Frances Bula header image 2

UBC’s greenest building points to the future optimistically

April 24th, 2012 · 89 Comments

The University of B.C. professor who drove the creation of UBC’s Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability makes you feel like there’s hope after all, when you sit down with him for even 10 minutes.

John Robinson is an environmentalist, but not the doomsayer kind that warns you to lie in bed quietly with the lights off so as not to use energy or destroy the planet. He says that message isn’t going to fly anyway, especially with younger people.

His whole mission in work, and life, is to find ways for human activity to improve the planet’s environment.

The latest result: the CIRS building, which he worked on with architects Peter Busby and Martin Nielsen for 10 years.

I wrote about it here, (along with a too-brief highlight on SFU’s new Living Building childcare centre here) recently. They’re both inspiring symbols of the way universities are driving innovation in an area that desperately needs it. Unfortunately, the two biggest projects in B.C. that were meant to symbolize the new wave of green architecture — the Olympic Village in Vancouver and Dockside Green in Victoria — have both been hobbled by some financial clouds that have made people dubious about green building.

But SFU, which managed to bring its building at a lower cost than normal construction, and UBC, which will monitor how people use the building and how it performs to provide a serious evaluation of green building, are both working to demonstrate how green can work, not just environmentally, but financially.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Chris Keam

    “REQUIRED Reading!”

    Careful GR, you don’t want a catchphrase having us connect the dots. 🙂

  • MB

    @ gman, George Monbiot would agree with you re: Germany’s FITs. Shocking isn’t it? Will you ever recover?

    He promotes nuclear power now too, and has pissed off a lot of fellow environmentalists who can’t seem to adequately counter his evidence-based rationale. Just goes to show you that the left isn’t a monolithic block of ideological parrots like right wing climate change deniers.

    Burning coal apparently kills way more people than NP even before you factor in climate change. This will be Germany’s misfortuune.

    But killing FITs doesn’t stop thousands of German farmers from selling their bioenergy to local towns, or millions of home owners just wanting to practice conservation to save Euros … or invest personally to lower their own emissions.

  • MB

    @ Gliss 49:

    Attention unbiased readers. REQUIRED Reading [link to Bjorn Lomborg piece]!

    Here’s what one of many “unbiased readers” has to say about Lomborg:

    Bjørn Lomborg is a well-known personality in the environmental debate. He is the author of several books which, due to their copious lists of notes and references, appear very technical and scientific and therefore trustworthy.

    Unfortunately, those reading his books or listening to his lectures or seeing his film are rarely aware that the facts and statements presented by Lomborg are often not reliable.

    When experts in the fields covered by Lomborg check his texts, they most often find that the evidence has been distorted. Danish biologist Kåre Fog has systematically over many years checked Lomborg´s texts against his sources and references and against other scientific literature. His conclusion is that Lomborg´s texts are systematically manipulated to fit a certain agenda.

    It continues with several links to refuted Lomborg articles.

    http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

    Gliss, you’re not making yourself very credible with biases like that.

  • MB

    More criticism of Lomborg and his lastest book, ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ from a review in Grist :

    On Bjorn Lomborg’s Hidden Agenda

    As science writing goes, ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ is C-minus stuff, as straight-forward and lackluster as a 10th-grade term paper. Oddly, this has not deterred the press from going mad over Lomborg, who has become the Danish darling of publications that ought to disagree with one another (the left-leaning London Guardian and the conservative Economist) and people who ought to know better (reviewers for the New York Times and the Washington Post).

    So what has inspired this bipartisan media love-in? Certainly not the author’s credentials: An associate professor of statistics, Lomborg has never published an article or done original research in any field related to biology, ecology, or environmental science. And not his arguments, which weren’t peer-reviewed and in many cases are simply erroneous, as leading scientists argue in this special issue of Grist.

    http://grist.org/living/infamous/

  • Frank Ducote

    Wow, MB, you are a first rate antidote to poetic bs that attempts to pass for truth in these postings. Keep up the good work for all truly unbiased readers who don’t take the time to do the research ourselves. Well done once again.

  • gman

    MB so everything Lomborg says is BS and he believes in CAGW…mmmmm….ya I can agree with that.What about James Lovelock who recently woke up and jumped off the warming train who was every Gaia worshipers hero,I see their throwing him under the bus now.Looks like you guys are starting to eat your own.Enjoy your lunch.

