I am getting real sick of a this green building talk. There is no such thing as green building, except for maybe living in a cave. Any time you build something you are doing some damage to the environment. Green just means more regulation and more cost to added to the housing industry. The only thing green does is add $$$$ to local municipalities and corporations claiming to be green.
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
FHB Podcast team chats about adding Larsen trusses to an existing stud-frame home with no additional sheathing.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
You aren't the only one who has heard enough.
In the local paper on the front page is the biggest crook I have ever heard of, he is going bankrupt to avoid large lumberyard bills on a semi annual basis. He is jumping on the bandwagon and the paper makes him out to be a local hero.
If people only knew how much he has stolen.
Woods favorite carpenter
yeah... the local hero here has been thru bankruptcy a couple times... now he's advising the local HBAMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Yep. Me too.
Now I have clients wanting to do renovations and have a "Green philosophy" or contrabution. Their idea is a concrete countertop.
My suggestion was for 2x6 walls and R-19 insulation/ more attic insulation.
They liked their idea better..............
It is a bandwagon but people still dont seem to want to put their money into responsible energy saving practices. (Arguably could be re-written as Green Practices)
I am miffed.
On the point of green = a new countertop for your clients , I think they would rather have a countertop because they can see it and touch it and while they are stroking there ego to show how green there thinking is and there friends and family would also see it , and therefore admire them for the special people they are. and just how green they really are. except that they would be spending money on cement instead of saving money on Oil Gas or electricity by insulating, Its too bad they didn't go with your suggestion.Carpentry and remodeling
Vic Vardamis
Bangor Me
Nothing "Green" about concrete countertops (unless it's still uncured). Tell your clients concrete manufacturing is extremely energy intensive and there are other alternatives that consume less resources.
I agree 100% Ted, but they aint listening. All I can do is present the information. It is up to them to take it and run with it. They have not so far. Nice people, just stuck with the idea that concrete countertops are their way of being environmentally responsible and stewards of conservation.
Whatever! I believe in conserving, not polishing a turd!
Anyway, they are teachers so at least there is hope for the next generation being open minded and forward thinking?!?!?
I pretty much agree. There is nothing green about being an average consuming North American. We're still using way, way too much.
"There is nothing green about being an average consuming North American."That's the whole philosophy of what green is about.
I agree about the green pilosphy it just does not fit in the building industry. We should be kind to our enviroment. What I am trying to point out is that "Green Building" is a scam. A selling tool for companies to charge more for the same thing.
Unfortunately I think the name "green" is going to be used as a scam and probably already is.
But the point and reasons behind what green building is, is not a scam. It makes good common sense, high efficiency, energy saving, things like solar passive, cleaner non polluting, working with the environment and not against it, materials and designs that are made to last several lifetimes...this is what it's about. That's no scam. That's happening. Some of these techniques are hundreds or thousands of years old and they have been overridden by much of the housing industry in the last 60 years (think boom years) or so in for the quick, slap it up, make a fast buck housing that dots so much of our landscape today. Are the wasteful, live-for-the-moment minds ready for all that? Maybe some, a lot of others, no. They're not. Probably the biggest reason being is that it ain't cheap.
So, they will have their concrete counter tops in lieu of higher efficient heaters and more insulation.I wonder if the '72 Rothchildes they'll be having at their soirée will stain that counter top and how can they get it out?!!
There is no such thing as green building, except for maybe living in a cave.
I agree that "green" is too vague a term and is as often misused as used responsibly. And you're right that it's become a sales slogan both for reputable and disreputable manufacturers, suppliers and builders.
I prefer the term "sustainable", as applied to building or any other human activity.
A sustainable building material or system is one which is durable enough to outlast the time it takes for the Earth to repair its impacts. Obviously, the smaller the impacts, the easier to meet this standard.
A bigger problem is whether the current human population and human culture is sustainable, regardless of how responsibly we build or live our lives.
Solar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
You could not have said it better.
>>I am getting real sick of a this green building talk. There is no such thing as green building, except for maybe living in a cave.
You don't think there are degrees and options: it's either environmental barbarism or back to the cave days?
I believe there are hues of green and hues of "green building."
May your whole life become a response to the truth that you've always been loved, you are loved and you always will be loved" Rob Bell, Nooma, "Bullhorn"
"We Live" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kuBgh0VCqI&mode=related&search
And Annie Ross's "Twisted" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lqivrCIRGo&mode=related&search=
Just add a wrinkle to the conversation...
I heard on a program once that the "greenest" environments are actually congested cities. The amount of materials and space used per person is kept at a minimum. While the "green" folks living out in the suburban and rural areas are using the most per person.
Geez. I hate to admit it but it makes sense that densely populated cities are more green. I do agree that wanton urban spraw is not the best way to go, but in some areas, that is the only way they want you to build.
I would like to continue walking down the road of responsible building, doing what I can where I can to make good decisions and to coax others along with me.
"I heard on a program once that the "greenest" environments are actually congested cities. The amount of materials and space used per person is kept at a minimum. While the "green" folks living out in the suburban and rural areas are using the most per person.I heard on a program once that the "greenest" environments are actually congested cities. The amount of materials and space used per person is kept at a minimum. While the "green" folks living out in the suburban and rural areas are using the most per person."I don't agree, at least completely.It depends more on the persons.In the city everything for daily living needs to be brought in from a distance.In the country they can grow there own food and heat. And collect rain water, and get electric from solar..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
In the country they can grow there own food and heat. And collect rain water, and get electric from solar.
What you can do and what people actually do are two very different things.
When my DW and I lived in our townhouse, we rarely had to turn up our heat. The neighbors places kept us warm enough (we like it on the colder side) The same thing holds true for large apartments. To keep a couple of hundred people warm all at once is greener than keeping one hundred individual homes warm. I can also drive one truck to one store to feed hundreds instead of driving to numerous places to feed a few.
I know tons of people that live in the city and don't own a car, or maybe they just own one between a couple. They don't drive because everything is local.
Just because an environment doesn't "look" green (meaning a dirty, populated city) doesn't mean that it isn't green.
that the "greenest" environments are actually congested cities. The amount of materials and space used per person is kept at a minimum. While the "green" folks living out in the suburban and rural areas are using the most per person.
Exactly.
If the goal is simply to force every ine to consume the least amount, then centralization has no peer. You force everyone to live in the same spot for a given job; then concentrate all those jobs in one spot, well, the transportation gets to use economy of scale. While you are at it, concentrate all the supply and refuse points, points too.
You could get most of the US population into an area not that much bigger than Stillwater to OKC and still have a population density in the NYC-Tokyo range. Since everyone would be concentrated into highrises, there's no "waste" for mown lawns, or runoff from herbicides, or even "waste" from lawn irrigation.
Ok, that much green would be a tad tough on those who would live free from another's let; or those capable of tolerating indentured con-dominium ownership of a bit of land, that, one day, they might call it their own. Liberty is not always "green."
That is not to say that sensible sustainable practice should not be followed, or that it should not be rightfully applauded--it should. However, the reality is that the great wheel does turn, even if not noticed by mayfly Man, but turn it does. "We" no longer build houses without insulation; a drafty house is an anathema. Things change. Coal ash and cinders do not precipitate out down wind in the cold weather as they once did.
The real trick of it is in balance. There's a very large "inertial mass" of extant houses out there (and a considerable number of notable and historic ones, too). Balance is hard--sound-bite rhetoric is easy. It's very easy to be suspicious of any big box store (electronics, food, building materials, whatever) buying big banners proclaiming to be "Green!"Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I heard on a program once that the "greenest" environments are actually congested cities. The amount of materials and space used per person is kept at a minimum. While the "green" folks living out in the suburban and rural areas are using the most per person.
You're quite right that the suburbs, created by our private automobile economy, are the most wasteful of human habitations. And cities have an edge only because it's possible to get around without a private vehicle.
But the ecological footprint of city dwellers is larger in every other way because of the massive infrastructure necessary for their survival and because almost everything they need must be imported, particularly food.
In fact, the very definition of a city is a human ecosystem that grossly exceeds the carrying capacity of its local environment. Hardly "green".
A social organization which is largely self-sufficient and gets its needs met locally is the most "green", and the epitome of this is the traditionaly rural village.
Edited 2/7/2008 1:27 am ET by Riversong
I am a great believer in the capitalist system. It has served us well in the past and will in the future if not bent too far out of shape by politicians. If materials that you need are cheap and high quality that's the one to use. It serves no purpose to buy locally if you must pay a higher price.
If too many people buy too many houses at too high a price soon a day of reckoning will come and the prices will become more realistic.
I believe that nature has a way of rotting everything. Given enough time a tree that fell over in the woods will rot and emit all it's material to the air or the soil. If you build a house with it you got some use out of it. That would be green to me. If you burn it and it made you comfortable for a time, that would be green to me. If it rots out there in the deep forest it would pollute the earth slower but the exact same amount. That would be green to the greenies though.
Tell me, [no don't] what good are organizations like greenpeace? They head for the headlines and make a big stink as long as a camera is on them, then they go out and spend the money that the misguided widows sent them. Women live 10 years longer than men and some are left with a pile of dough. If they had no chidren and don't trust their relatives, they are easy targets for these organizations. I'll include the animal rights people in this also. These old gals are easily duped and can die thinking they did some good when what they did is make some crooks very rich.
So now I'm gonna hide behind a big healthy tree for a while.
What does that have to do with green building????
