I am getting interested in Green building again. Anybody specialize in it? Advertise it as a main focus of your business?
Thanks – Jim
Tipi, Tipi, Tipi!
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Listeners write in about haunted pipes and building-science tomes, and they ask questions about roof venting and roof leaks.
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
As you know, I'm not exactly a "builder". And depending on how green... I get a steady stream of interest in our passive heating/cooling.
Independence Day party I got cornered twice. We'll be meeting. Both couples are the type of deep pockets anybody'd want to build for. One wants to talk with me about Texas where he's about to build a state-of-the-art bottling plant (water). Hosts know our place and directed them to me.
Within the alternative architecture community there's deep suspicion about anybody advertising as "green". As in, just do it. But most of that group you probably wouldn't want as a client anyhow.
PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
I can't help but wonder, as energy costs continue to rise, why more people aren't building 'green.'
I guess it has a lot of definitions. I have worked on a house that was a fully reclaimed timberframe, super insulated, and passive solar that has near zero heating costs and no active cooling system. Why don't more people do this?
I live in western Montana, and the climate here is IDEAL for passive solar...but no one is doing it. I think about it all the time, but I am not sure if I want to get back into building full time (I have never been a GC - mainly a remodeler and a timberframer).
I do see more people interested in energy efficient appliances and stuff, but that is small potatoes compared to overall house design, and people just don't care...or maybe they just don't know. I am in real estate now, and am constantly amazed at just how little people know about houses. It's sad, really.
Jessie,
In your position I gotta believe it's dangerous to speak too much about "green" houses. Most buyers want a god deal more than they want to be enviormentally aware and talking about such things would wind up costing you sales because they could then dismiss you as that " Kook"
If she controls the buying decision and is worried about closets or other such stuff and you were to point out the value of building green She most likely will be quiet and mentally dismiss you.. However if you point out that the wallpaper in the bathroom matches exactly the color of her eyes you could make a sale!
AAAAUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHH!!!
(PS I could say equally dismissive things about men if they were the real decsion makers as they sometimes are)
Don't worry frenchy...I don't think any of my clients know that I am really just a hippy with short hair who bathes daily!The last thing in the world I would do is ever mention "green" in association with a house in the real estate world.However, it is interesting to note that the ultra high end in western resort communities is ridiculous houses with all reclaimed wood and rusted metal roofs. A 10,000 square foot house used a few weeks a year is tough to call 'green' no matter what, though.
why?
"Why"?
Because I'd rather light one candle than curse the darkness. Tipi, Tipi, Tipi!
http://www.asmallwoodworkingcompany.com
I dont understand "Green"I look at that fla page.They talk about lowering energy- my highest bill been $29 all electric
carpet, none
toliet, low water all lowes sells
double pane windows- all HD sells
energy appliance, I like stainless
hvac ducts- metal hate fiberboard
havac higher than 13 but never been turn onmy house is not green but better than most green houses and cheaper.you can spend a million dollar being green to save one dollar in energyI dont understand green.
You're only scratching the surface with that analysis. Read up on some of the green building websites if you want to know what all the angles are.
I'd say it's about trying to build/live responsibly, Brownbagg, to do what we can to pass along a healthier planet, while living healthier today.
It's complex, for sure, and hard to define, like most labels.
The thing that amazes me is it doesn't seem to have caught on much. When I read up on current green practices it's basically the same stuff I was reading in the 80s in magazines like Mother Earth News and New Shelter.
A few ideas have gained popularity, but it seems like the average person still votes with their wallet. A lot of common materials and practices are only "cheap" because we are not paying for the clean up associated with them in our lifetime. We are passsing those clean-up costs along to our desendants, much the way people today are paying for cleaning up heavilly polluted waterways and lead saturated ground our forefathers left us.
Anyways, I just thought some folks here might be into it, weather they advertise it or not. I think VATom is close to the mark when he says the alternative building community is wary of people who talk about it alot, instead of doing it.
I have read that many in the Green building community would rather keep tax credits and government subsidies out of it. They say that's what damaged the movement last time, when funding was pulled by whoever was in Washington at the time, a lot of businesses associated with solar and wind power collapsed, because they were propped up soley on profits generated through government funding. Kind of an interesting twist.
Tipi, Tipi, Tipi!
http://www.asmallwoodworkingcompany.com
jim.... we were doing a lot of solar.. when the tax credits came in.. a lot of crooks & thieves got in also..
when Ray Guns pulled the plug the mfr's that had tooled up to meet the demand lost 3/4 of their sales and most went under
we sold our last system in about '85
i'll tell you.. our house is all double wall and solar hot-air heat..
most of the prospective buyers tha come thru give feedback to our agent that they are concerned about the solar ( operation & maintenance )
there is no operation other than turning it on in the fall and turning it off in the spring
and there is no maintenance...but there are no buyers either..
i would build super insulation... but i'll never build solar again and i could care less about "green"... even though we manage to use a lot of "green" componentsMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Hey Jim, I built my first house out of green wood, does that count? <G>I didn't think so...but I did used to professionally recycle buildings...that kind of green building can cost a lot of green real fast, unless it's an owner/builder deal.I am trying to get into a more "sustainable" building system...all those Prius drivers need some place to live <G> I need a dump truck, baby, to unload my head
when you talk "Green" is that a builder decidion or it the designer decision.Am I going to buy a overprice, "green" 2x4 compared to a regular 2x4 that does the same job. I dont think so, Go with cheapest material possible to make maximum profit. Sound bad doesnt it, its business.concrete is not green, or is it. It has a longer replacement time compared to other product so less is used. What if every house was 100% concrete, fred flintstone style. storms,termites, rot, less to replace.