  • gman

    Forgot the link http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
    To bad really I was hoping to be part of those few remaining couples breeding in the arctic.

  • gman

    MB I really like the comment by MrRighteous.

    “So are we gonna off this turncoat or what?”
    Nice crowd.

  • Frank Ducote

    While we cast about for heroes, perhaps paying closer attention to Canadian expert (and UVic professor) Andrew Weaver would be useful to those who continue to doubt global warming.

  • MB

    gman 56, 57, 58

    Putting aside your heroic sarcasm, here’s a few quotes from a brief scan of the very article you linked to:

    Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.

    Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.”

    He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role.

    “It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said.

    He said he still thought that climate change was happening, but that its effects would be felt farther in the future than he previously thought.

    We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,” Lovelock said.

    All your link tells us is that further research should be conducted by climate scientists + oceanographers on the oceans

    Keep it coming, gman. I’m having fun!

  • MB

    @ Frank 59

    It won’t work. I’ve supplied Andrew Weaver’s contact info to gman more than once before with an invitation to take up the climate change technicalities he so loves with the good doctor … and to be magnanimous enough to share the dialogue with the rest of us.

    Never did hear back.

  • gman

    MB again you miss the point,he also said
    “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,”

  • Bill

    @gman #62

    Have you read “Heaven and Earth” by Ian Plimer? In it he goes through all the factors that influence climate which are not even included in IPCC climate models. It is shear folly to think that a single factor like CO2 introduced by man can have the effect alarmists say it does and to waste billions on reducing CO2 based on the predictions of unproven models.

    @MB #61

    Your man Andrew Weaver has shown signs of desparation in joining the trespassers down on the rail tracks in White Rock to stop the passing of coal trains. Perhaps he was hoping to be arrested just like the chief alarmist, James Hansen.

    And on the subject of credentials, what has Al Gore done to establish any credibility – I don’t think inventing the internet counts.

  • Bill

    My mistake. Apparently it was the high profile Mark Jaccard and not Dr Weaver who was at White Rock. Sorry.

  • gman

    Bill@63
    Yes I am aware of Plimers work Its amazing the difference between evidence based science and the failed fantasy models done by the likes of Weaver,but be careful what you say about Weaver he might sue you.LOL

  • MB

    gman + bill, 62-65

    Lord knows why you guys keep quoting such blatantly discredited sources. Plimer, Lomborg, Watts … lots of stuff out there refuting these fellows at their own clouding-the-issue game.

    I found one exchange beyween Monbiot and Plimer very entertaining. Plimer couldn’t produce real evidence on his claims while publicly engaging Monbiot in a debate. He produced gibberish.

    I can easily provide several links to that debate as well as many, many others that look at the evidence a small cadre of deniers routinely get published seemingly without editorial checks and balances, then offer professional refutations in separate publications.

    Before I do, I want you both to tell me why I should waste my feckin time further.

  • jolson

    If you build a very, very big mansion and you invite all the people over and you tell them to burn the furniture to heat the tea and stay warm, well you can see that this will not end well. So why do you biological beings keep insisting that burning fossil fuels in a finite biosphere doesn’t matter? Can’t you think for yourselves?

  • MB

    @ Bill 63

    Have you read “Heaven and Earth” by Ian Plimer? In it he goes through all the factors that influence climate which are not even included in IPCC climate models. It is shear folly to think that a single factor like CO2 introduced by man can have the effect alarmists say it does and to waste billions on reducing CO2 based on the predictions of unproven models.

    @ gman 65

    Yes I am aware of Plimer[‘]s work[.] It[‘]s amazing the difference between evidence[-]based science and the failed fantasy models done by the likes of Weaver,[ ] but be careful what you say about Weaver he might sue you. [ ]LOL[.]

    These statements are so egregiously blind it makes one think both of you are getting paid 50 cents a word to quote the Heartland Institute script. “Ian Plimer” and “evidence-based science” cannot be put into the same sentence without causing death by laughter.