>>I am a great believer in the capitalist system. It has served us well in the past and will in the future if not bent too far out of shape by politicians.Or by the capitalists - you know, the ones whose excesses led to the anti-trust laws; the pollution of so many of our streams, rivers and skies; to the consumer protection laws; the SEC laws on disclosure, and so on and so on.
May your whole life become a response to the truth that you've always been loved, you are loved and you always will be loved" Rob Bell, Nooma, "Bullhorn"
"We Live" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kuBgh0VCqI&mode=related&search
And Annie Ross's "Twisted" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lqivrCIRGo&mode=related&search=
Or by the capitalists - you know, the ones whose excesses led to the anti-trust laws; the pollution of so many of our streams, rivers and skies; to the consumer protection laws; the SEC laws on disclosure, and so on and so on.
you might make a list of all the great things governments have done... the industry they have created... the innovations... the medical research...
you my friend must live a very sad world where all you see is evil all around ...big bad evil... out to get you.... that you can see all this so clearly.... i don't know how you sleep...
p
Whoa, where did that come from? Since when are most widows left with a pile of dough, and since when were those widows that WERE left with any money (often made by their own hard work) clueless about when or where to spend it?
I sometimes read breaktime to relax, but never feel like jumping in with a comment. You, however, have caused me to make a break with my past habit.
hey born...now that you got your feet wet... don't hold back
welcome to your new status as poster !Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Ouch, maybe I touched a nerve. I just don't have respect for the greenness of organizations like Greenpeace and other radical outfits that line their pockets with any easy prey they can hoodwink and turn their wallets green.
I am a great believer in the capitalist system. It has served us well in the past and will in the future if not bent too far out of shape by politicians.
I guess you're a believer, then, in sweatshops, child labor, 12-hour work days, Pinkerton mercenaries slaughtering striking workers, poisoning the air and water, and all the other wonderful byproducts of capitalism.
And you must then be opposed to health and safety legislation, anti-trust laws, the EPA, the 8-hour workday, overtime pay, anti-discrimination statutes, and all that busybody politicians have imposed on capitalism.
If materials that you need are cheap and high quality that's the one to use.
Even if that means it was made by child labor in third world sweatshops. As long as it saves you a buck, then why should you care?
It serves no purpose to buy locally if you must pay a higher price.
No reason to support your neighbors and your community and the local economy since you probably make a good living servicing out-of-state second home owners.
I just don't have respect for the greenness of organizations like Greenpeace and other radical outfits that line their pockets with any easy prey they can hoodwink and turn their wallets green.
Why should you respect people who risk their lives to protect the environment? You only seem to respect getting what you can while you can and looking out for number 1.
So now I'm gonna hide behind a big healthy tree for a while.
Tough luck. Without Greenpeace and those animal rights activists, there won't be any trees left to hide behind.
What kind of a system of government would you like since capitalism is so bad?Didn't you notice that the whole world is now run by it. Even Chinese communism has accepted it. Did you notice how it has improved their lot? You betcha I take care of # 1. I wish everyone else would. I was admiring your building knowledge but your politics-----Pheeew.Why do all those people from all those happier countries you mention try to come here?And PS--- I got nothing against green. I love green. I was green before you were born. But I'm doing a lot of wondering how much we should pay for somebody elses thoughts of green and what it is.
I'm glad I opted out of the Tavern. If the "Green Building" folder is this bad, I can't imagine what the 'shed is right about now.Cabin fever setting in?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
"I'm glad I opted out of the Tavern. If the "Green Building" folder is this bad, I can't imagine what the 'shed is right about now."All love and peace..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
All the consternation must have been because of me, huh?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
What kind of a system of government would you like since capitalism is so bad?
Perhaps it's been too long since you took Civics, but capitalism is an economic system NOT a form of government. However, as you point out, it's taken over the world and now has become a defacto political system since it has created such extravagant wealth for a few that the elites have bought and paid for our government as well as most others.
What's amazing is that a system based on the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many has bamboozled so many ordinary people into believing their mythology and being happy with the few bones they throw us, that - as you rightly say - the world's poor and desperate are flocking to the US to get their piece of the pie.
What nobody seems to notice - or care about - is that the US has the largest disparity of wealth at any time in its history since the 1920s and the middle class and working folk are struggling more than ever to keep up with the demands of our consumer lifestyle. Record layoffs and outsourcing, record foreclosures, record deficit and national debt, record personal debt and zero savings...
The house of cards is starting to come tumbling down. I'd keep a close eye on your retirement savings and the Social Security Trust Fund.
Edited 2/22/2008 2:48 pm ET by Riversong
again you are using unsubstantiated facts, or myths as you prefer to call them. You are a good resource for us when it comes to building, but your FEELINGS, are not based in reality.
Man, are you way out there!
Russell
"Welcome to my world"
I'm pretty sure I and more than a few others on this board were be'n "green" way before it was cool... (not that we weren't always cool)
in my minds eye... very little you can do thats more "green" than reuse'n something that has already been manufactured.... I think Junkhound might have me beat... but i know i have reused more materials than most ever will use...
not only reuse'n but getting the most use out of something has to be way up on the list... maintaining a car or truck and getting 500k out of it... has to be way better than buy'n something new that is "green"
I think most here are not the type that buys into disposable anything...
p
I agree. I think there is merit to the statement made earlier about city living. One of the "greenest " things a builder can do is to rehab old buildings. IMO Most infrastructure to support the buildings already exists and new buildings built in the sticks require much more money for new infrastructure to serve them . One problem I have seen before (since starting out in the early 70's building solar dwellings) is that once a basic movement moves into the capitalistic market phase of promotion and advertising that the good of the movement takes second place to profit making. I have seen it in active solar, passive solar, "environmentally friendly finishes" and now Leed and Green building. When it moves beyond those who do it from the heart for those that care and into the "This is the newest selling point " then it all goes down hill fast.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
very little you can do thats more "green" than reuse'n something that has already been manufactured....
It's a lot more "green" to use something that you made yourself, and it's "greener" yet to not use something at all - just do without.
It's a lot more "green" to use something that you made yourself...
I'm not on junkhounds level... but if i make something myself... you can pretty well bet whatever i used to "make it myself".... had a former life as something else...
no reason to do without... none... nada...
p
"no reason to do without... none... nada... "
Old Yankee adage:
Use it up, wear it out, made do, or do without.
View Image
everything on earth mas made from something on earth, except a couple moon rocks, so its not pollution but moving from one place to another..two ways to screw up concrete 1) concrete driver 2) concrete finisher
Are you serious??Live by the sword, die by the sword....choose your sword wisely.
i have done so much with so little for so long... I'm now able to do anything with nothing...
anything i ever really wanted I got... it just might have taken 10 years longer than i'd have liked... oh yeah.... and i might have wanted it when it was new... but when i got it... it was only "new" to me
p
Edited 2/6/2008 11:10 pm ET by ponytl
Riversong, been advocating sustainability in construction for as long as I can remember. Had some success but its a tough road to travel as you know. And most folks just want to know how much it will cost and will my house look different, which gets old real fast.
Query x 2. Have you ever heard of or read (or have on your shelf) the book, "Other Homes and Garbage"? Published by the Sierra Club in the late '70's. Incredible resource back then. And, of course, much has changed (improved).
Your humble opinion with regard to the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program that is currrently being pushed as the newest rating method for "green" building stuff? In my profession, architecture, it's becoming a cliche, but necessary for future work.
At your convenience.
ciao, ted
most folks just want to know how much it will cost and will my house look different
This is the paradigm that really needs to shift - from bottom line financial accounting to top of the line ecological accounting. Penny wise and pound foolish applies to all our lifestyle (and home style) choices.
Have you ever heard of or read (or have on your shelf) the book, "Other Homes and Garbage"?
I think I have that book buried away in a box somewhere, along with Goodbye to the Flush Toilet. Those were fertile and fluid times - now we're in the sophisticated phase of "green".
Your humble opinion with regard to the LEED program
I think it's a good thing to have some kind of national standard for what is sold as "green", and that it's consensus-based makes it better grounded, perhaps. But third-party certification works for big builders, not the once-in-a-while guys like me. And I suspect that, as with any consensus project, it's a bit conservative. The Vermont Builds Greener network, unsatisfied with LEEDS, is developing its own certification standard: http://www.bsr-vt.org/vbg/VBG_Scorecard.pdf
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Thanks for the comeback.
I think the shift you spoke of will occur. Almost has to. But until a new home owner has some option (that is well considered and presented by someone other than a realtor[offence meant!] ) other than the row upon row of mcMansions well.....they'll buy for the appearance and location.
I have a builder who's interested in doing a "green" housing development. Still in the incubator. I would like to believe that with more than a bit of forethought we can present a viable option. I think the first one out of the blocks may be the biggest winner.
VBG. I'll be doing my usual late night reading. Quick scan of the checklist and the square footage point system. A lot of what's in there goes to community and cooperation as well as efficient thoughtful construction.
ciao, ted
Yeah, I'm tired of hearing it too. I guess my old house is greeen. It's insulated well, got a 90+ efficient furnace. What makes it green is the size. It's a cape, 24x32, with a basement. About the size of a mcmansion "great room".
24 x 32 is too small for a McMansion great room.
I'm with you - I think a lot of the green building marketing is just hype.
JimNever underestimate the value of a sharp pencil or good light.
You are right on with your house being green. Just the fact that your house is older makes it green in my opinion. The point I am trying to make is that you can not build a new house or building and concider it good for the enviorment, no matter what kind of products you use. I agree some methods are more efficient and materials more sustatiable but they still harm the planet
I agree fully that the marketing and sales industries often mislead consumers and there is an over use of the term "green". Many times it's a gross exaggeration at best and fraud at worst.
