We tend to associate ‘looking up’ with hope. ‘Down’ is quite the opposite. If we delve deep into the earth, we find dirty things, and eventually, at the Earth’s very core, it was once believed we would even find Hell.
However, if you were to ‘look up’ in a different sense-perhaps by looking down at one of the many screens in your life- you would be using a network that is largely based on one found underground. Yes, the inspiration for the internet lies in the dirt. In fact, the Wood Wide Web, as it is called, is one of the precursors to most life on earth.
It is a communication system for trees and offers a vast new industry for humans to explore. This dirt-clad network is called mycelia. Some might draw a connection with supermarket mushrooms, as these are mycelia’s above-ground reproductive organs. However it must be noted that ‘mushroom’ and ‘mycelium’ aren’t interchangeable terms.
To start with, mycelia are filled with even more opportunities (Can you believe it?). As the world continues to cope with multi-faceted issues, there is a growing need for practical solutions that address multiple goals. So what challenges could mycelia address?
Here are a few:
- Use of non-renewable resources in fashion
- Environmental impact of materials like concrete & steel
- Large use of energy attributed to buildings & structures
- High cost of insulation in buildings
- Etc.
Taking this into consideration, let’s zoom in a bit on one puzzle in particular: buildings. Indeed, buildings and the processes of creating and maintaining them, are one of the silent but hefty contributors to environmental destruction and socioeconomic oppression. Worldwide, they consume 3 billion tons of raw material each year, which is 40% of total global use. In addition to raw resources, on average 41% of global energy consumption can be attributed to buildings and structures.
But across history, buildings have contributed more than just destruction. In fact, the holistic goal of creating such structures is to provide shelter and protection. Houses are places that symbolize what it means to be ‘at home’. School buildings are a representation of the institutions of education. Without a new approach to building standards, the symbols these structures represent is at stake.
On top of this, there is a lack of affordable housing, which once again denies shelter and protection to those who need it. A combination of increasing property rates and decreasing wages only exacerbated the effects of this problem. This is crucial to alleviate poverty and improve literacy rate, quality of life, nutrition, and so on. So it is therefore vital that a solution be found to resolve both the socioeconomic and environmental threats of the current model.
So what is the conundrum here? Many factors must be taken into consideration when planning the construction of a building, a few of which are listed below:
- Thermal properties
- Structural properties & cost
- Energy implications
- Implications of mineral extraction to derive basic product
- Energy consequences of manufacturing/production process
- Toxicity
- Waste issues
- Distribution/transport
- Life cycle
The question is how to balance all these factors while also making sure you’re not losing money when selling or renting it out. Ultimately, there still needs to be a profit. While this seems like more of an economic issue, it is actually closely tied to the environmental footprint of each project. When there is less transport and energy consumption required, cost is driven down. A lower cost gives more people access to these spaces. So all in all, a win-win situation…hypothetically.
So to backtrack a bit, let’s analyze the main drivers of all this energy consumption. A large proportion of it comes from steel and concrete, which are used frequently in construction. Concrete is a highly versatile and effective material as is clear given that cement production is a 3rd ranking producer of anthropogenic CO2 in the world after transport and energy generation. Steel is similar. Data shows that every year that passes, the world produces enough steel to build an Eiffel Tower every three minutes.
On the other hand there is the newly emerging technology which enables mycelium to be used as a building material instead. It is 100% organic, compostable, and biodegradable. When dried, mycelium is also durable and resistant to water, mold, and fire. In addition to this, it can be used to regenerate at a quick rate. It also offers potential for 3D printing and boasts non-toxic, insulating, and all-natural properties. To be clear though, it is a nascent alternative which is still undergoing improvement. Nonetheless, it offers a promising solution to one of the world’s most quietly pressing issues.
Like all new technologies, mycelium needs more than just science to boost its popularity. It also needs money! With a growing interest in mycology that spans across fields, it is becoming more consequential to invest in these new technologies and companies. Not only is it important, but it is financially beneficial, as the mycology industry is growing quickly. To take just one example, companies like Ecovative have developed creative mycelium-based materials that can be used as alternatives to leather, plastic, meat, and more.
But the notion of ‘investing’ is a fuzzy one, and you don’t always need to give money in order to join the club of ‘investors’. Instead you could invest time, talent, or awareness. If none of these options are suitable, you could even just invest your acknowledgement. Yet above all, it is crucial to realize that even if we are not investors in the future, we are all invested in the outcome.
Bibliography
Eales, Aran. “6.2 Environmental Impact of Construction Materials.” Nottingham.ac.uk, 2020, rdmc.nottingham.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/internal/112/Engineering%20Sustailability/62_environmental_impact_of_construction_materials.html.
Greenspec. “Steel Production & Environmental Impact.” Www.greenspec.co.uk, Greenspec, 2021, www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/steel-products-and-environmental-impact/.
—. “The Environmental Impacts of Concrete.” Www.greenspec.co.uk, 2021, www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/environmental-impacts-of-concrete/.
Grove-Fanning, William. What Is Environmental Philosophy? 2010.
Mellish, Binyamin. Pexels, www.pexels.com/photo/blue-and-gray-concrete-house-with-attic-during-twilight-186077/. Accessed 19 Dec. 2021.
Mericskai, Dorina. “The Environmental Impact of Concrete in the Building Industry.” Mericskai Design, 14 Dec. 2021, www.mericskaidesign.com/post/the-environmental-impact-of-concrete-in-the-building-industry. Accessed 18 Dec. 2021.
Moiz, Mahwish. “The Lack of Affordable Housing – Facts, Statistics, and More.” CAUF Society, 21 June 2020, caufsociety.com/lack-of-affordable-housing/.
The World Counts. “The World Counts.” Www.theworldcounts.com, 2021, www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/planet-earth/mining/environmental-impact-of-steel-production/story.
Tunstall, Rebecca. “The Links between Housing and Poverty.” JRF, 18 Sept. 2017, www.jrf.org.uk/report/links-between-housing-and-poverty.
“Why.” Ecovative, ecovative.com/why. Accessed 19 Dec. 2021.
Winstead, Amanda. “The Environmental Impact of Building Materials.” EEBA, 20 Sept. 2021, www.eeba.org/the-environmental-impact-of-building-materials. Accessed 9 Dec. 2021.
Urbana Design, www.urbana-design.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Destacada-4.jpg. Accessed 19 Dec. 2021.
Leave a Reply