    The following response is not for your sakes, but for those few readers who may still be with us, and for the sake of setting the record straight. And it took less than 15 minutes out of my lunch break. Here’s what the professionals at Source Watch have to say about Ian Plimer (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer ):

    Ian R. Plimer (born February 12, 1946), a mining geologist, mining company director and anthropogenic global warming denier with no evident expertise in climate science, has written the “denier’s bible”, a book called Heaven and Earth, which makes mutually-inconsistent claims[2] and was panned as being riddled with errors. The book was universally panned by scientists as full of errors and even accused of plagiarism. [26]Ian Enting compiled “the definitive list of errors” for the book.[27]

    In 2011 he wrote the “anti-warmist manual” How to Get Expelled From School: A guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters, which reviewers found to be full of scientific errors, containing flawed and undocumented diagrams, and sloppily edited.[3][4][5]

    Anti-science affiliations

    Plimer is listed as an associate of the Institute of Public Affairs,[7][8] a conservative think tank with close ties to the Liberal Party of Australia.[9] In 2007, Plimer was listed as an “allied expert” for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian anti-Kyoto Protocol advocacy group.[10] In November 2009, Plimer was named as a member of the academic advisory council for Nigel Lawson’s global warming skeptic group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.[11]

    Plimer is a director of seven mining companies: Ivanhoe Australia, a subsidiary of Bob Friedland’s Ivanhoe Mines,[6][12] CBH Resources,[12] Kefi Minerals,[13][14] Australia-based coal gas company, Ormil Energy,[15] and Gina Rinehart’s Hope Downs iron ore mine.[16] He is also a director of Rinehart’s Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments. […] Plimer claims that his mining company directorships have no impact on his beliefs,[12] even though he has extensive financial interests in mining companies that would be negatively affected by any limits placed on carbon emissions. […]

    Saying this guy doesn’t have vested interests isn like saying the ocean does not contain salt.

    Debate with George Monbiot

    After the publication of his book met with harsh criticism from The Guardian’s George Monbiot, who derided the book, saying that “Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data”,[30] Plimer challenged Monbiot to a public debate on the issues covered in the book. Monbiot responded by insisting that Plimer, who is known for his “Gish Gallop”[31] approach to debates (a rapid-fire presentation of arguments and changing topics very quickly),[32] first answer a series of written questions for publication on the Guardian’s website.[33] Plimer refused and Monbiot labeled Plimer a “grandstander” with a “broad yellow streak” who has never answered the accusations of serious errors in his Heaven and Earth book, and accused him of trying to “drown out the precise refutations published by his book’s reviewers”.[34] Plimer then reversed his decision, and agreed to answer written questions in return for a live debate.[35] However, instead of the expected answers, he sent a series of questions to Monbiot.[36][37][38] Negotiations with Plimer for a face-to-face debate eventually broke down and no debate was held.[39][40]

    The two did eventually cross swords on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Lateline in December, 2009.[41] After the debate, Monbiot published an article in The Guardian summarising the debate and stated that Plimer had been “soundly thrashed”.[42] The video shows Plimer obfuscating, refusing to answer questions, and clearly discomforted when his erroneous scientific statements about global warming were directly challenged.

    Peter Jackson of the Canadian paper, The Telegram, summarised the debate so: “For Plimer, it was an unmitigated disaster. He fudged and distracted at every turn like a senile old goat. In the end, he refused to answer a single question put to him by Monbiot or the moderator. His credibility – and that of his book – withered away into oblivion.”[43]

    The Source Watch posting on Ian Plimer includes no less than 75 references and five external sources.

    It goes on to list a few of Plimer’s “fringe views” such as his claim that the most common form of asbestos (chrysotile) is not asbestos and is not carcinogenic.

    Bill and gman, clearly you are Flat Earthers by continuing to publicly believe in such thoroughly discredited people for your information, and even state his research is “evidence-based.”

    How embarrasing for you.

  • Bill

    @MB #66

    “Before I do, I want you both to tell me why I should waste my feckin time further.”

    Strictly speaking it is your employer’s time you are “wasting” which might upset some taxpayers. On the other hand, perhaps the more time spent on climate change means less time to spend their money.

  • MB

    Bill 69

    I do not get paid for my lunch hour.

  • Bill

    @MB 70

    Lunch? Let see, you started posting on this site at 9:36 am and your most recent post was a 2:47 pm. Now I know the public service has very generous benefits but I really don’t think it extends from 9:30 to 3 pm.

