But no. I have decided that there are other publications and news sources that can cover and editorialize on that. We will talk about people taking action and changing the debate by doing what they do. So, let’s talk about the Underdome project. From their website: “Underdome is an architect’s guide to contending energy agendas.  A cross between an architectural handbook and a voter’s guide, the project maps approaches to energy management and performance to examine their implications for public life.  Underdome catalogs a spectrum of positions argued for by a diverse cast including economists, environmentalists, community advocates, political scientists, and designers. In turn, it highlights in architecture questions of professional agency, the contemporary city, and collective priorities in the face of uncertain energy futures. The Underdome guide invites designers to use their interpretations of energy as forms of political action—as votes for possible futures.”

(image courtesy of van alen institute.)

Beyond aesthetically pleasing and interesting data visualization, the project works to move the debate forward on how exactly we should live in cities in the era of planning for sustainability, and yes, it is because of climate change. Ranging from behavioral questions: do we volunteer or do we wait for the state to enforce? to questions that designers and urban planners have been debating for a long time: do we build distributed or compact cities?, the project ultimately questions how policy and design impact public life, which is a huge issue that gets relatively little air time. So projects that move our understanding of what climate science actually means for us, for Joe-6 pack, if you will, and how serious its impact may be, add new value to the debate over how to deal and design in the face of it. And that is a debate worthy of attention, in stark contrast to the debate over consensus.