Arranging and installing the plants presents [...]]]>

This weekend we get a special treat: we’ll be taking delivery of over 250 tropical plants and installing two indoor living walls. It’s the culminating step in a complete renovation of Area Yoga Studio in Downtown Brooklyn and promises to transform the character of the space.

Arranging and installing the plants presents lots of artistic and technical challenges, but a lot of the success of the green wall has taken place quietly over the last few months, in the careful process of plant selection.

We enjoy pushing the envelope of green contracting in New York City, and we like to think outside the box in our species choices too:  the challenge is to avoid the tired old themes of corporate and institutional plantscaping without compromising ease of maintenance and good growth.

We start with a process of elimination based on temperature range, the space available, the access to sunlight and the budget.

Then we look at the things we can control, like light and water, and base our plant selection on what we can provide in a sustainable way. In this case we’re using T5 fluorescent lights, which have a great balance of energy efficiency, affordability and strong, broad-spectrum light for plant growth.  Water for the green wall is recycled from the sink of a nearby bathroom, reducing the building’s water use as well as the outflow to our overburdened sewer system.

Next we list what functions we want the plants in our living wall to perform. Where an outdoor green wall installation would consider the effect on insulation and shading, in this case we were looking mainly for air purification, and managed to include plants that reduce levels of formaldehyde, benzene, ammonia and others.

This brings us to the most gratifying step in species selection: aesthetics. A complex palette of leaves and flowers that will add a sense of depth to the space has to be balanced with need for a meditative atmosphere of concentration. It is a yoga studio after all. At the same time the plants and their built context have to be matched: a challenge in New York when most of the viable indoor plants are native to the faraway tropics.

And finally we have to source our plants. We try to get everything as locally as possible, but there’s only one place in nature where conditions match the low light and moderate temperatures found in a New York City building: the understory of a tropical forest. That’s where almost all houseplants come from, and it means that our closest source is Florida.

Transporting plants over those distances is decadent in energy terms, but it does give us an opportunity to advance state of the art green design. We may have brought the plants a long way, but we’re using them to experiment with indoor living systems for grey water purification, and creating a magical space for Brooklyn yoga students to rest their eyes in shades of green while they practice.  We think that’s work that needs to be explored, if anything to ultimately decide the process is not ecological enough.

So that’s how we arrived at the following list. They’re a beautiful bunch of plants and we can’t wait to get their hands on them.

Anthurium,  assorted colors

Bromeliad Guzmaniam, assorted colors

Gold Dust Croton

ZZ

Dracaena Dragon Series,  assorted varieties

Aspidistra

Spath

Aglaonema, assorted varietes

Spider Plant

Dens Orchid

Bird’s Nest Fern, Japanese and Kangaroo varieties

Nephthytis Allusions, assorted colors

Philodendron

Hoya

Pothos

So come take a class at Area Yoga on Montague street in Brooklyn and check out the new indoor living wall installation. It promises to be magical!

As a NY [...]]]>

Ed from NJ Renewable Energy made a great video about the construction of his passive house that you can view below.  It discusses the many benefits of building a Passive House, the amazing energy savings that are possible and the details behind how they built this specific one in New Jersey.

As a NY Passive House contractor we appreciate his hard work and dedication to sharing the information with the public.

Passive House Video from NJ Renewable Energy

Three Mile Island.  Chernobyl.  Fukushima Daiichi.

These names instantly bring [...]]]>

Eco Brooklyn obsesses over energy.  Our projects are built to minimize heat loss and optimize gain, while providing individual homeowners ways to generate their own energy through solar panels.  We want to minimize homes’ reliance on energy generated through fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Three Mile Island.  Chernobyl.  Fukushima Daiichi.

These names instantly bring up an instinctive fear of nuclear power as an insidious danger to public health.

Add “Shirley, Long Island” to that list.

“The Atomic States of America,” which premiered at Sundance 2012, is a documentary based on Kelly McMasters’s “Welcome to Shirley: A Memoir From an Atomic Town.”  Shirley is a small working-class town that happens to be located right next to the Brookhaven National Laboratory, a center for research that has produced seven Nobel prizes since it was built in 1947.

McMasters considered her life fairly normal but first realized something was wrong when her college roommate asked why she was always going home to funerals.  Further research revealed an abnormally high rate of cancer and disease in Shirley residents.  The prime suspect was low-level radiation from Brookhaven National Lab, whose reactors had leaked…into aquifers supplying water to all of Long Island.