That said, to completely dismiss the entire concept displays an ignorant opinion.
Society is not going to stop constructing new buildings, nor do I believe it should. There are however methods and materials that can be used which are more environmentally friendly, have less impact, and are more sustainable then others.
"Green Building" is not so much about not impacting the environment as it is about doing so in as responsible and sustainable of a way as possible.
Sustainability being the key concept.
I am not dismissing the whole concept of "green" just pointing out that it is being used as a tool by cooperation and governments for the purpose of greed. Sheeple buy a product that is labeled green and that makes them sleep better at night. Case in point MDF is considered green, but the manufacturing process uses all kinds of nasty chemicals. Its not only bad for the environment but the dust from cutting this material VERY BAD for your own health. They do not even know what the long term effects of using material are. Kind of like that miracle product from the 50's called asbestos.
I am not dismissing the whole concept of "green" just pointing out that it is being used as a tool by cooperation and governments for the purpose of greed.
Is there anything that isn't used as a tool by corporations and governments for the purpose of greed? Certainly the military is used that way, so would you declare the military to be bogus? Medicine? Highways?
If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader
You are comparing apples and oranges. I am talking about building houses not military, medicine or highways. Just saying that some peoples concept of green is not really green at all This is my thread I will talk all I want : )~
Same can be said for medicine. Heck of a lot of junk medicine out there, much of it coming from the "establishment".
If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader
I could not agree more. I started this thread to vent frustration over people patting themselves on the back for being green when they have no concept of what green means. Green = Sustainability + Low environmental impact or footprint. That being said your house is as green as it gets. Efficient with small footprint. Its the couple with no kids that build 4000s/f house with questionable green material that think they are kind to the earth that I was pointing at. They buy into cooperate marketing garbage with out any research into the product.
No different really than herbal teas and fancy oriental-sounding veggies in your salad. There're always people who'll be attracted to whatever is the fashion of the day.After all, pickup trucks, ATVs, NASCAR, et al are also pretty much just fashion, only playing to a different audience. How many people would follow, say, football if they hadn't been raised on it, and if their buddies didn't follow it too? Probably not that many.But none of this makes a decent cup of coffee less satisfying, or makes a pickup less useful to someone in a trade. (Or, for that matter, makes a well-executed 3rd-down play any less a work of art.) Any reasonable activity can be overdone to the point of stupidity.
If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader
I saw an interview with Jerry Seinfeld once. He sums it up pretty good.
This is even true for our homes. The trick is to keep things out of the landfill for as long as possible.
"The trick is to keep things out of the landfill for as long as possible."
The trick is to never put anything in a landfill.
Nature has no concept of waste - everything is food for something else. It was we clever humans who invented waste - use it up and throw it out, and waste the environment in the process.
Maybe buying less oil from our good friends in Iran and Saudi Arabia by installing an efficient heating system is part of the liberal plot against American business, but I still think it's a good idea.
Maybe buying less oil from our good friends in Iran and Saudi Arabia
we get a very small percentage of our oil from Arab countries... mostly we buy it from friends to north and friends from the south...
the real fact is BTU per BTU generated... Oil will be our main fuel for a very long time... it just works that good...
using less of it... and make'n better use of the oil we do use... are always good things on many fronts...
p
Then don't talk about it.
While watching a popular home improvement show, TOH, the mechanical expert extolled the virtue of the heating system's capability to heat the HOUSE! The HOUSE doesn't need to be kept warm, the inhabitants do.
For example, in Japan, the homes are not insulated like in the US. Yet they are exposed to the same cold and snow conditions found in the US. When they're cold, they wear more clothes, heavier bedding, use small heaters near the eating table, etc. while the rest of the house is cold. Why heat the entire home just because you want a warm room when you enter it?
Most of the "green" techniques involved energy conservation. Want to conserve energy? Just don't use any to begin with.
I totally agree with you. So many people think they are being "green" buy using all these fancy building materials and methods. One thing I never could understand is when people build a new house and make it so air tight that they have to install an air exchanger. What is so green about that?? They are adding more material, more cost, more manufacturing and all the while using more energy. When to truly be more "green" they could do with out all that ####, turn the thermostat down and use a blanket or put on more clothing.
LOL, it didn't take you long to figure out how to stir the pot!
The green movement is just another in a series of "alternative" building styles. It's basically a continuation of the energy movement that started after the oil embargo and the ensuing cultural shock that accompanied it. It now has taken on additional concerns such as taking on the chemical components of the building process.
It's kind of a natural progression: tighten the envelope and the poison gases actually matter. They were present before that but the houses were so drafty that it didn't really matter.
I worked on the first experiemental passive solar system for Detroit Edison in MI. They learned a lot: mainly that they didn't know much. We all know a lot more.
Currently, I live in Austin and they claim to be the greenest big city in America. They LOVE green building. When I started looking into it, I realized that most of is is just common sense and a lot of the stuff we did forever back in MI would qualify as "green friendly".
In any event, Austin not only embraces the movment but they actually will give tax credits for using energy efficient techniques. They are putting their money where their mouth is.
We are interested in the green building process even if it's "hype". To us, and to our clients, it's real and we'll acommodate them and their wishes to the best of our abilities. There's no sense fighting it because it can't hurt in most cases...like I said, most of it is common sense. I gotta go check to see which green building association we joined.....
Tankless water tanks...walkout basements...here we come!
Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
I am all for efficiency and the environment. I just have grown weary of all the green talk. It just seems to be a buzz word nowadays. The latest fad people are doing to make themselves feel better about building that 5000 s/f house. The Corporations have caught on to that and are using green as a marketing tool. You and I both know the only green they care about is in the C.E.O.'s pocket. I just wanted people to really think about it, instead of buying into all the garbage that is being put out there.
I just wanted people to really think about it, instead of buying into all the garbage that is being put out there.
There's garbage, and then there's a lot of good compost. The trick is knowing the difference.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Finally someone who gets it.
So are you suggesting that no one talk about green anymore and just go back to building their 5000 sf homes without any consideration for initiatives that might conserve energy, eliminate off gases, etc.?Do you see the dilemma? There was no substantial "green" movement or talk ten years ago. Is that what you propose? Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Is it really green? What I mean is alot of things we say are green really pollutes more to manufacture than what we are saving using it. The manufactures are not going to tell us the whole story. Green manufactures still only like one color green.
Best green building is to get rid of the 5000SF.
Russell
"Welcome to my world"
PS: Global warming does not exist!
Edited 2/9/2008 10:38 am ET by Huntdoctor
Not at all, we should very well discuss it. This is the whole reason I originally posted. I just think that people are getting off track as to what green really is. People are being misled by corporate marketing and some government officials.
Al Gore is a perfect example of this. That guy is far form green. He buys carbon credits to off set the energy usage for his multiple houses, (WTF does that do) not to mention all the material that was used to build those houses. If he really, cared he would live in only one house, smaller in size, built to be efficient. And I mean efficient by using common sense. Not by using a bunch of mass produced gadgets that do more harm to the environment in production and transportation, than they recouped in energy savings in a house.
Same thing with Hybrid cars, we are told they are green. Are they? How much damage does the production of those batteries do to the environment? What happens to those batteries when they wear out? How much energy does it take to recycle them? What happens to them when new technology comes along and renders them useless? Do they just go to the junk yard? I don't have these answers, but I don't hear these questions being asked either.
You see what I mean, I think we are being sold brown instead of green. People think things are green, because their told they are green. Problem is they just don't think.
Edited 2/9/2008 4:13 pm ET by Bridge_Dog
bridge..... yu certainly pracitise what u preach.... i mean u didn't waste a single bit of white space in your post
<<<<
Not at all, we should very well discuss it. This is the whole reason I originally posted. I just think that people are getting off track as to what green really is. People are being misled by corporate marketing and some government officials. Al Gore is a perfect example of this. That guy is far form green. He buys carbon credits to off set the energy usage for his multiple houses, (WTF does that do) not to mention all the material that was used to build those houses. If he really, cared he would live in only one house, smaller in size, built to be efficient. And I mean efficient by using common sense. Not by using a bunch of mass produced gadgets that do more harm to the environment in production and transportation, than they recouped in energy savings in a house. Same thing with Hybrid cars, we are told they are green. Are they? How much damage does the production of those batteries do to the environment? What happens to those batteries when they wear out? How much energy does it take to recycle them? What happens to them when new technology comes along and renders them useless? Do they just go to the junk yard? I don't have these answers, but I don't hear these questions being asked either. You see what I mean, I think we are being sold brown instead of green. People think things are green, because their told they are green. Problem is they just don't think.>>>>>
how am i supposed to read that ?
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
With your eyes. I some times get exicted and rambel.
slow down , son....
the ENTER key is yur frenMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
LOL I get it after looking at my post it does look kind of smashed. Just trying not to be wasteful. I would hate to run out of white space too : )
I fixed it. Please read again. That enter key is an amazing tool.
wow... like night & day..... thanks
now if i could only teach one of my sisters about the enter key..
i've got a whole 3 years worth of emails that are each 5 pages , single spaced, no punctuation.... that i've never read past the 2d sentence
only thing worse is when she uses snail mail
oh wellMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Jim Allen,
You wrote, "There was no substantial 'green' movement or talk ten years ago." You must be a relatively young guy. I'm an old fart. In the 1970s we were building passive solar houses, superinsulated houses, double-wall houses, yurts, handbuilt houses out of recycled materials. We used to collect our windows at the town dump and pick up our boards at demolition sites, pull up hardwood flooring from old builidngs no one cared about. Oh, right, now I remember -- they called those "hippie houses," not "green construction."
