly hemorrhage energy and neglect facility performance with a blind eye are no more. Thanks to the growing popularity of WELL and the rising trend towards human health optimization, the architects and designers of today take care to mindfully consider your well-being and overall satisfaction.

The WELL Building Certification

At the most basic level, WELL is a building performance rating and certification system similar to LEED, but with a focus on human well-being and performance rather than environmental sustainability.

This performance-based system was constructed around seven core concepts to measure, certify, and monitor our working environments. These seven concepts lay the foundation for maximizing human health and wellness within the built environment.

The WELL Building Standard’s core concepts include:

  • Air
  • Water
  • Nourishment
  • Light
  • Fitness
  • Comfort
  • Mind

Under each of these concepts is a more complex list of certification “features” or metrics. The list includes over 100 individual metrics that fall under the greater umbrella of the seven core concepts.

The WELL program was developed during the course of seven years of exhaustive research. The research looked intensely at the role of nature and nature-based architectural patterns on human physical and mental wellbeing.

The correlation between human wellbeing and nature is well documented in studies on biophilic design, but WELL is the first building standard to tie all of the research together into a cohesive program that focuses exclusively on the health and wellness of people.

Benefits of a WELL building

In 2013, the CBRE Global Corporate Headquarters in Los Angeles became the first commercial office space to achieve WELL Certification. Upon initial analysis of the pilot program, employees working in the Headquarters reported overwhelmingly positive outcomes.

  • 83% felt more productive
  • 92% reported a positive effect on health and wellbeing
  • 94% claimed the space had a positive impact on business performance
  • 93% reported easier collaboration

WELL v2

After seeing such great success from WELL v1, WELL introduced WELL v2 in 2018. Using the latest health data and user feedback, WELL v2 maintains the first four WELL concepts and expands the concept list to ten.

  1. Air
  2. Water
  3. Nourishment
  4. Light
  5. Movement
  6. Thermal Comfort
  7. Sound
  8. Materials
  9. Mind
  10. Community

Version two of WELL was built with the goal of accessibility. WELL wanted to put even more truth behind their mission of “[advancing] health buildings for all.” The new version aims to meet the needs of any type of building, as its dynamic nature allows for continuous advancement and change. V2 provides a much more adaptable scorecard than v1. The new concept provides the opportunity to build a unique scorecard with the features that are relevant to your building.

Why businesses are betting on WELL

To date, there have been over 2,000 WELL-certified projects registered across 52 countries. These projects represent over 391 million square feet in built space. These numbers continue to grow by the day. There are several reasons why WELL is making such expansive waves in the business world. The most significant is the impact that the initiative has on the overall health and productivity of the employees, a company’s largest and most important asset.

As an engine operating at peak performance helps to drives a car to victory in a race, a workforce that is happy, healthy, and efficient workforce leads to increased success and higher profits for the entire company. By constructing facilities that integrate green design elements, businesses can expect lower physiological stress, increased attention span, increased cognitive functioning, and improved employee well-being across the board.

In the same vein, by incorporating plants into the working environment, employees will have lower blood pressure, cleaner air to breathe, lowered risk of illness and an overall boost in wellbeing. WELL effectively leads to a more productive and creative workforce with lower absenteeism rates and lower healthcare costs. By definition, it’s a win-win situation for everyone involved.

This is great news for the employee. A company’s staff is the backbone of the business and is a major driver of overall success. This is why it makes absolute business sense to invest in them. This is the core mission of WELL: to make businesses more effective by making the employees more productive.

Exploring Permeable Pavement Options for LEED Projects

By Julie Lundin, NCIDQ, LEED AP ID+C, Principal
Emerald Skyline Corporation

As business owners and designers of our renovation project in Boca Raton, there are many decisions and variables involved in the design of both the building and the site. This project is a LEED registered project which impacts our design decisions and materials selected to incorporate sustainable goals. It gave us the opportunity to explore sustainable pavement options rather than the traditional blacktop used in most projects. The size of the project, location, cost, financial incentives to explore alternatives, and local city requirements all impact decisions to be made. When a pervious pavement is used in building site design, it can aid in the process of qualifying for LEED Green Building Rating System credits.

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) is a rating system developed by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) to evaluate the environmental performance of a building. LEED is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings.

LEED provides a framework for evaluating building performance and meeting sustainability goals through five credit categories: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. It should be noted, however, that LEED points are not gained directly by the use of a product but by meeting a specific sustainability goal of the rating program.

Pervious pavement options can contribute to many LEED categories including: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Materials and Resources, and Innovation in Design. Pervious pavement choices are unique and innovative ways to manage storm water and as a method of delaying roof runoff from entering city sewers. Considering these gives environmentally conscious business owners options to use in parking lots and walkways. When they are used in the building site design they function like storm water retention basins and allow the storm water to infiltrate the soil over a large area and recharge the groundwater supplies.

Why consider pervious pavement options?