Democracy Now! did an extended interview with the director, Sheena Joyce, and Kelly McMasters, incorporating clips from the film.  You can watch part 1 here, and a link should appear to part 2.

As far as I can tell, the story is a troubling and evocative view of human suffering caused by the presence of a nuclear facility, exacerbated by unwillingness of government and investigative agencies to act in the people’s best interest.

But I don’t think it’s a compelling argument against nuclear power.  Shirley’s story exposes poor planning (who thought it was a good idea to build nuclear reactors on top of the only aquifer system anyway?) and corruption, which would be dangerous regardless of the technology in question.

McMasters is a modern-day Erin Brockovich, except the bad guy’s now nuclear power instead of Pacific Gas and Electric.  Erin Brockovich decried unsafe conditions and inadequate disclosure, not the existence of gas and electricity.  The same horror stories surround any town exposed to chemicals and poor operating standards.  What about Minamata disease?  The Bhopal disaster?  The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill?  Those tragedies weren’t enough to stop gas or electricity or plastics or oil from becoming ingrained in our modern lifestyle, so why chicken out with nuclear power?

Nuclear power has the potential for massive devastation.  I’m going to quote freely from the Wikipedia article on Chernobyl here.  More than 350,000 people had to be relocated.  The cleanup effort spanned two decades, used 500,000 workers, and crippled the Russian economy.  Russian estimates place the number of premature deaths as a result of Chernobyl near one million.  The area surrounding Pripyat is still a dead zone, the first legal tourists just beginning to tiptoe in.

Let’s look at some more numbers.  There are 441 nuclear reactors in the world, 60 more under construction, and another 150 being planned.  They produce 6.3% of the world’s energy and 15% of its electricity.  France is the leader in reliance on nuclear power (75% of total energy generated) but the U.S. wins in total number of reactors (144).  Some countries, like Italy and Australia, steadfastly refuse to go nuclear.  Germany and Switzerland are phasing out nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima accident.  The future of nuclear power is a deeply polarizing topic, but given the prevalence of nuclear plants, having just a handful of major accidents doesn’t sound unreasonably risky to me.

But is nuclear power worth the risk?  Is it truly sustainable?  (Nuclear reactors still consume fossil fuels, cost billions to build, and produce tons of dangerous nuclear waste.)  Can safety ever be ensured?  What alternatives are available?

At present we don’t know enough about nuclear power to guarantee safety and efficiency for people living near plants or people using electricity generated by reactors, so nobody should be guaranteeing those things.  Saying that nuclear reactors are clean and safe is a big fat lie.  Nuclear science’s destructive side is still engrained in the global consciousness.  In school we learn about Hiroshima years before we get to physics.

That’s why we need to be realistic and focus on research and accountability.  Walking away from nuclear power out of fear rather than a well-informed decision is failing to make use of all the possibilities.  Maybe the facts also say that nuclear power isn’t sustainable, or that the likelihood of an accident is too high.

“The Atomic States of America” might become a new rallying point for people opposed to nuclear power, but don’t forget, it centers around an intensely personal story.  The featured testimonial for “Welcome to Shirley” reads: “A loving, affecting memoir of an American Eden turned toxic.”  It was from Oprah.  I’d rather not have Oprah making energy policy.  Her car giveaway habits would definitely not be sustainable.

On the other hand, it’s easy for me to cheer on nuclear development because I’ve never lived in a Shirley.  I am, however, in a state that’s highly dependent on nuclear-generated electricity.

New York is one of the 5 states with the highest nuclear capacities.  We get 30% of our electricity from nuclear energy.  Part of my enthusiasm for nuclear power comes from the fact that it powers 30% of my internet browsing habits.  In the end it comes down to sacrifice: would you use less energy to lower the need for nuclear power, or would you rather give up the assurance of a future without nuclear accidents?

One of these will be the obvious right answer to you, but maybe not to the next person.  That’s why films like “The Atomic States of America” are so important–they keep the conversation going about a topic that’s dominated by big money and politics, but affects us all.

That’s why we listened when  Justin Hall-Tipping told us that in the future, all energy could be sustainable, green, and free.

Justin Hall-Tipping, CEO of Nanoholdings, gives a TED talk about the energy applications of carbon nanomaterials.  It’s worth a watch, [...]]]>

Being a green builder is a constant search for more ecological ways of doing things.

That’s why we listened when  Justin Hall-Tipping told us that in the future, all energy could be sustainable, green, and free.

