GreenXchange: More than just business

Going in, I thought GreenXchange Conference would be super business and money-focused. But by the end of the first day, I started wondering where the business people were. They were there, of course, but many of the speakers, panelists, and attendees seemed to be policymakers and scientists and engineers and nonprofit people -- which made for very diverse, unexpected, and interesting panels and conversations.

And perhaps the panels I picked were the least business-y of the ones offered. After all, there was an entire track of panels called "Capitalizing Green Technology." The ones I went to were in the "Air Water, and Waste: Sustainable Business and Cities" track. Some highlights:

• Travis Longcore from the USC Center for Sustainable Cities pointed to the difference between greened infrastructure (i.e. a LEED certified building) vs. green as infrastructure (i.e. a building that includes nature). "Our green buildings need to have a little nature in them as well," Travis said -- and playfully dissed rival UCLA's new LEED-certified building for including no landscaping. His point: Even if you save some water by getting rid of greenery, much more gets lost by shutting nature out of our urban environments.

• Vaughan Davies, architect and urban designer at EDAW, showed us what our coastline would look like in 2106 in the worst case scenario of global warming. He outlined some fascinating ideas for preparing for this kind of disaster, one of the most interesting being building POLAX -- a very futuristic-looking offshore sea and space port to replace LAX and the port of LA.

• Andy Lipkis of TreePeople (previously mentioned here)connected urban trees to water management. Describing trees as "a tank, a sponge, a water treatment system," Andy talked about the need for integrated management (see diagram), showing us the Sun Valley Watershed as an example of what could be done.

I enjoyed Presidential candidate Bill Richardson's keynote and the optimistic transportation panel too.  All in all, GreenXchange provided an vibrant forum for the exchange of green ideas -- topped off with a chill rooftop cocktail reception at the end of the day.

I'm kind of sad that I missed the second day of GreenXchange -- I went to Hollywood Goes Green instead yesterday -- but GreenXchange will be returning with an Xpo on Oct. 1-3, 2008 at the LA Convention Center.

Top image courtesy of GreenXchange; photos by Siel

Comments

[m]

"Even if you save some water by getting rid of greenery, much more gets lost by shutting nature out of our urban environments."

This is EXACTLY one of the points that disturbs me about the proposed NBC/Universal buildings. Yeah, they are building certified "green" buildings, but they are blocking out mountain, park, sky and general plant views. I take tons of pictures everyplace I go, including around my home which is near the proposed site. Superimposing the buildings they want to include in the project onto the pictures I've taken is a HUGE difference when it comes to green space. A few trees and planters in the middle of a concrete slab won't properly compensate for the difference.

[Siel]

It would be great if LEED standards included some greenery requirement... At the moment, it seems it actually discourages landscaping in some ways, if UCLA's able to tout it as an eco-feature that saves water.

[m]

Can't grey water system be used for watering plants? Isn't that exactly what they are good for? These systems don't include using any additional water than what was already being used and they are easier to compensate for during the initial construction than afterwards. I can't tell you how often I pick up abandoned water bottles from all sorts of places on the ground, ledges, etc. that are filled with water. What if people simply dumped their waste beverages someplace else? What if collecting all compostable waste was part of the plan for the buildings so that this also helps to contribute to the landscaping (and then you don't have to ship your waste off someplace else)? Especially if you entertain the idea of growing edible plants which are then used in food preparation for the building itself or to feed the surrounding community, how could this be more harmful/less green than getting the same items shipped from a significant distance away? Plus you can use plants that are native to the area and acclimated to the amount of precipitation that the area normally gets. Maybe there is something that I don't understand that prevents these from being reasonable ideas though.... I just know that lack of plant life and nature and the chance to easily connect with it makes me go bonkers.