Nature knows WHEN and WHERE - NOT to build and humans must learn this.

Nature knows WHEN and WHERE - NOT to build and humans must learn this.

When humans do build, do we look at if its appropriate to build there? Or is it pure economic veto that decides that we build something somewhere. Just because there are resources in a particular location in the world, does that mean we have to deplete it for what its worth?

Take these examples of built designs that are clogs in our natural arteries, in opposition to the natural context and just plain, shouldn't belong there.



The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906



Although we do not know when a earthquake is coming, our history is what we should learn from. Even though we know exactly where fault lines are and we've endured these huge earthquakes and sacrificed an abundance of lives during these incidents, we still continue to "fight" the natural consistency. Although several incidents similiar to the San Francisco earthquake has occured, we still ask, "how do we make these structures not fall down?" instead of asking ourselves, "Should we even build here?" or "Are these skyscrapers safe here?"

Chase Tower in Phoenix, Arizona - the largest skyscraper in Phoenix

Although Phoenix, Arizona has the hottest summer of all the cities in the US, we still continue to build higher and higher. Does heat not rise in Phoenix? It still does, but we still continue to build up. This leads to increased use of air conditioning, which uses a large amount of electricity.



Doesn't look like these belong here....


There are thousands of oil rigs sitting in just the Gulf of Mexico, mostly inactive. These sit here with no use, and even when it is used, they still shouldn't be there! Just look at the oil rig, then its surroundings.... Somethings not right.


New Orleans is 8 feet below sea level




The Big Easy is 8 feet below sea level. Something is wrong here. Why? I don't know. Possibly because New Orleans is a hot spot for resources - but shouldn't our primitive instincts or basic intellectual knowledge realize that building a city below sea level may have its consequences? Well in 2005, New Orleans felt that consequence, and most of the individuals that were the target of the levees breaking didn't know any better.

Green Myths

webmonkeydemo2.com/?page_id=150

http://hawaii-kau.com/catalog/products.php?Pakini_Nui_Wind_Farm

Myth 1: Wind Turbines Don't Impact The Earth

www.conservativeblogwatch.com/tag/green-energy/

Myth 2: All Bottled Water Comes From Fresh Water Springs

dditties.blogspot.com/

Myth 3: The Entire Planet Is Warming Because Of CO2

http://www.cafepress.com/RTKArtistry

Myth 4: Solar Power Is Economical

www.choice.com.au/.../Solar-payback-times.aspx

Myth 5: Free Energy Does Not Exist

thinkorthwim.com

listverse.com/.../10-more-conspiracy-theories/

This one actually sounds plausible. Nikola Tesla claimed that free energy was indeed possible, and worked for most of his career to achieve it. The theory claims that he did, in fact, succeed, just before his death in 1943, in discovering the mathematics and mechanics involved, but that the FBI immediately broke into his home and seized all his papers and work, and has never released any of it to the public.

The concept of free energy is, in very general terms, the ability to input x amount of energy into a machine, which will output x + 1 amount of energy. This seems to conflict with the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Tesla believed the law to be incorrect. He invented the Tesla Coil as an attempt to create free energy.



If it is possible, free energy could be perfected and result in the entire planet being powered by a single power source, such as a nuclear power plant, and output all the energy anyone could ever need. An infinite supply of energy at our fingertips, all based on electric output. You can see how this would irritate the oil companies.



They are the cause of the suppression, the theory claims, as no one would have to depend on fossil fuels anymore. Electric input is just as viable as coal input, or gasoline input. Thus, the electricity required to power a lightbulb could be all we need to power the whole world, invent spacecrafts capable of interstellar travel, anti-gravity, etc.



Myth 6: Plastic Bags Are Free

www.reuseit.com/.../plastic-bags-are-free

Myth 7: Organic Label Means 100% Organic

thedailygreen.com

Myth 8: LEED Certified Building

leedinthailand.com/tag/leed

Myth 9: Building Modular is Building Green

http://ezinearticles.com/?Prefabricated-Homes---The-Good,-The-Bad-And-The-Downright-Ugly&id=506163

 

Building modular is not a wise choice in building green.  Buildings made from the mass production lose uniqueness and creativity.  In other words, you are living in a house that looks exactly the same as your neighbor’s!   Also these prefab buildings are not built specifically for the sites.  Sometimes a wrong style of building would be built on an improper spot and end up using more energy in heating and cooling as required.

In addition, there seems to be very little evidence that prefabricated homes actually reduce wastage.  Nobody could guarantee a building to be 100% perfect.  In case when one of the popular modular designs has a problem, then lots of buildings with that particular design under mass production would need to get immediate repair and maintenance.  This could actually increase the amount of wastage in manufacture and transport.

http://www.modulararchitecture.com/

http://www.infrastructurist.com/wp-content/uploads/800px-markham-suburbs_aerial-edit2.jpg

Myth 10: New Eco Water Bottle

“50% less plastic eco bottle!” This is just a beautiful lie from the bottled water industry.  Plastic bottles can never be considered as “eco”.  Exempt from many state deposit laws, and most often used away from home, where recycling bins are scarce, the majority of water bottles do not make it into the recycling stream. No matter how recyclable and eco-friendly the plastic bottles are, plastic is plastic and the plastic bottles we knock back always end up into landfills as result.

http://lighterfootstep.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/ecofina_600-590x393.jpg

http://www.almightydad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/waterbottles1pa_468x324.jpg

Myth 11: Computers are highly recyclable and their e-wastes are free of PVC

---- Recycling program is not efficient enough.  Some countries share one recycling provider, which requires long distance shipping.  Disassembled laptops/notebooks and broken monitor are not accepted by the recycling programs. E- wastes end up in landfill.

---- Computers are not 100$ PVC free, PVC are still present in the external power cord and other add on components.

http://www.apple.com/environment/

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/admin/image-library2/waste-china

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/blog/Image/computer-recycling-electronic-waste.jpg

Myth 12: Paper is better than plastic

http://www.reuseit.com/learn-more/myth-busting/why-paper-is-no-better-than-plastic

Paper bags are not better than plastic bags.  It takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag as it does to manufacture a plastic bag.  During the manufacturing process, paper sacks generate 70% more air and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags.  Although paper bags have a higher recycling rate than plastic, each new paper grocery bag you use is made from mostly virgin pulp for better strength and elasticity.  Both virgin and recyclable paper come from tree pulp, so the impact of paper bag production on forests is enormous.  

http://www.reuseit.com/learn-more/myth-busting/why-paper-is-no-better-than-plastic

http://www.durobag.com/Standard/Products.aspx?p=32&f=10