Justin Hall-Tipping, CEO of Nanoholdings, gives a TED talk about the energy applications of carbon nanomaterials.  It’s worth a watch, if you have ten minutes.

A few key points:

• Carbon nanotubes are 100 times more conductive than copper wire.
• Transparent sheets of carbon nanomaterials, when paired with a polymer, can be applied to windows (or any surface, really) and convert light into energy.
• Collected energy can be fed into systems of batteries that store it for later–or be turned back into light and beamed to the next house over.

Widespread applications of this model has mind-boggling implications: free sustainable energy, for everyone, for as long as the sun shines.

The downside is that we couldn’t harness the collaborative powers of the network until the model goes mainstream.  And why would the model go mainstream, when just about every house in a developed nation is already hooked up to a grid and paying into the existing system?  We have the technology to do this.  We also have the technology to make hovercars.  We could be zooming everywhere, but we wouldn’t, because we already have roads and cars that get the job done.  The prohibitive cost and arguably unnecessary risk of replacing entire infrastructures holds us back.

Consumption is already ingrained in our lifestyle to the degree that stepping away from it would take a massive amount of willpower.  Ec0 Br00klyn’s Zero Building method minimizes consumption by using 100% salvaged materials in our projects.  We install green roofs, solar panels, and water recycling systems that help homeowners wean themselves off the official lines.  We help one determined homeowner at a time move beyond consumption, toward a future of free energy.

It’s not easy.  Pushing against “normal” ways of doing things is a daily struggle against our own habits and those of the structures around us, but we can’t NOT fight it, so we forge on.

Justin Hall-Tipping’s research and ideas are very inspiring. We are keeping a keen eye on his developments since it would be a huge leap forward for green building.

The world probably won’t end with a bang, but might just crumble beneath the accumulated consequences of our actions.

Meanwhile, American politicians’ opinions of science, especially climate science, are at an alarming low.  Sometimes TV makes me wonder if [...]]]>

First 2000, and now 2012: Years in which people think the world might possibly end.

The world probably won’t end with a bang, but might just crumble beneath the accumulated consequences of our actions.

Meanwhile, American politicians’ opinions of science, especially climate science, are at an alarming low.  Sometimes TV makes me wonder if there are people who think a 2012 apocalypse is more plausible than global warming.

Watching GOP candidates in debate is a bittersweet experience.  On one hand, the stupid things they occasionally blurt out invariably wind up on YouTube for my amusement.

You-becky-becky becky-becky-stan-stan, anyone?

On the other hand, these guys have a fair shot at becoming arguably the most powerful person in the world.   That’s where the bitter comes in.  They speak in a  sober, defiantly ignorant voice, with the seeming expectation that what they don’t know doesn’t matter.

Sometimes it does matter (a combination of egregious dumbness and sexual sketchiness shamed Cain off the stage) but what scares me is when it doesn’t.

Take Rick Santorum, for example.  Here’s a short excerpt and transcript from a Q&A session he did in New Hampshire last week.

Someone asked how he integrated recent findings of climate change into his policies.  He waved away the whole issue by using scientists, icebergs, and tail-wagging dogs in a meandering metaphor to demonstrate why climate science is not worth considering.

And when he was done talking, people clapped!  Kind of half-heartedly, but still! That stopped The only thing more frightening than ignorance is ignorance with power.

Basically, he argued that there are so many factors so we can’t know for sure what’s causing any changes.  Nevermind that just about anybody with a lick of sense agrees that we’re making a lot of CO2, which gets stuck in the atmosphere.

Nevermind that nobody knows the perfect method for, oh, say, oil mining, but they rough through it anyway because the result is valuable.  Not knowing something doesn’t mean that we should give up; it means we should devote more resources toward finding the answer.  Santorum using ambiguity as a reason to disregard the question only draws attention to how his party has utterly failed at giving climate science the support it needs.

Around Christmas, a short piece showed up in the New York Times about how climate science is stagnating, despite 2011 being one of the most extreme weather years on record.

In May of 2011, 100% of Texas was abnormally dry.  48% was officially in exceptional drought conditions–that’s even more extreme than “extreme drought.”

At the other extreme, New Jersey had an extreme winter: 50.7 inches (more than four feet) fell in my hometown of New Brunswick.  I’ve lived there for 15 years but can count the white Christmases we’ve had on one hand.

These are quick and dirty examples of extreme weather conditions with immediate effects at home.  Objective truths about global warming will emerge as trends in data analysis performed by climate scientists, and I’d like these truths to emerge before they show up as three feet of snow on my car every other week.

