We already know that, in many cases, retaining...

About

Your daily source of inspiration for creative reuse and mindful consumption.

Join us on Facebook and Pinterest, too.

We welcome your tips, suggestions, and feedback. Contact: unconsumption@gmail.com

[Background on, & press coverage of, Unconsumption can be found here and here.]

Consumption is a word used to describe acts of acquisition – generally, the acquisition of things, in exchange for money.

Unconsumption is a word used to describe everything that happens after an act of acquisition.

Unconsumption is an invisible badge.

Unconsumption means the accomplishment of properly recycling your old cellphone, rather than the guilt of letting it sit in a drawer.

Unconsumption means the thrill of finding a new use for something that you were about to throw away.

Unconsumption means the pleasure of using a service like Freecycle (or Craigslist, Goodwill, or Salvation Army) to find a new home for the functioning DVD player you just replaced, rather than throwing it in the garbage.

Unconsumption means enjoying the things you own to the fullest – not just at the moment of acquisition.

Unconsumption means the pleasure of using a pair of sneakers until they are truly worn out – as opposed to the nagging feeling of defeat when they simply go out of style.

Unconsumption means feeling good about the simple act of turning off the lights when you leave the room.

Unconsumption is not about the rejection of things, or the demonization of things. It’s not a bunch of rules.

Unconsumption is an idea, a set of behaviors, a way of thinking about consumption itself from a new perspective.

Unconsumption is free.

CONTRIBUTORS:

Founder & Editor: Rob Walker, journalist, Savannah, GA

Editorial & Community Manager: Molly Block, marketing and business development geek, Houston, TX

Brian W. Jones, designer & writer, Göteborg, Sweden

Kashvi Kumar, Environmental Studies and Economics major at New York University

Deirdre Nelson, ever threading artist, Glasgow, Scotland

Shanna Trenholm, writer. catalyst. force of nature. San Diego, CA

* * *

Alumnus & Unconsumption logo creator: Clifton Burt, graphic designer, Portland, OR

Further information about Unconsumption can be found here.

10:54 am - Sat, Sep 15, 2012: 39 notes

We already know that, in many cases, retaining older buildings - especially those of architectural or historic character - can strengthen the enduring legacy and enjoyment of a community. But is it good for the environment? Lots of people think so, including architect Carl Elefante, who coined the wonderful phrase, “the greenest building is one that is already built,” because you don’t have to use environmental resources in constructing its replacement. (I have added that the phrase is most likely to be true if the building is in the right context.) But, especially considering the advanced green technology available for new construction, do the facts back that up?
The Preservation Green Lab of the National Trust for Historic Preservation has just released a detailed new study (available here) directly addressing these important questions. The study concludes that it can take between 10 and 80 years for a new, energy-efficient building to overcome, through more efficient operations, the negative energy and climate change impacts caused in the construction process. The study cautions, however, that there are environmental resources expended in rehabbing an older building as well; care must be taken in the selection of materials used in the rehabilitation or adaptation of older buildings, since “the benefits of reuse can be reduced or negated based on the type and quantity of materials selected for a reuse project.”

More here: The green dividend from reusing older buildings | Sustainable Cities Collective

We already know that, in many cases, retaining older buildings - especially those of architectural or historic character - can strengthen the enduring legacy and enjoyment of a community. But is it good for the environment? Lots of people think so, including architect Carl Elefante, who coined the wonderful phrase, “the greenest building is one that is already built,” because you don’t have to use environmental resources in constructing its replacement. (I have added that the phrase is most likely to be true if the building is in the right context.) But, especially considering the advanced green technology available for new construction, do the facts back that up?

The Preservation Green Lab of the National Trust for Historic Preservation has just released a detailed new study (available here) directly addressing these important questions. The study concludes that it can take between 10 and 80 years for a new, energy-efficient building to overcome, through more efficient operations, the negative energy and climate change impacts caused in the construction process. The study cautions, however, that there are environmental resources expended in rehabbing an older building as well; care must be taken in the selection of materials used in the rehabilitation or adaptation of older buildings, since “the benefits of reuse can be reduced or negated based on the type and quantity of materials selected for a reuse project.”

More here: The green dividend from reusing older buildings | Sustainable Cities Collective