I belive we can all realize the term "green" has become a marketing buzzword to some extent and thats pathetic.
Its the ones who go out and purchace new applinaces to save energy and put working ones in the landfill to save 20.00 a year.
How is throwing out perfectly good materieals to be replace with new ones that have to be harvested, manufactured, transported, sold good for the enviroment.
People shouldnt feel guilty because their single pane with storms windows arent energy star rated if they are in good condition they function efficantlly.
Marketing stratigies just found a new cause to get people to spend more money.
BTW I make a living because people want to improve their homes, but the whole concept that has developed recently is shamefull-recyling is obviously the greenest we can get.
If its time for a new water heater go tankless dont polute just to be trendy
Also I mostly just read post and never replied but this is an important issue to me and agree with the post heading
I'm a young fart too and i lived through the passive solar craze that was created with federal tax credits. In all those years, I never heard the term "green" till last year. Also, I qualified my statement by using the term "substantial". The movement that you speak of has had more of a cult following rather than a "substantial" following. I think we're talking semantics and I think neither is righter or wronger. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
The powers that be had to relabel the old hippie solar, energy efficient, recycle movement because of right wing , middle america, bible thumpin, born again republican opposition to the old hippies. can't have had those old dope smokers be right after all these years yanno. Make us and our consume all ya want , there is enough to last forever attitudes look bad iffen we gave them any credit. Besides green is the color of money .
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
After a few years of reading, rereading, pondering, discussing, going to meetings, joining Green Building Guilds...I have to agree that all this labeling is very confusing.
For me, the single biggest stumbling block remains the disconnect between what I think of as "natural building" and what is commonly termed "green building".
I think we have to get to the idea of building the best buildings we can. That provide healthy indoor environments for the occupants, minimize the impacts on the environment, and last for generations. If a building doesn't do that, it doesn't matter is it's LEED or Energy Star certified or called Green or Low Impact or whatever.
I will say, though, that all this buzz about "Green Building" IS raising awareness, stimulating discussion, causing people to at least stop and consider these issues. I think that's good.
I'll eat your peaches, mam. I LOVE peaches!
Just walked past an "empty" lot where once a large house from the 30s stood, just last week. Considered a tear down, apparently, looks like nothing was salvaged. I asked around, nobody even took out a single handmade "Deco" tile as a reminder. Small lot sold for $2.6 million. New cement block construction will soon be visible; next year it'll be all stucco and palladium windows with water views from upstairs rooms. And to my mind, ugly.Stopping the waste, reusing, making most of what we have, consolidating to save energy and resources - that NEEDS to be continuing dialog. We need to show by example. Easier to go the other way, never minding any harm done for the sake of convenience or popularity.The satisfaction of rescuing an old well-built building, cleaning the old boards, refitting vintage doors, making a cabinet out of old glass windows - nothing beats that. And it's not new. It's what frugal, caring, thinking folk have been doing since they figured out it is the way to go.Carry on, guys.
They probably would have given you that structure if you had asked for it. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
We'll be starting a super insulated house later this spring and while going over the plans with a couple of engineers they were saying how our method of building would qualify for a variety of energy efficient ratings and how great that would be.
So I ask, if the building is physically as good without the ratings, what tangible advantage would the client have to paying a couple $k to have the house formally rated? None.
Beer was created so carpenters wouldn't rule the world.
One question for you. How much damage and energy does the production of that super insulation cost the enviroment? I am not saying you are wrong by building this way. Just think about it.
Insulation is the only part of a building that will pay for itself. If that's green then I'm all for it.
Beer was created so carpenters wouldn't rule the world.
Insulation is the only part of a building that will pay for itself.
So will hard-wired compact fluorescent lighting fixtures. So will a high-efficiency heating plant. So will efficient windows and doors. And, if you consider appliances part of a building, then so will Energy Star appliances.
And, if you consider ALL the costs of a building - including the many environmental costs - then any "green" building material or method will pay for itself.
What we don't figure into our "cost-benefit" analyses is the dollar value of the services that nature offers us for free, including the filtering of water, the provision of rain, the production of oxygen and removal of carbon dioxide, the provision of food and medicines, the recycling of our wastes, etc...
An estimated annual average value of nature's services to humanity is $38 trillion, roughly the size of the annual GNPs of all countries in the world.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
So will hard-wired compact fluorescent lighting fixtures. So will a high-efficiency heating plant. So will efficient windows and doors. And, if you consider appliances part of a building, then so will Energy Star appliances.
Those things are close, but only if you are talking a piece of #### compared to a good one. By the time they are worn out and need replacement, few of them will save enough to cover their true up front cost. Sure they save money, but they aren't "free" such as is the case with insulation.
I'm not making this up, but rather basing it on the proven results shown in high efficency, lowest cost of ownership buildings.
Yep, insulation is still the only free building material.
Good building
Beer was created so carpenters wouldn't rule the world.
Sure they save money, but they aren't "free" such as is the case with insulation.
I'm not making this up
Sorry, but you're making this up. I teach sustainable design and building and I have all the numbers to demonstrate the payback of efficiency investments.
And insulation ain't any more "free" than any other building material.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
and I have all the numbers to demonstrate the payback of efficiency investments.
Almost all the numbers people throw around are pretty short term and don't consider the life expectancy of the materials in question. Look at 100 years and many of the products don't look all that great.
I'm sure you can look at your numbers and declare without a doubt that furnace A will save $xx over furnace B, but if the emphasis is placed on insulation either original choice is grossly over capacity (expensive).
On the high performance houses I've been involved with, many times guys will try to sell one product over another based on construction completely different from what we're building and their numbers don't mean squat.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of high effiency appliances and whatnot, but there is still no better deal than insulation.
Good building
Beer was created so carpenters wouldn't rule the world.
Almost all the numbers people throw around are pretty short term and don't consider the life expectancy of the materials in question.
My numbers (and those of anyone who knows what they're doing), are based on the lifecycle costs and benefits of any material or method. Those are numbers you can - literally - take to the bank.
but there is still no better deal than insulation.
Actually the only "free" investment in a house is passive solar design. And it's amazing that so few builders employ it anymore.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
So I ask, if the building is physically as good without the ratings, what tangible advantage would the client have to paying a couple $k to have the house formally rated?
A number of possible advantages:
some banks now offer higher income-to-debt ratios on a mortgage for a certified energy-efficient house because the homeowner can afford a slightly larger mortgage payment offset by utility savings
some certification programs return subsidies and incentives instead of charging money, particularly mandated utility-based programs
there might be federal and/or state tax incentives for certified homes
It's what frugal, caring, thinking folk have been doing since they figured out it is the way to go.
You tell 'em, sister!
Use it up, wear it out, make do, or do without.
View Image
Edited 2/11/2008 4:28 pm ET by Riversong
That is exactically what it's all about. Many will argue with me on this, but I submit that the houses built in 1950's are greener than todays.
Many will argue with me on this, but I submit that the houses built in 1950's are greener than todays
In some ways, they were - more natural and local materials, more craftmanship, better aesthetics.
<<<<
Many will argue with me on this, but I submit that the houses built in 1950's are greener than todays
In some ways, they were - more natural and local materials, more craftmanship, better aesthetics
>>>>
nah....
sucky windows & doors, crappy roofing material, little or no insulation,
other than that... pretty good lumber....
craftsmanship... no better or worse that i see today
let's not romanticize the homes of the 50's , pleaseMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I say that because people back then built what they needed not what they wanted. No walk in closets, wasted space so on an so forth. A house was shelter not a statement.
bs....
the closets were too shallow, not enough of them... there was usually one elec. outlet per room
most had coal burning ( bituminous ) furnaces
a lot had asbestos cement siding
the kitchens and baths had asbestos vinyl tile
the paint was all lead based
all the pipes in the basement were wrapped with asbestos
c'mon......
nothing green about them
as for "local materials" again
bs
most of the houses built in the east were build with pacific northwest lumber that came in on ships around the horn or thru the canal
the rest were built with PNW lumber that came in on trains
cement is never local... neither is steel, copper, or lead
neither is paint
in New England .. most brick is not local
so again... let's not make this stuff up , they were nice houses , but they wre hard to maintain, drafty, full of lead & asbestos
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike I did not make myself clear. You are right about the materials. Although nobody knew about the hazards of asbestos. Just like we may not know about all these other things we put in our houses today What health and environmental problems they may cause tomorrow.
My point about 50's houses (I pulled that date out of my azz) people did not need these big s/f houses. When I was in residential construction I framed monster houses 7000-10000 s/f for 2 occupants. Now that's just wasteful.