It’s true that there are hundreds of factors that contribute to climate change, but it’s stubbornly naive to claim as Santorum does that CO2, as a byproduct of industrial processes, is not the primary actor.  It’s true that climate science and efforts to change energy use in major industries can incur significant costs, but so can bad weather.  The final cost of this year’s weather extremes is still being tallied, but will likely surpass $50 million.  That’s in comparison to a typical year that costs the U.S. $3 or $4 billion.

Making sense of these changing weather patterns will require scientists to analyze large amounts of data, integrating trends over years and millions of square miles.  They need personnel, and concerted support from the Federal government, not half-assed pooh-poohing from a man who could well become President.

The GOP in general sets a bad example by blocking efforts to organize and increase funding for climate research initiatives.  Republicans overwhelmingly deny the general consensus on global warming,  disparaging it instead as a “propaganda attempt” by the Obama administration.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Energy still finance climate research, but many scientists find that there’s not enough to go around.

This research also has valuable practical applications.  Our company, for example, depends on climate data to calculate things like insulation thickness, heating and cooling loads, and gutter sizes.  We’re a green contractor, so energy efficiency is more crucial to our calculations, but every building depends on this information being accurate.  The more efficient our homes, the more money clients save.

Global change affects everyone, not just Americans, so hopefully other governments will have more sense than Congress and fund this crucial research.   Passive houses, for example, have greater momentum in Europe than in the U.S., so more resources are available to passive builders and passive houses are cheaper to build.

And what does all this have to do with Eco Brooklyn, beyond normal climate calculations?  As green contractors, we obviously take the local environment of each home into consideration when designing a plan for energy efficiency.  Compare that with, say, a large non-green building company like Toll Brothers, who may build the same exact house in Texas as in Nebraska.

Now that the environment is hitting higher record temperatures and precipitation levels than ever, Eco Brooklyn is venturing into what we call “Survival Building.”

We’ve started taking examples from extreme climates and integrating them into New York’s brownstones, in order to prepare them against heat waves, snap freezes, and flash floods.  We take inspiration from the “Earthship” and “Passive House” movements, which focus on installing tight insulation and maximizing solar gain to reduce heating and cooling needs.  These homes remain naturally cool in the summer and warm in the winter.  We put up a blog post recently that explains these concepts in detail.

Our our buildings consider rainwater runoff seriously.  We build green roofs, dry wells, rain gardens, and other water harvesting systems to reduce flooding.

We use clay walls in our houses that work like adobe walls in Pueblo architecture.  If they can endure the New Mexico heat, they can handle New York heat waves, with the benefit of retaining heat in winter.  Our passive houses are sealed tight against energy loss, but the envelope also protects against extreme wind or rain.

Eco Brooklyn’s brownstones are green fortresses.

So even if we see the beginnings of a climate apocalypse in 2012, we’ll be ready, and if Santorum gets elected, at least we’ll be insulated against his hot air.

In New [...]]]>

As New York green contractors, we’re always interested in emerging innovations, but take special interest in locally-developed technologies because we believe that green solutions should have a local focus.  An effective way to build green is to ensure that each building make the best use of the environment in which it’s located.

In New York state, for example, we have hot summers and cool to cold winters.  Insulation is important for keeping homes at a comfortable temperature while minimizing energy costs.  We also have farmland and woodland…which means mushrooms.

Ecovative Design started out as two RPI students’ mutual fascination with mushrooms. A class project resulted in growing a mushroom-based composite that could replace synthetic materials like Styrofoam.  Rather than lessening the impact of traditional synthetics, Ecovative is introducing radical materials in un-heard of ways.  The innovative start-up is currently growing into one of the most promising manufacturers of green building and packing materials.

We’re mostly interested in their mushroom insulation.

It’s not quite the same as the mushrooms we buy at the supermarket: Ecovative makes their materials out of a mycelium composite.  Mycelium is the thready part underground; fruiting bodies are the parts we see and eat.

Filling your walls with fungus might not sound like such a great idea, but let me tell you why it’s amazing.

Mushroom materials are as safe and sturdy as traditional insulation.  They won’t melt in the rain.  They achieve a class 1 fire rating without needing toxic fire retardants and have very few volatile organic compounds or none at all.  There is no need for toxic adhesives like formaldehyde.  They can be touched and handled with no special protective gear.   There are no spore or allergen concerns, since materials are heat-treated after growing.

