Like most of you, as an architect on the forefront of "environmentally sensitive" design,
I was originally encouraged by the renewed understanding of architecture's impact on the environment and
by our opportunity to play a leading role in understanding the power of the profession to
advance the benefits of an holistic design process. As the momentum grew in the early 2000's
I felt compelled to reach a better understanding of the science behind the politics of "greenhouse gases" and
Anthropomorphic Global Warming. If we are going to promote and "ramp up bold and sustained action" we must
be able to define the threat in real scientific terms. I would challenge each of us to read the reports and study
in detail the language and content on both sides of the debate and not assume that "our side must be right".
There is plenty of reason to master and promote "green" (energy and resource saving, healthy and economically efficient architecture) without succumbing to political propaganda on either side.
The sustainability movement is becoming usurped by political motives on the left and marginalized by the right as
nothing but a political powergrab. It is neither and it will not endure unless we can validate it on the basis of real, measurable value to each project, to the owner and to the communities in which these projects are built- NOT to an undefineable "threat".
-------------------------------------------
James Gleeson
Design Integration, PLLC
Charlotte NC
-------------------------------------------