I just made a drive by statment. I didn't mean for it to ba a fact. Man I won't do that again. BTW how do like my use of the enter key. : 0 )
Edited 2/11/2008 5:12 pm ET by Bridge_Dog
hey, bridge..
good ENTER
nah... keep the comments flowing.... i just get crotchety sometimes.. especially in February... and it's safer to come here and pick a fight than it is at home with Helen
she wins them all
i do know what you are talking about
across the bay there are lots of mansions built before the income tax.. they are only standing now because the Newport Historical Society has taken them over and gives tours to the tourists
the other ones have mostly been converted to condominiums
perhaps that's how the 10,000 - 12,000 sf ones you built will wind up
our town went from a sleepy farm town on an island with some large summer mansions and 1200 people
to a working man's town..
to a wealthy community.. the 2-bedrooms are all being bought as tear-downs
to make way for 6000 sf monsters
i have no idea what the people who build them think they are going to do with the rest of their lives
i do know they will be intimately involved with landscapers, builders, plumbers, electricians, appliance repairmen, painters , adn gargae door repairmen
i often wonder if any of them have a clue as to how much work is going to be involved in maintaining those houses and households
when houses were built here in the '80's they made a quantum leap in size to about 2800 sf
i thought they were everything some could ever want
ok.. maybe 3600 sf
but they soon blew thru those
there is one on the water here... 18,000 sf with a full catering kitchen in the basement so the caterers can take care of the special functions
oh well... here's hoping they wind up paying all the property tax
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
You are riYou are right about the materials. Although nobody knew about the hazards of asbestos.
Complicated by the fact that there's really two kinds of asbestos fiber--not that you find many juries aware of the fact.
Just like we may not know about all these other things we put in our houses today
Yep, or the newly-noticed fact that a good deal of the asbestos remediation previously done may have made things worse, not better--the 'safer' fibers having become the high-risk smaller fibers as a result of the remediation. Oops. Oh, yeah, we also sealed up all those pesky air leaks in a subsequent project, so the fibers are less likely to be removed (and may even concentrate).
What health and environmental problems they may cause tomorrow.
Which has been nagging at me a bit--to no good end. Like, if we better used storage mass for more efficient heating and cooling, could we "tolerate" less-modern infiltration rates for the benefit of the fresher air exchange? That's daft on the face of it, maybe--but dragging all the air in a structure through a HRV is more logical?
Balance, more and more, looks like the key thing. Are people more sensitive to more things because those things are more concentrated in our structures? There's a question to raise that will get you invited off the green cocktail party circuit.
Balance is also a problem. It takes effort. It can require skill. I wants at least some practice. Makes it tough to convert into a "quick fix." Hard to get that non-biodegradable banner for one's store proclaiming "Moderation!" and be done with it.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
That is an interesting take on it. I grew up in a house that was probably close to 2000 sq.ft. plus a full basement , plus a full finished attic . Built in 1912. And the entire city I grew up in was all built about the same time period. Did we suddenly get space and aesthetically aware in the fifties or perhaps was there some other reason for those homes being what they were. Like maybe affordability , war rationing, birth of the tract home?
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
more natural and local materials, more craftsmanship, better aesthetics
With a caveat about house styles being used that do not reflect local climate realities.
Locally, most of the traditional new england house styles make much sense. Roofs pitched to shed snow with minimal overhangs just pour copious rainwater against foundations. The steep roof creates a large attic space, which is either filled with overheated air, or converted to living space--neither to much benefit. Increasing roof area also increases the insolation area too, and the short overhangs don't shade walls either.
Ah, if only regional differences were understood for the "why" as well as the "what" of them.
Ok, not all is good--the practice of not bothering with a basement in easily-dug soil still confuses me. If we are to set houses on stilts, why 2' ones when 10' would get the house up in any breeze there might be? (Not that breeze helps much over 60% humidity.)
My old house has many benefits. It also has some debits on the ledger--galvanized pipe; india-ribber insulated woven cotton electrical cable; no foundation per se--which makes it a bit of a green dilemma.
O for that right balance.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
"I will say, though, that all this buzz about "Green Building" IS raising awareness, stimulating discussion, causing people to at least stop and consider these issues. I think that's good."That pretty much sums up my feelings too Jim. When we get a client that wants "green", we will do our best to accomodate them, even if their green is really green frosting. Every little bit helps. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Thats why I started this thread. Good old fashond debate. No body is right or wrong here. Everyones opinion differs when it comes to this subject. It's nice to do this without political and marketing mumbo-jumbo.
Not a whole lotta Reps in Cannon Beach yet theres a lotta Green building, Of coarse most of these are 2d or 3d homes???? There only lived in 2 or 3 weeks a year.
I agree it has been blown out of proportion, however, stating that it is “green†is really catching on. Weather it is real or not - ‘being green†means more green for a builder in the future. In the wise words of Marshal Fields - “Give the women what she wants!†- If it makes people happy, and we make money, why are we complaining?
Welcome to the site IBI. It's nice to see so many new posters. Fresh ideas...and maybe we'll get to see some new osb vs plyood wars...Also, thanks Mike for getting that paragraph edited. I think we all get to decide what "green" means to us regardless of what Gore or the media tell us. As a contractor, my goal is to deliver high quality service to any of my clients and if they are hip to "green", then I get to choose whether to offer my services or withold them. In theory, I'm the expert and it will be my research that steers them, not Al Gores. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Jim, first off I am sorry about my post, writing has never been my strong point. ENTER
Second, you hit the nail on the head. We don't need a bunch of corperate goones and government regs telling us how to be green. Like you said in an earlier post it's just common sense. Use what you need and need what you use.
"Green" .... what distresses me most about this pure BS is the way the 'anointed' immediately embraced it, then present it to the rest of us as a done deal. I am also insulted by their condescension, as they smugly tell us that this wil,make us all more money!
Hey, don't get me wrong, I like money as much as the next guy ... but the implication that I'll instantly fall in love with something as soon as I see a way to run up the bill could not be more wrong.
Here's but a small example of what's in store:
A certain restaurant in town closed down, and was sold. The new owners have a simple desire; as the do not wish to have a bar, they want the bar removed, and a dessert table put in its' place. Simple job? Not if you ask city hall!
Among the massive paperwork requirements is one that the entire property be re-landscaped, with a multitude of trees and bushes added to the parking lot. Mind you, this is in the desert, where homeowners are told to plant gravel, and save water! These people cannot proceed with their opening unless they redesign the parking lot to today's "Greener" requirements!
Had the previous owner wished to remove the bar ... no problem. Since the business closed, well, all bets are off, and the property gets the full treatment.
Is this what the 'watermelons' (green on the outside, red on the inside) promised when they spoke glowingly about 'thinking globally?' Not within my hearing ....
This nonsense has to be stopped NOW. We need more codes and specifications like a fish needs a bicycle.
Have a nice day ..... kamerad!
I'm in total agreement.
It's getting ridiculous. Last week in the Annapolis Capital there was an article about a 6000SF "green" house. I would think by definition such a thing couldn't exist.
Runnerguy
The problem with that line of thinking is that you seem to want to put a line in the sand. Okay, I'll play....What's the upper limit on size in your mind. Please, only one number and no qualifiers please. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
A woman I talked to who started a reuse company called Green Goat
( http://www.greengoat.org/index.html )
came up with a good desrciption of what a lot of developers and home owners really want:
'Green Frosting'
Just enough green products/techniques to make the sale or make them feel good.
You can jump on the Green bandwagon only as long as you can afford it...
For "Green" to work the way it's supposed to, it's got to put more Green back in your wallet than it costs... Otherwise, it's going the way of old green cheese...out to the trash!!
Bill
Right on with that.
You can jump on the Green bandwagon only as long as you can afford it...
For "Green" to work the way it's supposed to, it's got to put more Green back in your wallet than it costs...
This is a myth in our society and based on the kind of short-sighted and blindered thinking that has got us into this mess.
I've been eating healthy and organic foods from Coops and farmer's markets for 35 years. So many people used to tell me they simply couldn't afford it. Sure I spend more for some of my food, but I've spent a tiny fraction of what most people spend on health care. It's actually less expensive to live healthy than to eat junk food.
As for "green" homes, there's no reason they need to cost more, but those willing to take a 5% bigger mortgage for significant energy upgrades will save more than the incremental monthly payment in utility bills. So an Energy Star house will cost less to live in the first month and every month thereafter. And a bank today will often give a larger debt-to-income ratio (a bigger mortgage) for a certified energy-efficient house, so there is no issue of affordability unless you're paying cash.
If it costs society more to recycle than buy new...
then I'm buyin' new.
If it costs society more to build green...
then I'm buildin' blue.
Fake economists ain't got a clue.
Liberty = Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
American Heritage Dictionary
There's an interesting column written by George Will recently, discussing a study done by a consumer watchdog group that analyzed the total impact to the environment of automobiles--from initial drawings to junkyard. Guess what?--the H2 Hummer had less impact than the Toyota Prius! The reasons being mileage life of each--250K to 98K--, and mainly that darned battery.
It alone goes from the zinc smelters in Canada, then trucked to the eastern seaboard, then shipped to Wales to be made into a battery, then trucked halfway around the world to Japan, put into the Prius and then shipped to the USA to be consumed by someone who thinks he is living the green life.
My point is: It takes more than bumper stickers and lapel ribbons to be environmentally conscious."How do you spell illiterate?"
Yep.
But...
People with the green agenda will ignore that logic with the passion of evangelists. They will argue that ANY cost of the green movement is justified by "it's the RIGHT thing to do."
True cost and benefit can only be accurately measured with a real currency. Emotion has no value in a true analysis.
When a "green" issue adds value {benefit(green) > benefit(alternatives) > cost(total)}, then it's value to society is a worthwhile endeavor.
In ALL other cases, "green" is a tax to society as a whole.
A poorer population is NEVER in the best interests of the population... EVER.Liberty = Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
American Heritage Dictionary
True cost and benefit can only be accurately measured with a real currency.
The dollar cost of goods and services has never been an accurate measure of either the value or the real impact of our consumer lifestyle. And that's the entire point of environmentalism.
Even if one were so blindered as to understand value only in terms of price then, as I already posted in 100184.112, the value of nature's services is equal to all human economic activity on Earth.