That’s right, growing.  Ecovative grows their materials out of farm junk and mushrooms, an upcycling process that reduces waste.  They start with agricultural byproducts, which are then inoculated with mycelium and grown to the exact shape needed by the client.  They’re basically made from an unappreciated waste product (seed hulls, husks, etc) and a renewable resource (live mushrooms).  When you’re done, they can be composted like any other organic material, leaving behind neither chemicals nor waste.

The humble mushroom is a powerhouse.  In Mycelium Running: How Mushrooms Can Save the World, Paul Stamets describes the potential for “mushroom ecoremediation,” in which we take advantage of mushrooms’ natural digestive abilities to clean up organic pollution.  Mushrooms can eat through all kinds of trees and houses like nobody’s business, but they can also digest complex organic particles found in petroleum and other messy contaminants.  Stamets describes an experiment where he watched oyster mushroom mycelia absorb brown gunk, slowly return to its original white, and send up robust fruiting bodies.  In other words, the mycelium ate our garbage, and made extra big mushrooms–more food for us!

But back to mushroom as a building material.  Mushroom materials can benefit builders, clients, and the environment.  They’re efficient by building and safety standards.  They become increasingly cost-effective as petroleum and plastic prices rise with oil prices.  Their production, use, and recycling leave no mark on the environment.

The major downside to mushroom insulation is that you can’t have it yet.  Ecovative’s building materials are currently under development and are not yet for sale.  As green builders, we eagerly anticipate the debut of a locally-developed material that offers homeowners an affordable, safe, and eco-friendly alternative to current methods.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) met in Durban over the past two months in order to hammer out a plan for extending the Kyoto Protocol. [...]]]>

We’re Brooklyn-based green builders dedicated to turning our local neighborhood green, but we’re always following the latest developments in global standards for more sustainable living.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) met in Durban over the past two months in order to hammer out a plan for extending the Kyoto Protocol. The UNFCC is the body of the UN that is in charge of pulling together all the countries under one unified agreement on how to handle important climate issues. Getting 194 nations to agree is no small task.

Stressed out: Conference President Maite Nkoana-Mashabane of South Africa

The main focus of this year’s talks was to establish a binding agreement that would build upon the Kyoto Protocol by applying the same emission limits to all nations regardless of industrialization.  The U.K., for example, would be held to the same standard as India, even though the U.K. is highly developed with a high average standard of living–in contrast with India, where hundreds of millions still live in poverty.

The greatest conflict erupted between the E.U. and India, due to the E.U.’s determination to lay out a “road map” for a legally binding agreement for all nations.  Developing industrial powers led by India and China argued fiercely against what they saw as an unfair constraint on projects that would improve standards of living nationwide.

They make a compelling argument: first world nations achieved their high standards of living through decades of environmentally damaging industrialization, so why should rising nations have to pay the price through limits on their own development?  India, especially, refused to sign off on an as-yet-undefined “road map” that they viewed as signing away their future development rights.

The Kyoto Protocol, first established in 1997, was a global agreement to limit emissions in the interest of sustainability.  191 nations have signed it so far, but the U.S. is still holding out because we refuse to accept the point that nations are held to different emissions criteria depending on development status.

Grey: undecided nations/Red: nations with no intention of ratifying.

The U.S., as the only major power not bound by the Kyoto Protocol, stayed mostly quiet in the Durban brawl but will add a third dimension to finalizing an equally binding agreement.  Did we refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because we didn’t want to be held to different standards than developing nations, or because we didn’t want to be bound at all?  Will we throw around our economic and political clout in further attempts to avoid emissions regulations?  Will the agreement conceptualized in Durban become a reality?

So, what was really accomplished on Sunday?  Not much, according to most commentators.  It’d be easy to bash the agreement as an inadequate solution, but let’s focus on the hard-won victories:

1. Compromise was achieved between the E.U. and India/China.  All nations agreed for a legally binding framework to be completed by 2015 and implemented by 2020.
2. There’s a definite timeline: work on the new agreement will start next year.
3. Nations confirmed the Green Climate Fund, which was first agreed on in Copenhagen in 2009.  An as yet undetermined body under the U.N. will oversee the fund, which is to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to help developing nations adapt to problems posed by climate change.  The exact terms for the fund remain vague, with no definite plan on where the money is to come from or how much is already in the fund.

Our dream is to turn New York green, one brownstone at a time, so we understand the necessity of taking very small steps to achieve a greater goal, but the talks’ tendency toward compromise and vague planning represent procrastination rather than progress.  But still, I guess it’s a good thing that the climate conversation is still grinding on, one year at a time.

