Global Serious Errors of Design and Environmental , Green Standard of the World by huynhphudat

Thanks for your proposal! Here are my thoughts for how you might build the proposal further; The example calculations are very compelling, but it is not clear how this proposal specifically improves urban resiliency. Your idea to integrate this metric (C02 increase due to displaced vegetation during construction) into existing green building standards and codes is a strong idea. However, the various colors, fonts, and formatting makes the proposal very difficult to follow. It is also not clear what information is original thought, and what information has been cited for reference. I would recommend using a consistent font and format, and focus the proposal on ways this metric can be integrated into existing systems or development policy for resiliency.

Actually , none of architecture , environmental scientist can confirm our urban design is correct if we calculate CO2 of environment .before and after we build city , town , roads , park , ........ We were wrong !!! Thank you .

vishalbhavsar , Thanks for sharing your thought . 28.488,39 tons CO2 is a biggest number . The number 45 lbs CO2 is average number . If we destroy 1 tree absorb 45 lbs CO2 and plant 1 tree can absorb 28.488,39 tons , we do the best . Even at 1st year , 2nd year , I think this tree , Trembesi already absorb more than 45 lbs CO2 per year ..... I don't know which kind of tree they destroy , but even grass can soak CO2 ....... " The description has to be more structures and probably the cases discussed should be more to the point and in similar structure " . My friend , we both know that even right now I don't analyzing streets , roads , my proposal is really long . We built roads , go through a forest , wild grass , and just plant some trees along the street ..... And a solution for illegal destroying forest is being ...... . I really like Google Earth . Thank you for support me .

Hi huynhphudat, There are some very interesting ideas in your proposal. Thank you very much for sharing your perspective. It seems to me that the core concept of your Proposal is related to determining the impact of urbanization (buildings, roads, etc) and trying to offset that impact through reforestation using Trembesi trees planted in suitable locations. Is that correct? Here are a couple of suggestions which I think might be valuable for you to consider: -I would echo shawnhesse's suggestion of using a single font color and style to improve readability. I also agree a little more structure could make your proposal easier to follow. -Your description seems to focus on the general concept and “back of the envelope” impact calculations. These are a great place to start, but more details regarding how this might actually be implemented, by whom and at what costs are very important to evaluate the practicality of the idea. Consider expanding those areas of your proposal. Good luck!

" These are a great place to start, but more details regarding how this might actually be implemented, by whom and at what costs are very important to evaluate the practicality of the idea " These reasons are why I begin with schools first .

" Only 19 countries in the world have Green Building standards. What about those countries which don't have such standards " . The environmental standard are basic , Green Building standards just do it better WITHOUT CO2 standard . The same with environmental standard of others countries . " Do you also exempt subsistence construction in many poor and developing countries? " The society we give to our children - our next generation - have errors . I know it and a lot members here know it . If I can win , I will tell whole world we got a problem . If we fix the problems we give our children the best , if we don't fix the problem , we give our children a society with errors without fixing errors . So stop confirm we love our children . This will be an answer if any reporter ask me about the same problem like you ask me and any countries refuse to fix the problem .

Thanks for your proposal. It's wonderful to see your dedication to and passion for the natural world and desire to restore our natural resources so we may increase the ecosystem services both people and nature rely on. In addition to the previous suggestions regarding proposal format, which I echo, I would like to comment on the ecological assumptions in the proposal. It seems that a main assumption is that "all green is created equal", which it is definitely not. We have to balance the carbon capture and storage capacity of natural systems with the considerations of the other critically important ecosystem services they provide, especially habitat for wildlife. For example, although turf grass is green, is has very shallow roots, stores comparatively little water or carbon compared to native grasses, and provides essentially nothing in terms of habitat for wildlife. Just because a particular tree has a high capacity to capture carbon, does not mean we should plant it everywhere, to the exclusion of other species. Diversity in our natural systems is key to long-term resiliency of that system. Restoring the health and functionality of at least portions of the natural system was in a particular urban center will ultimately yield more robust benefits. Non-native species must often be used as well, due to the nature of the challenging conditions of urban areas (compacted soil, heat stress, etc.), but a balance is desirable. A classic example from the midwestern United States would be buckthorn- a woody plant that is found nearly ubiquitously in unhealthy woodlands and residential neighborhoods all over parts of Illinois and Indiana. It's hardy and very invasive, often taking over entire systems and crowding out the native plants in the understory that require light. While buckthorn certainly sequesters and stores carbon, it's been shown that when woodlands are restored to health and the buckthorn is removed, allowing native oak trees and other native understory plants (which have very deep and extensive root systems), carbon storage in the system increases. Importantly, a co-benefit of these diverse systems is that they provide habitat for many birds, mammals, insects etc., which a monocrop of buckthorn does not. Another reason to increase diversity within a natural system, especially the urban tree canopy, is that it increases the overall resiliency of the system. If only one type of tree is planted, and this species becomes susceptible to a particular pest or pathogen (e.g., the emerald ash borer decimating the urban tree canopy of areas that predominantly planted ash trees) it can wipe out an entire system. Any proposal for urban nature design must be grounded on sound ecological principles, and having a healthy and biodiverse system is the foundation. Hope this is helpful, and that you can incorporate more of the ecology premise into the proposal. Best of luck and I look forward to reading your final proposal!

Proposal update : Trembesi VS tax VS diversity of natural systems . " I don't think this needs to be an extensive addition or consideration, but as a policymaker, the question is always 'so what? " Don't worry about that , really .

Hi, I think is very important to write also your references, because some very interesting propositions are better supported by consolidated knowledge. I also would like to remark that sea is rising because the ocean's waters are warming and that causes as consequences the dilatation and rising of sea-level.Anyway it is important to foresee reservoirs as you propose, but for the purpose to best planning for the resilience. As an example, to mitigate droughts, to contain floodings and also to challenge salt intrusion, like in the delta rivers basin.Best wishes for your project.

I meant Climate Action is fix Urban design problems .

Update The Impact of Proposal “ Global Serious Errors of Design of the World , Environmental Laws “ on climate change with result : Absorb 2 329 559 574 804 tons CO2 > Emit 595 245 000 000 000 tons CO2 in 15 years , if 1 year we emit 39.683 billion tons CO2 .

"Unfortunately the layout and information supplied in this proposal is just hugely confusing to follow. The point of valuing ecosystems is valid and seeking mechanisms to replace lost ecosystem functions such as CO2 sequestration ability also important, as is trying to resolve this in a design phase. However, the proposal doesn't really get across a innovative mechanism to do so in an effective manner." "I agree that trees and green infrastructure are key and currently underused responses to climate change and adaptation. Tree planting is at the heart of the response in many communities.I'm not entirely sure of extent of the work being proposed here. Part of the proposal is about calculating the benefits of trees for various ecosystem services, This has been widely done. (See iTree for one of many examples.)Tree planting (and other vegetated areas) are widely used, and need more use. I note that the specific solution proposed here is a tree exotic to the US. Many of the native trees perform the same functions. Local and native biodiversity is generally a better approach to planting programs."