But, of course, the natural world offers us values that far exceed any dollar price we might impute to them - in fact, since it's our life-support system, we owe our lives to the ecology in which we live. What price do you put on your life?
A poorer population is NEVER in the best interests of the population... EVER.
This is the fundamental fallacy of our consumer (he who has the most toys when he dies wins) culture.
A global study, by the London-based New Economy Foundation, on the relative efficiency by which the world's nations produce a healthy and happy population, found that the ten highest ranked nations were relatively "poor" Latin American countries and the Pacific island of Vanuatu (which ranked #1). The US was 150th out of 178 countries, down there near Turkmenistan and Zimbabwe.
http://www.happyplanetindex.org/index.htm
Soooo....
How do you value "happy"? You must apply utils to the term, based on some firm criteria. Otherwise, the responses to the question will all be based on varying cultures and environments.
If you can't place a value on something, then the value is emotional and can't be measured/compared accurately.
Facts are facts... emotions are emotions.
I get no real happiness from "stuff" and maintain as little as my wife will allow. But I do know that without her getting some of the stuff she wants, I'd be terribly UNhappy. How does one measure THAT? I measure it by how much she spends on that stuff.... because that is definitive.Liberty = Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
American Heritage Dictionary
If you can't place a value on something, then the value is emotional and can't be measured/compared accurately. Facts are facts... emotions are emotions.
Social science is based on the statistical (i.e. mathematical) measurement of social values, such as happiness. This is accepted science (my father taught statistics in a School of Social Work and was among the founders of Social Psychology).
Emotions are also "facts" and can be measured in a number of ways. That they have real value, no one would dispute, or there would not be an inalienable right to "the pursuit of happiness".
I took stats on the way to econ degree, so I'm not nearly as well versed as your Dad. I got the same impression of the science as I did with Economics...
You cannot predict the future because the variables vary in too many ways. You can only analyze the past to give a prediction of the future if all things remain the same... which they never seem to do.
Assuming you can measure "happy", I still don't believe that you can accurately compare the results of two different peoples' interpretations... much less those of two completely different societies/cultures.
I hypothesize that American unhappiness is a foundation for its success because the pursuit is a means by which we innovate better ways of living and create wealth.
And, really, it's mute because happiness is a Pursuit granted by the founders.... they dang sure didn't guarantee happiness based on statistical measures. Heck, I'm not even sure statistics was a developed science. (Nope. The method of least squares wasn't developed until the 19th century)
Liberty = Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
American Heritage Dictionary
<<<<it's mute because happiness is a Pursuit granted by the founders.... they dang sure didn't guarantee happiness based on statistical measures. Heck, I'm not even sure statistics was a developed science. (Nope. The method of least squares wasn't developed until the 19th century)>>>>
hah, hah, hah..... you said " mute"
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Glad someone else caught that, Mike.
As my wife would say, "That's getting to the jest of the matter.""How do you spell illiterate?"
Mike, ENTER
Are you for hire as a proofreader??
Humility is mine ownLiberty = Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
American Heritage Dictionary
I typed and you read...
so thereLiberty = Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
American Heritage Dictionary
yeah.. but i was trying to figger if maybe you had a hidden meaning ... or were playing with my mind and really MEANT mute
kinda like having to look sideways at anything that bobbys postsMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Assuming you can measure "happy", I still don't believe that you can accurately compare the results of two different peoples' interpretations... much less those of two completely different societies/cultures.
It's actually a relatively simple thing to measure, and it can be done cross-culturally.
If you'd like to see the survey instrument they used, you can take it yourself and see how you compare:
http://www.itint.co.uk/hpisurvey/
You know, that was an effortless way to discover I'm average to above average in every catagory. I answered correctly and their conclusions were way off in a few catagories.
I'm only using 3-5 times my "share" of the world's resources.... I flat disagree with the notion of a "share". I buy or make whatever I choose to consume. If I want to consume more, I trade dollars/effort so I can. I'm not limited to the "share" of resources but to that which I wish to create or purchase.
I'm amazed at the conclusion/lecture that I need to do something to lower my "ecological footprint". Who the he!! are they to instruct me on what is correct for me and my family.
I feel like I just fell out the door of a "Brainiac Smarter Than Everyone Else Live the Way We Tell You" convention.
I need some fermented yeasty hoppsy beverages to wash the bad taste away.Liberty = Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
American Heritage Dictionary
I flat disagree with the notion of a "share". Who the he!! are they to instruct me on what is correct for me and my family.
But you fail to comprehend ecological footprint. It's a simple mathematical calculation of a "fair share" if we humans divided the productive land mass of the Earth equally amongst us (ignoring the needs/rights of the millions of other species that we depend on).
They're saying nothing at all about "what's correct" - only about what a mathematically even share of the Earth would be if everyone had the same amount.
What you do with that is entirely up to you - at least for the time being, until the life-support systems of the Earth really collapse around us.
If you choose to use several times your "fair share" as most Americans do, then you (and more likely your children) will reap what you sow. If that's what you consider taking care of your family, then I pity your children.
"If that's what you consider taking care of your family, then I pity your children."
YOUR PITY IS MISPLACED.
You can take that #### elsewhere to some one who needs assistance.
You don't have the knowledge, experience nor right to pity me or mine, much less pass judgement regarding how we prepare for our kids' futures.
You've been interesting until now...
now you're just plain intolerable.
Liberty = Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
American Heritage Dictionary
It's a simple mathematical calculation of a "fair share" if we humans divided the productive land mass of the Earth equally amongst us
We could extend that logic a bit, but it turns into reductio ad absurdium. We could move the entire US population into Texas and give every family 2 acres each and still have useful land left over. Mind you, it'd be a long commute out to some of the farms and ranches we'd still need to feed all those folks piled into their low-impact arcologies . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Sorry, pard'ner, but Texas ain't big enuf!
A "fair share" for each human on earth would be 4.2 acres, with only 3/4 acre of that arable.
Americans now use 25.5 acres/person to supply all their "needs" and absorb all their wastes, and the available land capacity in the entire US is only 16.6 acres/person of usable land.
The average global footprint is 6.9 acres/person, while the global per capita capacity is 5.2 acres. So, globally, we're already using 1-1/3 earths - which is why the earth's biocapacity is decreasing so dramatically.
he said US population not world...
so does that compute up differently????
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
The average global footprint is 6.9 acres/person, while the global per capita capacity is 5.2 acres
Which gets us to the trickier parts of such things. Either have to reduce consumption and/or decrease pass-through refuse--which would likely be a reduction in standard-of-living for all affected.
Or, we have to reduce the number of people out there.
Neither winds up being very "pretty." And it would probably be easier to ban taxis in NYC than to abolish slash-and-burn agriculture in some of the further corners of the world. But then again, brutes can scare socialites into line; headhunters you have to reason with very carefully.
But, a significant change in lifestyle is what is being presented here. The poshette will have to give up the manollos for sensible shoes; the indigeonous farmers in the far-flung corners will have to learn an all new way of life. Or we line up the objectors and cull them for asking either "why?" or "why me?"
Works out that two acres, if generally arable, is enough for a house, truck garden, and goats and/or sheep for a self-sustaining family. The trick of that though is in having also reserved off room for mills and gins and smithys steel plants for rebar and lime kilns for portland cement and . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Either have to reduce consumption and/or decrease pass-through refuse--which would likely be a reduction in standard-of-living for all affected.
There is no disputing that we have to reduce consumption, and remember once again that we are "citizens" not "consumers".
And we have to not only decrease material through-put, but eliminate it as William McDonough has suggested in his Cradle-to-Cradle industrial model (already adopted by Volkswagen) based on nature's maxim that waste for one is food for another.
However, these changes will reduce our standard of living only as long as we continue to measure it by our rate of consumption. Once we scrap GNP and replace it with GDH (gross domestic happiness, as Bhutan has done), we will see the world in a new light.
The Happy Planet Index is another constructive tool for measuring the efficiency of national economies (population health x population happiness / ecological footprint). http://www.happyplanetindex.org/ The US ranks 150 out of 178 nations, while the top ten include relatively "poor" Latin-American nations.
View Image
Edited 2/15/2008 6:08 pm ET by Riversong
will reduce our standard of living only as long as we continue to measure it by our rate of consumption
Well consumption is a measure. If we say "reduce consupmtion by 33%," that's a meal per day, isn't it? That's a major change in life and life style for folks the world over (and not just the ULP and VLP and SLP at the buffet).
Some of the technology is there, and it's tantalizing. Plasmafication of solid waste looks like an excellent way to nearly obsolete landfills (and you get excess electricity to boot). The problem is the system does not scale well; the plasma "lens" is only so big. Otherwise, it's very cool. Metric tonne of garbage converted into about 1 kg/1l of quartizite and a few gross KW (turbogenset run off the captured "combustion" gasses from the waste as it passes through the plasma, which is "lit" using electricity fro mthe genset . . . )Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
If we say "reduce consupmtion by 33%," that's a meal per day, isn't it?
Europeans, with the same or better quality of life, consume half of what Americans do. Let's start by shaving off the extravagant waste, then eliminate the passive entertainment and throwaway toys and designer clothes...
Some of the technology is there, and it's tantalizing.
You missed McDonough's point: eliminate the entire concept of waste - everything gets upcycled or reused at the end of a product's useful life.
And all technological "solutions" have unintended consequences or "blowback".
View Image
And yet, for some unknown (apparently) reason, all those people in those better-off Latin-American countries are doing everything they can to get into this godforsaken hellhole we call the USA. Wonder why that is? More American propaganga, I suppose.