Click through for the official UNFCCC Durban website.

So how do you remove humidity [...]]]>

If you live in New York city you know the summers can be hot and muggy, with humidity levels shooting through the roof. As a New York green contractor we are faced with the challenge of creating healthy and happy indoor air environments while keeping energy consumption low.

So how do you remove humidity from a New York apartment in the summer?

The obvious is to make sure both the kitchen and bathroom is well vented to the outside, either with a small energy efficient fan or via a well designed home that provides window cross breeze. The last thing you want to do is add humidity to the already muggy air.

The best way to do this is with an ERV or HRV, or Energy Recovery Ventilator or Heat Recovery Ventilator. The ERV does a better job at removing humility. The two best ones on the market is the Zehnder and the Ultimate Air. We install both. It is not cheap but you can’t beat the fresh air 24/7 in the house.

But in the heat of the summer these units may not remove enough humidity. The common sense option is to add a dehumidifier. In that case the Santa Fe Dehumidifier is a good choice. We like it because it is very efficient. Also very important is that it creates very little heat!

Another great option is your Air Conditioner! Duh. Air conditioners are great dehumidifiers. In fact part of the effectiveness of an air conditioner to make the room cooler is dehumidification. Dry air feels cooler than humid at the same temperature.

But both the typical dehumidifier and the air conditioner are huge energy hogs no matter how efficient they are…..so what to do. The most efficient option is the Mini Split. Fujutsu makes a SEER 26 unit we like to install. SEER ratings indicate how efficient an AC is.

SEER 26 is efficiency on steroids! Your typical window unit is SEER 12…. need we say more.

But honestly, our favorite tactic is the ceiling fan. In terms of energy efficiency you can’t beat it. That and a different attitude to heat. It’s hot, get used to it! Enjoy it.

Americans are terrible when it comes to wasting energy to cool their homes. Americans also have the highest rate of obesity in the world. According to one source almost 30% of Americans are obese! And if you are wearing a permanent coat of insulation on your body then obviously you don’t tolerate heat well.

So….yes New York summers are unbearably humid…and there is a place for ERV’s, HRV’s, dehumidifiers, AC’s and fans. But just as importantly is the importance of tempering those energy consuming machines with good ventilation of baths and kitchens, and even more important is keeping our bodies healthy so we tolerate heat better, and changing our attitudes so we are more tolerant of heat culturally.

Because, hey, we all know things are just going to get hotter……

Mushrooms are some of the most beneficial human foods available. But you eat the wrong one and you will die.

Not good, not bad. Powerful, yes.

So the [...]]]>

As a New York green contractor you learn very quickly that “natural” does not mean “good”, nor does it mean “bad”. Case in point: the mushroom.

Mushrooms are some of the most beneficial human foods available. But you eat the wrong one and you will die.

Not good, not bad. Powerful, yes.

So the next time somebody says something is natural, and therefor good, offer them a bowl of black mold. It’s natural too.

Nobody understands this dualistic power of nature, and more specifically of mushrooms than Paul Stamets.

I just finished his game changing book Mycelium Running, How Mushrooms Can Help Save the World.

In this book Paul lays out in clear detail how Mycelium, commonly known as mushrooms, are the building block upon which all other life grows.

The mushroom we know, say the Portabello, is just the outward form. What is actually more important is the “root” structure of the mushroom, something that resembles a vast carpeted web that can span thousands of miles of space and is constantly communicating within it’s span. As Paul says, “Mycelium is nature’s internet.”

The awe inspiring power of Myceluim is vast and I strongly suggest you read the book.

But in short Mycelium’s power to both give life and destroy is an underutilized element that Paul is only beginning to scratch the surface of.

For example he shows how in a matter of weeks a couple scoops of Mycelium can turn a pile of toxic deisel and oil earth into a verdant little green garden. It quickly becomes clear that Mycelium could decontaminate all sorts of toxic situations, such as radiation, heavy metal, oil spills, and sewage to name a few.

Paul has discovered how to turn the destructive power of Mycelium into powerful tools against insects like termites and carpenter ants, essentially creating natural pest control that is more effective than your most toxic chemical.

For green contractors in NY this is good news. Termites are a big problem. We have had more than a couple jobs where the wood in a brownstone was infested with termites.

Another interesting thing is using mycelium as soil remediation for those toxic New York gardens. How about the Gowanus Canal? Newton Creek? Mycelium would eat that up!

Check out this short clip to see what I mean: