Where does your glass come from? Really!

Written by nutty professor "Aki Ishida, Professor and Director, College of Architecture and Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Design, Washington University in St. Louis" Who made this presumably mediocre female professor a director (maybe she is a first and she is Asian)?

Oh, glass does not grow on sustainably grown trees! Is that her point? Maybe we should make glass like panels from fossil fuels? What are the alternatives and how affordable?

What the professor describes is well known for a very long time! She regurgitates! The alternatives she mentions are nothing new either etc.

Caveat: I did not read the entire article!

"The word “local” has become synonymous with sustainability [???], whether it’s food, clothes or the materials used to construct buildings. But while consumers can probably go to a local lumberyard to buy lumber from sustainably grown trees cut at nearby sawmills, no one asks for local glass [???].

If they did, it would be hard to give an answer.

The raw materials that go into glass – silica sand, soda ash and limestone – are natural, but the sources of those materials are rarely known to the buyer.

The process by which sand becomes sheets of glass is often far from transparent. The sand, which makes up over 70% of glass, could come from a faraway riverbed, lakeshore or inland limestone outcrop. Sand with at least 95% silica content is called silica sand, and only the purest is suitable for architectural glass production. Such sand is found in limited areas. ...

Glass’s climate impact

Glass walls common in high-rise buildings today have other drawbacks. They help to heat up the room during increasingly hot summers and contribute to heat loss in winter, increasing dependence on artificial cooling and heating.

The glassmaking process is energy intensive and relies on nonrenewable resources.

To bring sand to its molten state, the furnace must be heated to over 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit (1,500 degrees Celisus) for as long as 50 hours, which requires burning fossil fuels such as natural gas, releasing greenhouse gases. Once heated to that temperature, the furnace runs 24/7 and is rarely shut down. ..."

Where does your glass come from?

Official portrait of professor Aki Ishida (Source)

German Tax Payers’ Money Wasted By Federal Parliament

Trigger

The so called Enquete Kommission “Wachstum, Wohlstand, Lebensqualität - Wege zu nachhaltigem Wirtschaften und gesellschaftlichem Fortschritt in der Sozialen Marktwirtschaft” (a joint federal, parliamentary commission of elected representatives and university professors to investigate economic growth, prosperity, quality of life) just released their final report on 4/6/2013.

What Is In A Title

You would think that the title of this commission entails the research subject. However, if the title already reveals that the agenda is narrowed by bias and ideologically loaded terms, then what do you expect the result of such a commission to be like?

The title of the final report contains a series of questionable terms:

• “nachaltige[s] Wirtschaften” (sustainable economy): This is a faddish, amorphous term guided by environmentalism.
• “gesellschaftlichen Fortschritt” (societal progress): What about individual progress, freedom and responsibility?
• “Soziale Marktwirtschaft” (social market economy): One of those much abused terms of German postwar political discourse. Another name for the so called third way between socialism and free market economy. Whatever that may be?

Just A Short Excerpt

I don’t claim to have read the entire 844 page long report. So I limit myself to a very brief excerpt from this tome to give the reader a flavor. I would bet that the entire report is not much better than this excerpt.

On page 43 of the final report we read (emphasis added):

“Ludwig Erhard [father of the German Economic Miracle] hat dies treffend formuliert [an excerpt from his most famous book titled “Wohlstand fuer Alle”]:

„Wohlstand für alle und Wohlstand durch Wettbewerb gehören untrennbar zusammen; das erste Postulat kennzeichnet das Ziel, das zweite den Weg, der zu diesem Ziel führt.“9

Das zentrale Ziel der Politik ist also der Wohlstand aller Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Wirtschaftliches Wachstum dagegen ist kein politisches Ziel. Es ist vielmehr ein guter – wenn auch unvollkommener – Indikator dafür, wie sich die wirtschaftliche Situation und damit der materielle Wohlstand der Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer sowie der Unternehmerinnen und Unternehmer im Durchschnitt verändert. Unberücksichtigt bleiben dabei insbesondere Verteilungsaspekte, die Entwicklung der nichtmateriellen Lebensqualität sowie die Erfordernisse der Nachhaltigkeit. So kann Wachstum auch bedeuten, dass nur wenige einen materiellen Fortschritt erfahren, während die wirtschaftliche Situation aller anderen stagniert”

For sake of brevity and lack of time I will not attempt her to translate this excerpt, but I intend to interpret it.

The great former federal minister of economics Ludwig Erhard in his seminal book clearly postulated the inseparable duality of economic growth and economic competition, but the authors of this report recognize only economic growth as an economic policy goal and explicitly deny economic competition such a role. One without the other, how foolish is that?

Sustainability like in sustainable economic growth is heralded as an essential requirement, which it is not. Notions of sustainability are born out of irrational fears.

The authors bemoan the possibility that economic growth benefits only a few individuals in their material well being. This kind of outcome is more probable if economic competition is constraint, e.g. by ever busy politicians meddling with the free market economy. This is one reason why economic competition is so fundamental to prevent such undesirable economic outcomes. How many German elected representatives or even professors understand this relationship?

Orwellian ISO 26000 Guidance On Social Responsibility

To Standardize Social Responsibility Worldwide?

Since when is the International Standards Organization into such politically loaded standardization? This has decidedly an Orwellian taste. What kind of brainwashing is this? What are they trying to dictate?

Here is an excerpt from the official Abstract of this ISO 26000 standard released in November 2010 (emphasis added):

“ISO 26000:2010 provides guidance to all types of organizations, regardless of their size or location, on:

 • concepts, terms and definitions related to social responsibility;

 • the background, trends and characteristics of social responsibility;

 • principles and practices relating to social responsibility;

 • the core subjects and issues of social responsibility;

 • integrating, implementing and promoting socially responsible behaviour throughout the organization and, through its policies and practices, within its sphere of influence;”

To read this ISO 26000 standard you have to pay CHF 196.00 (Swiss francs).