And yet, for some unknown (apparently) reason, all those people in those better-off Latin-American countries are doing everything they can to get into this godforsaken hellhole we call the USA. Wonder why that is?
Unknown reason?
NAFTA has undermined the agricultural sector in Mexico and caused many farmers to be driven from the land.
But there are also 2 million expatriate Americans living in Mexico. And Costa Rica is becoming a major American retirement destination. Why is that?
Same reasons as why people retire and live in Poland--cost of living is very low in those places and when you're on a fixed income, you can still live well there. But those retirees got their money here. They aren't going to Mexico to look for work.
I thought that it was suppose to show your happyness.So, are you telling that you are using more than your "fairshare" of happyness?.
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
I basically just skimmed this thread, but one thing came to mind...it seems like we get all caught up in how green your 50,000 BTU grill is, instead of thinking of better ways of cooking so you wouldn't have to fire up your 50,000 BTU grill. Maybe find a totally different form of transportation instead if a car that gets better gas mileage. It's be like people in the 1800's thinking about using horses that pooped less, or puttiing diapers on horses. We need to think outside the outhouse; we need to think outside the carriage.
hey man... good point... i don't grill...
wanna buy my grill point footprint ?Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
He said he needed some fermented yeasty hoppsy beverages , maybe he was taking in more of his share of that .
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Happiness, like love, is immeasurable and limitless. I use all I can discover no matter my "share".
Some responses from the test were wrong... I ain't that darn happy in some aspects.... more happy in others.Liberty = Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
American Heritage Dictionary
Probably folks have given up on this issue, as little new is thrown in for discussion. My motto is: First, do no harm. It seems clear to me that Breaktime regulars also operate under a similar stardard/ belief. Some differences among us exist, mostly pertaining to interpretation but it is heartening to see the heartfelt input from all. Homeowners and others should be comforted to know, if choosing those who take part in these discussions, they will have upstanding, conscientious, and skilled contributors to their homes, and in turn, to their lives. I stopped calling myself an environmentalist years ago; consider myself a conservationist but read enough to know that building materials, etc., touted as "green" can be hooey. When outfits like Walmart get in on the movement - look out. I try to avoid pertroleum based products as much as possible, but when one factors in the trucking, manufacturing, processing costs, for renewable resources, etc., what's what? Buying locally, from small businesses whenever possible is one way I try to contribute.Caring - that's what it's all about. Nobody pays the subs. rates and takes time to peruse & contribute to the contents of these posts for the sheer heck of it. We're curious, we want to learn, we take pride in what we do and we are pleased to know others out there feel the same - even if not exactly alike. Empathy is not totally agreeing, it's recognizing something in ourselves that enables us to relate to another. I'd host a bar-B-Q with any of you - BYOB of course. Don't worry, it'd be worth it.
well dawter..... book into doud's peachfest in augustMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
IS there bar-b-q in Mid Coast Maine?"How do you spell illiterate?"
Maybe should have said "cook out." But Greek, Southwestern, Cajan, as well as good old country ribs and pulled pork with diff. sauces can be on the menu. Tho it would be a shame to ignore the bountiful seafood. Truthfully, seems just about anyone getting the grill out sez he's ready to bar-b-q. And tomato sauce on elbow macaroni is called American Chop Suey. Mainers like to keep you curious.By the way, when country comes thru the speakers and you're on a back road in Maine, away from the coast, a tranquil loveliness not unlike rural Tennessee or Kentucky can spring to mind. A rest stop means a local eatery, possibly more country music and you can be anywhere Small Town, USA having the house specialty - cornbread and beans.See? That's what I'm saying. We're more alike than different. Everyone's 2 cents is worth more these daze. So don't stop debating, guys.Oh, and don't look for sashimi in the state capitol.
I'll meet you at Moodys !!!
"My motto is: First, do no harm."
That places you in poor company, since it's the motto of the allopathic medical profession. And, as "green" becomes more of a sales pitch than a paradigm shift, green building is likely to do more harm than good, too.
The American Medical SystemIs The Leading Cause Of Death And Injury In The United StatesBy Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed.htm
A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. (1) Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics. (2, 2a)
The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million. (3) The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million. (4) The total number of iatrogenic [induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures] deaths is 783,936.
The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate is 553,251. (5) It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States.
Our medical system is the leading cause of death?Isn't that like saying that auto mechanics are responsible for 90% of vehicles that become not worth repairing?A quick search shows me that the life expectancy at 1900 was 50 years, now it's 77. Don't you think that might be because of medicine?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Our medical system is the leading cause of death?
You didn't even read the clip I posted, did you. Deaths caused directly by the improper or proper application of medical care by medical professionals exceeds annual deaths in the US by any other cause, and is approaching a million unnecessary deaths each year.
The medical establishment has long been aware of this (which is why they coined a name for it - iatrogenic). Ordinary citizens are not.
Edited 2/14/2008 7:22 pm ET by Riversong
"You didn't even read the clip I posted, did you."Yes, I did read the clip. I understand what you're trying to say, but I simply don't agree.Unnecessary procedures certainly happen, but how many of them are elective? I've never heard of a boob or nose job that was medically necessary. Maybe there are some, it just doesn't seem likely.And people certainly pass away from an infection or other bad treatment that they got in the hospital, but I would submit that they wouldn't be in the hospital unless they were screwed up to begin with.But like I said, you have your views and I have mine, and that's okay by me.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
you have your views and I have mine
No, you have "views" which have no basis in fact.
I was only sharing the "views" of the medical profession itself, based on statistical evidence which is not challenged even within the profession.
or other bad treatment that they got in the hospital
Ah, but that's exactly the not-fine point I believe riversong is trying to present.
"Medical misadventure"does not solely occur in hospitals.
It's happening in doctor's offices, clinics, all sorts of places.
You could catch MRSA while in the doctor's office for a routine check-up. One error in diagnosing "ordinary staph" versus MRSA could then wind you up in the ICU. Or, an error at the pharmacy (either in the meds, in substituting a generic, or in misreading the scrip) could also get a person in trouble. And they were "minding their own business" when all that happened.
There's a parallel argument in the corrective prescriptions that are so prevalent, too. We do not have a lot of long-term data on the interaction of the various meds for conditions like "high cholesterol." Couple that with stress-related hypertension (which diagnoses just like pathogenic hypertension) and the "treatment" for that condition, and all that happens is you get a calculus with far too many variables.
Like some statins seem to cause otherwise idiopathic joint pain. Now, the medical answer is to try a different statin. But, if a person had joint pain anyway, and had been taking glucosamine, that glucosamine might have elevated the cholesterol reading which prompted the statin scrip in the first place. Or, the "quick" answer is to give a pain med for the joint problem. Of course, agonal conditions cause stress, which can elevate BP, so now there's a third tab to take every day. And the 'real' cause might just have been that the person really only needed a vacation and a CPAP. Or not.
Let's go back to the article riversong excerpted. Suppose we suspended all medical practice other than emergency medicine. Life expectancy would not change very much, nutrition, food quality, and workplace safety are as large a factor as any other for that. But, iatrogenic deaths would decrease. How much? That's an argument the medicos have not hashed out an answer for.
Now, we can't stop diagnostic & prophylactic medical practice--all that would do would be to make for more emergent medicine in more dire state (allowing that is a circular argument). Simple it is not.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I can see how a boob job could be necessary.I'll eat your peaches, mam. I LOVE peaches!
OK, I could have said I try to follow the Golden Rule, but I don't attend church so thought I'd best not borrow that overused, seldom utilized saying.By first, trying TRYING not to do harm, I mean I assess a situation, make a plan, research everything about it that time allows and avoid doing harm, making waste or alienating even the not-so-nice neighbor in the process AMAP - something along those lines. Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. Best not get me started on anything in the medical, law or poilitcal fields. I need my night's sleep.Have a good day.
I'd have to see George Will's research before I would accept his conclusion...
However, it's not impossible. Because of the incredibly complicated nature of our global economy and our technologies and our impacts on the earth, it is rarely a simple matter to determine the least worst path.
For instance, a much more credible source - Donella Meadows, author of Limits to Growth and founder of the Sustainability Institute - calculated decades ago that it was more environmentally costly to use cloth diapers than Pampers. This was because of the high fertilizer and pesticide use on cotton and the amount of chlorine bleach that gets washed into our waterways from the laundering of diapers. Disposable diapers were at least contained in landfills.
Here's the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/ar2007041102109.html
If you read it, you'll see that my memory is somewhat like the subject--gray.
But I think the article makes good points.
They are not George Will's conclusions, but merely his opinions of other group's conclusions.
Anyway, my point is: Saying you are "green" doesn't make you so."How do you spell illiterate?"
then I'm buildin' blue.
Naw, that's Jim's job, he has to help keep Austin wierd, you know <g>.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Bridge_Dog, if you're looking to be frustrated by this green thing allow me to add what appears to be a sidebar.
Friend of mine is a top level car salesman. "Any new crazies come in lately?" says I.
"Yeah, guy wants to buy a new car but can't because it isn't green enough". I'm thinking color. Wrong. Seems that the EPA now has compiled a list of all cars, trucks, etc. according to their "greenness". How much steel, glass, plastic? How much is from renewable resources? Are the tires high mileage types or performance? V8 or L8 engine. Accessories? Etc.
My friend made the sale though. Seems the 6cyl model was greener than the V8. OK. I can't make this part up! "Can you change the outside badges to show a 6 instead of a V8, my partner is a nut about this green stuff but he won't know the difference."