    Interestingly, you did not post yesterday, no doubt being a Monday you had a three day week end and no sense wasting your own time on the internet.

  • gman

    MB its simple,Ive shown you a ton of data from every institution there is but you have no interest in data instead you put all your faith (and that’s what it is ) in models.So all you have to do is show me a model that didn’t fail,even after Hansen and the boys kept adjusting the historical data.I think its more like Lovelock said “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened” By your logic there is a secret cabal funded by BIG OIL who know that the world will be destroyed but are only interested in short term gains and could care less about the future of their own children. You should be happy its not happening, instead you continue to follow these government funded purveyors of fear whose livelihood depends on scaring the crap out of the public.

  • MB

    Bill 71. What kind of person tracks another poster over several days? What’s your game? What’s next, you gonna hack my computer, show up at my door?

    I feel no obligation to justify my popping in to this blog for a few minutes now and again, just as you don’t when you post duruing working hours.

  • MB

    gman 72

    I know I’m feeding a classic troll when addressing your posts, but I have to admit to having some fun.

    I don’t knock you for your opinions, lad, or for your unspoken mission to reject basic science. But relying on and citing widely discredited sources is another matter and requires rebuttal.

    Do you not trust your doctor’s medical science to the same level as you distrust earth sciences?

  • gman

    MB,that’s what I thought ,nothing but name calling and arm waving.And then there’s the diversion to medical science……really MB….do you really want to go there ,have you heard about getting a second opinion do you remember thalidomide and the other hundreds of drugs that have inflicted untold harm on the public or eugenics where they sterilized thousands of young women because their parents may have committed a crime.Maybe you still believe in phrenology .I’m sure your next attack will say something about tobacco or some other red herring that is totally unrelated to climate. I wonder how much these boffins get paid. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2140323/Dinosaurs-produced-flatulence-force-climate-change.html and I wonder if they would even have a job if they didn’t keep the sham alive.

  • MB

    Gman, I’m not the one name calling or waving arms. Or creating diversions.

    But I am calling you on your sources, all of which so far have been highly suspect.

  • gman

    MB , ” But I am calling you on your sources, all of which so far have been highly suspect. ”
    The last time we had this conversation I linked to data from some of these institutions maybe you could tell me which ones are highly suspect.
    NRA (naval research lab.)
    NOAA
    RSS
    UAH
    NCEP
    NSDC
    NASA
    CIMSS
    ECMWF
    NESDIS/NASA
    CRYOSPHERE TODAY
    NSIDC
    DMI
    NORSEX

    And I could go on.If you find these suspect I’m not sure where you get your data. I even gave you a gift,a link to wood for trees,that contains most major data sets and gives you the ability to create your own graphs and even use the corrections you want.But that went over your head in your head in your zeal to attack every link I put up.I guess they call it attacking the messenger.You may hate Watts I can understand that but his sites reference pages are the best collection of data from all the different institutions in one place that I have found. http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/ if you think somehow this data is fudged all you have to do is click on it and it will take you to the source.

  • Bill

    @MB#76

    “Gman, I’m not the one name calling”

    Let see now, we are “Flat Earthers” and “deniers” but that is not name calling.

    Oh, and I agree. You don’t have to justify to us how you spend your time but it would be interesting to know what your boss felt about it. Or how you feel about your staff popping into “denier” sites like WUWT during the working day.

  • gman

    Bill I don’t know if you’ve seen this ,more kind words from the former green candidate Prof. of ethics Clive Hamilton.LOL

  • gman

    Forgot the link. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ormer_greens_candidate_professor_clive_hamilton_is_furious/#103775

  • MB

    Gman, you’re pulling a classic Anthony Watts, citing a cloud of legit climate science sites through a filter of anti-climate science politics. The only difference is he gets paid. But I give you credit for your energy.

    No time to pull up refutations of Watts — will save that for another time.

  • MB

    Bill … okay, I admit to tossing a couple of descriptive, relatively harmless names in your direction. I’m quite sure you’re not an overly-sensitive wuss who would bristle or cry about them.

    This isn’t about me unless you continue to make it so, in which case it becomes about you too. So maybe you can drop the smirking strap-holding principal schtik and participate in an intelligent discussion about green buildings … if that’s possible.

    Signing off until then.

  • Bill

    @gman #79

    Sadly this is all too indicative of the state of academic debate on university campuses today – you fall outside the Progressive orthodoxy and you will get shouted down as a denier or some other pejorative term.

    @MB 81

    “No time to pull up refutations of Watts — will save that for another time.”

    That’s right – you are already 24 minutes past quitting time and we can’t waste personal time now can we.

  • gman

    MB#81, ya right MB I’m a member of a secret cabal trying to steal your children’s minds and destroy Gaia LOL.Don’t waste your time googleing for another hit piece on Watts there are hundreds and it has nothing to do with my question.Which of the above institutions on the reference pages do you find highly suspect?You never answer the questions ,you never post any science all you do is post hit pieces and attacks.I searched out where the hit piece on Plimer came from and its like it was researched by an eight year old,I guess they don’t expect anybody to read it their just trying to come up with some big numbers.So I wont even bother with that.Then you say @82 “intelligent discussion about green buildings … if that’s possible.” well I think this is relevant to that. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/14/a-top-german-environmentalist-cools-on-global-warming/ You see MB it has nothing to do with green tech its really about innovation and free markets.But when you call it green it automatically ups the cost by 30% or more even if its only 1/2 % more efficient.

    Bill @83, its really unbelievable,like the fake death threats to the Aussie scientists I linked to earlier , these people have no shame.

  • gman

    And then again yesterday. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/08/global-warming-chorus-discord-rising-to-feverish-pitch/

  • MB

    Please continue to engage yourselves in this never ending circular debate.

    If you want to rely on psuedoscientific PR horsefeathers, that’s your business. When you find a real, peer-tested climate scientist to address real climate science, then I’ll listen.

    Your pathetic references to assistant professors of statistics, TV weather presenters and mining flaks, all paid shills for the fossil fuel industry and not a climate expert among them to address climate science, then it’s all too easy to fling it back.

    Lastly, my work and private life are none of your business.

  • gman

    MB up until a few years ago the only coarse available on climate science was in the UK and it was a climate history coarse.Anyone who studies climate may have a degree in statistic,geology,physics,mathematics,hydrology,astronomy,oceanography or some other discipline and they apply their expertize to the study of climate.So there really are no climate scientists only different academics who chose to apply their particular studies to climate.Meteorology is actually the coarse that deals in atmospheric studies. Because the greatest disagreements have to do with feedbacks the people who know the most about that subject would have a PHD in electrical engineering.The early climate models were derived from two canadian economic models that were created by economic statisticians. Sorry MB but these climate scientists you always refer to are not what you seem to think, they are from many different disciplines,I think Hansen is a astronomer.I think thats why Mann has such a problem,he lacks a background in statistics.Have a nice day.
    PS,MB I dont really care what you do with your time its yours,but you really should try and calm down.

  • MB

    Gman, I’m a perfectly calm reference checker. Exception: after the second espresso.

    Of course there are multiple disciplines and courses in multiple disciplinary climate-related fields. The point is moot.

    But the key isn’t throwing handfuls of credentials at the wall along with cut ‘n pasted random data into a political blog. It’s about extensive peer-tested climate and related science and peer-reviewed publications in respected science journals with stringent science-based editorial policies.

    Hansen, Mann, Weaver and hundreds (actually, thousands) of others have accomplished this over & over, and have had their work confirmed through the rigorous, independent science-review and testing process by third parties in similar fields.

    Lomborg, Watts and Plimer have nothing but attitude and piles of falsified or meaningless data to compare. They and a few others like them allied politically against ACC fail even the most cursory testing of their published information.

    You need to find a Weaver or a Hansen to test climate change hypothesis and models, and to therein have their own testing tested in order to properly critique climate science.

    No one wants to disprove ACC more than real climate scientists who understand more than anyone the depth of the ramifications. But they keep coming up with refinements to the original hypotheses upon testing, and confirmation after confirmation that it is real.

    You criticized Source Watch. But I randomly checked many of the 75 references they provided on Plimer and did not find them wanting. Only one had a defunct link.

    Testing, wide retesting by multiple independent agencies / parties, references, peer-reviewed publications about the tests under strict editorial guidelines … these are the signs of real scientific method at work.

    Your sources have to meet climate science research on the same groundwork.

  • gman

    MB http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html