Social Responsibility Equals Sustainable Development?

What are they smoking at the ISO?

According to the Abstract of this ISO 26000 standard it “… is intended to assist organizations in contributing to sustainable development. It is intended to encourage them to go beyond legal compliance, recognizing that compliance with law is a fundamental duty of any organization and an essential part of their social responsibility.” (emphasis added).

To stress the harmlessness of this ISO 26000 standard, the Abstract goes on to say “ISO 26000:2010 is not a management system standard. It is not intended or appropriate for certification purposes or regulatory or contractual use.” So what is this standard all about?

I have in a separate blog written a scathing critique of this “Flawed Ideology Of Sustainable Development”.

Further Reading

I have to give credit to Jon Entine who in a well-written article dated 7/11/2012 for the AEI (American Enterprise Institute) alerted me to this Orwellian ISO 26000 standard. The article is titled “ISO 26000: Sustainability as standard?”

Some excerpts from his article (emphasis added):

·         “… Various aspects are providing blueprints for left-leaning European countries, empowering advocacy groups and inspiring activist judicial systems to embrace these “universally agreed upon” principles when conflicts involving corporations come to a head. …”

·         “… The United States and India, which supported early drafts of ISO 26000, ultimately voted, along with three other countries, against the final version. Critics believe it contains problematic proclamations about contested notions of environmental impacts and employee and consumer rights, but no endorsement of shareholder rights. …”

·         “… Much of the concern revolves around ISO 26000’s embrace of the “precautionary principle” to resolve environmental conflicts. Although that conforms to EU practices, it’s rejected by the US, Japan and other countries, …”

·         “…Many industry leaders, particularly in the US, believe these kind of standards encourage protectionism ahead of innovation, ..”

One is not surprised to learn that the so called precautionary principle was a bone of contention. Further, it is no surprise to find this principle jointly with social responsibility and sustainable development.

In a separate blog I have critiqued the precautionary principle in “The Precautionary Principle” as a modern superstition and a handy tool for ever power hungry politicians.

The Flawed Ideology Of Sustainable Development

Karl Marx Lives On

Karl Marx wrote “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” in 1875.

In November 1987, the United Nations adopted resolution 42/187 titled “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development” stating “… Believing that sustainable development, which implies meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, should become a central guiding principle of the United Nations, Governments and private institutions, organizations and enterprises …”. This definition was also stated in the so called Brundlandt Report of the same year.

I think the similarity between these two statements is striking. Both express a desire unfulfillable without a totalitarian, big government. Both are clearly utopian and reek of paternalism. Both are based on unsustainable and wrong premises. Both are born out of hubris or the pretense of knowledge (see Friedrich Hayek).

What A Misguided Principle

To pretend to know the ability of future generations to meet their own needs is preposterous and wrought with controversy.

To meet the needs of the present generations without compromising those of future generations is an extreme or radical command as typically uttered by fanatics.

Maurice Strong Behind Sustainable Development

A man with a colorful biography. A former businessman with a collectivist or socialist mindset. A long time mastermind of international environmental politics. He was also a member of the so called Brundtland Commission (formally known as UN World Commission on Environment and Development). As an advisor to the UN Secretary General and Special UN Envoy to North Korea (of all places), he is implicated in the infamous UN Oil For Food scandal as having personally received a check of $1 million from a North Korean lobbyist issued by a Jordanian Bank, but the money came from Saddam Hussein. Here is a link to an interview conducted in 2008 with this gentleman by the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122368007369524679.html

A few selected quotes taken from two public speeches, i.e. his opening statement (6/3/1992) and closing statement (6/14/1992) to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, to highlight his warped thinking (emphasis added):

·         “… The wasteful and destructive lifestyles of the rich cannot be maintained at the cost of the lives and livelihoods of the poor, and of nature. …”

·         “…and an economic system that takes no account of ecological costs or damage - one which views unfettered growth as progress. We have been the most successful species ever; we are now a species out of control. …”

·         “Agenda 21 measures for eradication of poverty and the economic enfranchisement of the poor provide the basis for a new world-wide war on poverty. Indeed, I urge you to adopt the eradication of poverty as a priority objective for the world community as we move into the 21st century.”(I have written a separate blog about this nonsense of eradication of poverty or war on poverty)

·         “We reinstate in our lives the ethic of love and respect for the Earth which traditional peoples have retained as central to their value systems. This must be accompanied by a revitalization of the values common to all of our principal religious and philosophical traditions.”

·         “The New World Order, Mr. President, must unite us all in a global partnership which, of course, has to respect national sovereignty as a basic tenet, but must also recognize the transcending sovereignty of nature, of our only one Earth.”

·         “We must bring our species under control, for our own survival, for that of all life on our precious planet.”

How did a lunatic or fanatic like this become such an influential player for decades at the UN?

Just An Extension Of The Club Of Rome

I suspect that the flawed ideology of sustainable growth is just a successor or extension of the work of the Club of Rome.

In the early 1970s, the Club of Rome published its seminal study titled “Limits to Growth”. This study has been thoroughly discredited. Its underlying computer model projections into the distant future were deterministic, mechanistic and based on obviously simplistic assumptions. In fact, the assumptions were deliberately chosen to produce the desired doomsday effect, i.e. exponential growth vs. linear resources development, which by sheer virtue of its assumptions are unsustainable. Thus, it has been a nice fallacy (petitio principii or begging the question?) to fool people. Human ingenuity and the power of free markets to deal with almost any major issues were omitted. This study is also one of the origins of the peak oil hoax. This study is not much more than scientifically dressed up doomsday speculation.