WOW, they're out there and they're breeding!
ciao. ted
Let it be known to all at B.T. for the first time in my life I am COMPLETELY SPEECHLESS. LOL
as was I.
t
I musta missed something because I don't see anything in there that shocks the senses. I think there might be a typo though. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
I think that the application of the "green" moniker to everything we have around us has become an obsession. And if it creates an awareness of sustainability so much the better.
But buying a vehicle based on its greenness just seems a bit too much to me. Granted, we all buy things because of a real or perceived need or desire to impress or fulfill a function(tools). I sincerely believe we all have a right to buy what we want and if its being greener in its manufacture or use is in place so much the better. But...I don't intend to make it the first or last detemining factor in my purchase(s). [I would love to buy an R/T Viper and would if I could but....that just ain't practical. Besides I can borrow my buddy's beast].
This forum in all probablility has a very high percentage of folks who, just out of common sense, are very aware of the physical reality around them and work hard to create green things without being told to do so. Or expect applause for doing it.
I wonder how frogs feel being green?
ciao, ted
it ain't easy being green- KermitMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
MikeSmith, since your observation about my man, Kermit, an article in the local Cleveburg paper had him big as life leading you into the content.
The whole thing was about "greenwashing". The all to common practice of labeling a product as green without any validation. It goes to just about everything that we all have been wailing on.
Here it is for your reading pleasure, well, whatever, since you can't wrap fish in it. http://www.cleveland.com/business/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/business-5/1202808696169900.xml&coll=2
(And for the record, I copied from the address line so I hope it comes through as intended).
Green building includes energy efficient appliances. It includes better insulation in order to lower your heating and air conditioning bills.
A little green for building and a little more green stays in your pocket.
Understood, I am all for it. This was ment as a buyer beware post. Those things are definatly better for the enviorment and energy conservation. They will also save H.O. money in the long run. I guess to put it simply, people should read between the lines on some products. I hope common sense (like the steps you posted) will prevail over mass marketing of products that are just pretending to be "green" to ride the wave.
Man, there's a lot going on here. And let me add a few thoughts.
"Green" building IS becoming nothing more than a marketing buzzword meant to attract more business and profits. I liken it to some of the people that put the little fish on their business cards. It's there to give us the IMPRESSION that these people are honest Christians who can be trusted. They're using it to get a greater share of business, and therefore, profits.
I think that as more people realize the marketing aspect of the "green movement", fewer people will care about what it SHOULD be.
Another thing, the people that wanted the concrete countertop and not the better insulated walls, AND the guy that bought the V-8 car but wanted the dealer to make it look like a cleaner 6 cyl. are just looking for status symbols--they want to consume without guilt. In fact they want to lay guilt at the feet of the Suburban and Hummer drivers for being irresponsible to the environment!"How do you spell illiterate?"
door
<<<<In fact they want to lay guilt at the feet of the Suburban and Hummer drivers for being irresponsible to the environment>>>
i take it all back... obviously i've been misled
the Hummer & Suburban drivers gotta live too
what about the guy in town who's driving an F750 dually ( not a misprint) as his commuting vehicle to the city
oh well....
never mind
wonder what they did before there were Hummers & Suburbans .....
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, I gotta go, But when I get back it's on. LOL
Edited 2/11/2008 6:08 pm ET by Bridge_Dog
me too .... community chorus.. gotta go sing for my supperMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
what about the guy in town who's driving an F750 dually
With no trailer hitches or anything of the like, too, probably (like the wife of the welder down the street).
Mind you I heard some folks griping about the dudes with the 650 dualie fifth-wheel rig pulling a trailer with only two horses in it--the folks seemed to feel that was excessive. Of course the horses came in handy for sorting out the calves that had been in the trailer earlier.
I'm sticking to my new catchphrase--fewer jerks = more green <g>Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
they want to consume without guilt. In fact they want to lay guilt at the feet of the Suburban and Hummer drivers for being irresponsible to the environment!
Perhaps that's whiy it seems like all Prius drivers are pr--er, jerks? I've noticed that the Prius folks seem to be worst--they're "tens." Either ten over or ten under. That has to be green right?
Ten over, and they're up in the top of the powerband for that dinky 3 or 4 banger--which does not suggest fuel efficiency. Ten under, and still above 23, they're burning gasoline (and that line of 8-10 people behind them are not running very efficiently either).
Scary thought: It might be very green to have fewer jerks around (even in their hybrids).
Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Speaking of "green"...
How is a compact flourescent bulb "green" when it has mercury in it?
How is a compact flourescent bulb "green" when it has mercury in it?
If it doesn't exist in nature, I wouldn't call it "green".
But, besides saving 3/4 of the electricity and 70% of the waste heat of an incandescent bulb, the small amount of mercury is contained and - hopefully - disposed of properly and recycled.
Most toxic mercury in the environment comes from coal-fired power plants (still the primary source of electricity in the US), and the extra electricity that an incandescent bulb requires puts more than 4 times as much mercury in the environment than does a CFL.
Even if a CFL is tossed in the landfill, its total mercury contribution to the environment is 36% of that of an incandescent.
Amory Lovins, founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, calls incandescent bulbs "space heaters that also happen to give off a little light." Way back in 1978, when I first met Amory, he calculated that simply by swapping out the incandescent bulbs in the office buildings in NYC for flourescents, the energy savings would allow the decommissioning of every existing nuclear power plant in the US.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
and seeing as how that isn't going to happen, what now?
Oh, I forgot, you live in the socialist state of vermont. For such a pretty state, you have some weird ideas
Oh, I forgot, you live in the socialist state of vermont. For such a pretty state, you have some weird ideas
Yeah we do. Like being the first constitutional republic in the world to outlaw slavery, to decouple the right to vote from land ownership, and to provide public education.
Vermont had the first US patent (for turning wood ash into potash) and the first patent for an electric motor, invented the first steel carpenter's square, the first sandpaper, and the first commercial steel plow (John Deere).
Vermont built the first electric railroad, the first printing press and the first piano in the US.
A Vermonter fired the first shot of the Revolutionary war in Lexington MA and Vermont was the first state to send troops to fight in the Civil War (believing incorrectly that it was to free the slaves).
Vermont built the first institute for higher education for women, and the first private military college (which offered the first Civil Engineering course).
Vermont had the fist canal, the first steam-heated building, the first postage stamp the first safety elevator, the first Boy Scout club and the first long-distance hiking trail (the Long Trail).
Vermont had the first state symphony orchestra, the first social security number (00-000-001), and the first AC wind turbine.
Vermont had the first returnable bottle bill and was the first state to outlaw billboards.
And, yes, Vermont was the first state to elect a Socialist mayor to a major city and the first to elect a mayor with Instant Runoff Voting (a Progressive).
Vermont's Republican Senator George Aiken was the first to challenge Joe McCarthy's communist witchhunt and the first to suggest that we simply declare "victory" and withdraw from Vietnam. Senator Jeffords was the first to stage what Trent Lott called a "coup of one" by leaving the Republican Party and shifting the balance of power to the Democrats. Vermont was the nation's first to allow legal unions of #### and lesbian couples, recognizing that everyone has a right to a legal relationship with the one they love.
Montpelier, Vermont is the only U.S. state capital without a McDonalds. Until 1996, Vermont was the only state without a Wal-Mart. In ratio of cows to people, Vermont has the greatest number of dairy cows in the country and produces the most maple syrup (as well as Ben & Jerry's ice cream).
And Vermont may become the first state to secede from the Union and begin a return to local and responsive democtratic governance (as we were one of two independent republics in the US from 1777 to 1791).
View Image
Curiosity has the better of me . Were you born in Vermont or adopt it as your home state?
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Were you born in Vermont or adopt it as your home state?
You mean in this lifetime?
This time around, I was born in America, so I'm a native American. I've moved perhaps two dozen times since then.
Vermont had been calling to me for some time before I moved up here in 1998, so I would say that Vermont adopted me. And, since it's the first place I've homesteaded, I consider it my home.
But I think I'm actually from Sirius or the Pleiades.
View Image
Thank You.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Just curious Mercury doesn't exist in nature? I love Vermont (lived there quite a while my self) but the best part is the view of New York! So come on over we're not pretentious.
We were talking about CFLs. But mercury in nature doesn't find its way into our teeth and into our babies.
View Image
Just having some fun take it easy. You find me one of those bulb that isn't garish and I will replace every one in my house tomorrow. I mean it I will. I promise. You'll have to take my word for it tho...
There are several CFL manufacturers that make full-spectrum bulbs.
And incandescent bulbs are mostly in the red and yellow range - they don't offer the full spectrum light that we need to be healthy and to minimize eye strain. We're just used to the dull color.
Just look for a CRI (color rendering index) in the 93 to 96 range, and a color temperature of at least 5000 Kelvin.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Do you have a preferred manufacturer for CFL's with CRI ratings of >93?A quick google search revealed many "full-spectrum" bulbs with a CRI of 80-90.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
CRI 80-90 is considered very good.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
They just don't create an acceptable light. I do support their use, just can't stand the light.
In my house they only live in the closets basement etc.
I have tried the "full spectrum" with very little noticeable improvement. What's the deal with the L.E.D.'s ? I hear their on the horizon.
What's the deal with the L.E.D.'s ?
If you don't like the light from CFLs, you'll hate the light from LEDs.
At least in their current form, LED light is blindingly blue-white.
Thanks for the input. I think I'll start hunting for a builder.