Bigger Homes Not Always Greener
(Page 2 of 2)
January/February 2002
By Natural Home Staff
“We waste our time when we deride those who are having some success greening up instead of those who are either making no progress or moving entirely in the wrong direction. The direction is much more important than the details.”
RELATED CONTENT
Environmental advise on candlelight, mold, car products, water softeners and mothballs....
Advice for controlling indoor allergies, eliminating skunk smell and cleaning carpets naturally....
The choice between paper or plastic is not an easy one....
This Los Angeles eco-community pulses with diversity and is surrounded by rich organic gardens....
This sustainable three-story straw bale house on the banks of Lake Travis doubles as a Bed and Brea...
“The folks with millions will not build a 2,000-square-foot house. Since they are going to build a 12,000-square-foot house anyway, wouldn’t it be better to incorporate some green thinking than not? Really, a 12,000-square-foot eco-‘friendly’ house is probably less eco-friendly than a 2,000-square-foot conventional house. But a 12,000-square-foot green home is a heck of a lot better than a 12,000-square foot non-green home. A step in the right direction is just that.”
“If I recall correctly, thirty years ago, the average new single-family house in the U.S. was 1,400 square feet, and I just read that last year the average new home size was 2,300 square feet, despite the fact that we have smaller families. And the push for bigger McMansions seems to be continuing. It may not be the handful of mansions...it may be the hundreds of thousands...millions...of them!”
“Will Bruder says adding green features like geothermal heating and solar panels to mongo homes with five-car garages is merely a way `to rationalize decadent expenditures. AMEN!”
Page:
<< Previous 1 | 2 |