U097671N Toh Kok Wah Jonathan

Reading Response – Week 2

In Mirko Zardini’s, “Think Different” in Sorry, Out of Gas, it explains how oil-
producing Arab countries decided to impose an embargo on USA and other
countries that sided Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. It decreased its output
by 5% each month and subsequently stopped altogether. This saw price of oil
quadruple in four months. Now oil was no longer just a natural resource, but an
economic entity and more importantly played as a weapon of political pressure.
The problem, however, created an opportunity to experiment for alternative
energy sources and radical architecture schemes towards energy conservation.

However as the tension subsided, parity was restored and it was a mad rush
back to the gas station. The good work that originated from the crisis seemed to
have faded into the background as oil was cheap again. The crisis seemed to be
averted, at least then.

As we face the problem of oil shortage today, we are dealt with a bigger problem.
The environment is deteriorating. The whole cycle of sourcing alternative energy
and conservation reaches a new peak. Personally, I feel that people only worry
about environmental issues when it threatens their immediate well being. In
good times, they assume that they are too insignificant to contribute by
conserving anyway, hence make no efforts to control the amounts they use. They
are quick assume that environmentalist who would come up with new solutions,
or simply delude themselves that the oil well would never run dry. They choose
to be oblivious to the imminent threat, being more concerned with fulfilling
current needs and leaving the problem to future generations. Nobody would
make genuine efforts to conserve when it is this easy to just consume and forget.

In David Gissen’s “Thermopolis: Conceptualizing Environmental Technologies in

the Urban Sphere”, it argues that the study of heating and cooling should no
longer be seen in isolation as a set of environmental studies. From the viewpoint
of historians of architectural environmental technologies, these studies have
created a thermal disconnection between interior and exterior space. And as we
move from passive to more efficient mechanical means to create thermal
comfort, we are inevitably widening the divide between the two. Historians also
claim that by creating indoor settings, we are depriving inhabitants the cultural
experience of heat, as we move away from natural rhythms and energy sources.

In this case, I feel the same way as I did towards the first article. Society would
always do what it is easiest or best in their interest even if it is altering their
surrounding climate for thermal comfort at the expense of the environment.
However, what we can learn is that a “One size fit all” alteration would not
suffice. Thermal comfort and the resulting alterations need to regional and site
relevant. Passive and mechanical design means can co-exist as long as it works in
the best interest of creating thermal comfort in the most economical manner.
There should always be consideration for the environment even when we are
balancing the dilemma between our endless needs and the finite resources.