Storm water is polluted

  • Oils and greases
  • Metals
  • Sediments
  • Fertilizers

Sustainability Factors

  • Low-Impact Development
  • Pollution Treatment
  • Recharging Ground Water
  • Tree Protection
  • LEED Requirements
  • Cool Communities

Meets LEED Requirements

  • Reduce Storm Water Runoff
  • Improve Storm Water Quality
  • Reduce Urban Heat Islands
  • Recycled Materials
  • Regional Materials

Description of specific credits where pervious pavement can aid the business owner or designer include:

 LEED Credit SS-C6.1 Storm Water Design – Quantity Control

LEED Credit SS-C6.2 Storm Water Design – Quantity Control

The intent of these credits is to limit disruption and pollution of natural water flows by managing storm water runoff, increasing on-site infiltration and eliminating contaminants. Pervious pavement can contribute to this credit by reducing storm water flow by allowing water to soak through and infiltrate to the ground below. Pervious choices can also reduce the pollutant loads by filtering contaminants as the water is transferred through the pavement.

 LEED Credit SS-C7.1 Heat Island Effect- Non-Roof

 Pervious pavement acts to reduce the heat island effect by absorbing less heat from solar radiation than darker pavements. The relatively open pore structure and the light color of pervious pavements store less heat, therefore, reducing the heat reflected back into the environment and helping to lower heat island effects in urban areas. The heat island effect can be further minimized by the addition of trees planted in parking lots. The trees offer shade and produce a cooling effect for the paving. Pervious pavement is ideal for protecting trees in a paved environment (many plants have difficulty growing in areas covered by impervious pavements, sidewalks and landscaping, because air and water have difficulty getting to the roots). Pervious pavements or sidewalks allow adjacent trees to receive more air and water and still permit full use of the pavement.

LEED Credit WE C1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping

 The intent of this credit is to limit or eliminate the use of potable water, or other natural surface or subsurface water resources available on or near the project site, for landscape irrigation. The gravel sub-base under pervious pavements can be used to store storm water for irrigation, helping to satisfy this credit. If no irrigation is required for a project, two points may be earned.

LEED Credits MR-C4.1 and MR-C4-2 Recycled Content

The intent of this credit is to increase the demand for building products that have incorporated recycled content material reducing the impacts resulting from the extraction of new material. Almost all ready mixed concrete contains recycled materials in the form supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) such as fly ash, slag, or silica fume. The use of SCMs or recycled aggregate in pervious concrete or base material contributes to recycled content needed for this credit.

LEED Credit MR-C5.1 and MR-C5.2 Regional Materials

The intent of this credit is to increase demand for building products that are extracted and manufactured locally, thereby reducing the environmental impacts resulting from their transportation and supporting the local economy. The majority of materials in pervious concrete and pavements are considered regional materials. In addition to aiding in gaining LEED certification points, pervious concrete can provide a safe and durable surface for most pavement needs. Light colored pervious pavements require less site lighting to provide safe night-time illumination levels, whether on parking lots, driveways, or sidewalks.

Types of Pervious Pavements

  • Porous Asphalt (Blacktop)
    • Low Cost
    • Effective Porosity
    • High Maintenance – Biannual cleaning to prevent clogging
    • Does not allow for plant growth
    • Contributor to heat island effect but better than standard ashphalt
    • Alternative for large projects
  • Pervious Concrete
    • Same concept as porous asphalt, except it is concrete
    • Easy to order and have installed
    • Light in color and not contribute to heat island effect
    • Higher Cost than Asphalt
    • Request use of local or reclaimed aggregates
    • Use highest amount of Fly Ash and/or Slag (both are reclaimed waste products)
    • Requires cleaning to prevent clogging
    • Can serve as a retention basin for storing rainwater during a storm
  • Pervious Block Pavers
    • Many different types on the market
    • Can look like traditional pavers for aesthetics
    • Filled in with grass or gravel
    • Allows for plant growth
    • Pavers are pricey
    • Installation requires laying of individual small blocks
    • May settle or become misplaced after use
  • Drivable Grass
    • Unique product
    • 2” x 2” mats that are more affordable individual pavers
    • Good infiltration for grass growth or ground cover
    • Plants remain cooler and receive uniform watering
    • Greener parking surface than other plantable systems
    • Low maintenance
  • Plastic Grid Systems
    • Made of recycled plastic and fully recyclable themselves
    • Low maintenance
    • Easy installation
    • Can provide a fully sodded surface if desired
    • Use only appropriate for light or occasional use parking lots

Decision making is a critical process for any project. Well informed choices and decisions can help keep a project timeline on track. Decisions in all areas including design and specifications need to be clearly and fully described. There should be at least three options to choose from that include how, what, where and how much? All the implications and impact of each option must be considered. Will it delay the project? Will it increase the cost?   A LEED project also needs to incorporate the analysis of products and design and their sustainable impacts. We are considering 3 categories of pervious pavement products for our project; pervious concrete, pervious block pavers, and drivable grass. With the ever evolving development of sustainable products, there may also be a hybrid solution available that will meet all of our project goals.

http://www.epa.gov/region02/njgiforum/pdf/08justice.pdf

http://www.perviouspavement.org/benefits/leed.html

http://www.100khouse.com/2010/12/08/permeable-pavement-options-for-leed-projects/