"when you talk "Green" is that a builder decidion or it the designer decision"
Ideally it would be both. And don't forget the customer. All three have to be committed to the same principles.
"Am I going to buy a overprice, "green" 2x4 compared to a regular 2x4 that does the same job. I dont think so, Go with cheapest material possible to make maximum profit. Sound bad doesnt it, its business."
You might pay more for that 2x4 if you believed it were better in some way. I pay more for Douglas Fir framing members than HemFir or SPF. That's because I think it's better. Not cheaper to purchace, but maybe builds a better product, which is worth more, which could increase my profits more than if I saved 15 cents on each stud.
"concrete is not green, or is it. It has a longer replacement time compared to other product so less is used. What if every house was 100% concrete, fred flintstone style. storms,termites, rot, less to replace."
Excellent example of why this is such a confusing topic. The thing I'm finding more and more is that "Green" is not what I think of as "natural". I like a lot of wood, but Green building advocates for a lot of engineered lumber and concrete.
Just yesterday Kathy and I were driving though an old city on the WA coast that has fallen on hard times as the logging industry has declined around here. Several large mills have closed and there are many stretches of what was once a thriving city with sandstone and concrete storefronts boarded up. I was thinking - "yeah, but what's so green about this? At least deserted wooden buildings could mulch back into the earth".
You're right, Brownbagg, this is a complex topic. Confusing to say the least.
Tipi, Tipi, Tipi!
http://www.asmallwoodworkingcompany.com
Edited 7/9/2006 12:56 pm ET by jimblodgett
Yeah, from a business standpoint, it's risky to veer off the beaten path - you definately narrow your potential market.
I will long remember a quotation I read on the bullitin board in a college classroom in the early 80s. It had nothing to do with Green building, but I think the principle is relevant to what you say about solar collectors scaring people off - "Today's technology is tomorrow's museum piece. (The key to success is in the Humanities)".Tipi, Tipi, Tipi!
http://www.asmallwoodworkingcompany.com
I have read that many in the Green building community would rather keep tax credits and government subsidies out of it.
I'd certainly agree, for exactly that history. No reason why something better can't stand on it's own feet. Mine does, why it was easy to sell the one I did. I have, however, taken good advantage of those past tax credits by cannibalizing defunct solar systems here.
When I find myself approached by folks with upscale budgets, I'm thinking that something's changed a little. Partly just the wealth of ageing boomers. Should not be ignored.
Our mass subdivisions look like subdivisions everywhere. This is what most will buy, for whatever reason. Doesn't mean there's not ample room for an alternative. Obviously easier in the custom home market.
Even within the alt arch community, most are wannabes, will actually have someone else build their home (or settle for what's available). Makes for a large opportunity when you get past simply adding recycled products to a standard house. Does require a house that works demonstrably well.
Unlike when the tire-house folks came to town here. Two were built, both had major problems. Not with the tires, but the plan/execution. They probably could have screwed up even my plan.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
"When I find myself approached by folks with upscale budgets, I'm thinking that something's changed a little. Partly just the wealth of ageing boomers. Should not be ignored."
Yeah, I think there are a heck of a lot of people saying "why not?" about a lot of established norms. Like Bucksnort Billy mentioning "Prius drivers". I heard on the radio they have sold 1/2 a million of those things since introduction, that they still have waiting lists for them. It's time has come.
Tipi, Tipi, Tipi!
http://www.asmallwoodworkingcompany.com
Very well stated.
We're trying to do some 'green' things on the shop we're building.
First is to build a durable building that will last a long time. If we're going to cut trees and pour concrete I don't want to do something that will be aging badly in 25 years. We're on our second house almost 100 years old, and I think that's a pretty good use of materials.
We were able to get all of our siding and exterior trim from a local mill that does selective cutting of cedar here on the island. Compare that to trucking cedar down from a Canadian clearcut... no contest.
We used heavy gauge steel roofing. It should last a very long time, and it will be recyclable when it's done. It may even have been made from recycled steel, I don't know.
We'll be insulating with either blown-in or spray foam. Both perform very well compared to fiberglass. Because of the depth of the rafters we'll get R-47 there. I have looked into Bio-Based spray foam and it's a possibility, although the installer is down your way and it's costly to get him and his rig up here... but you could be using him!
We're installing a wood stove upstairs so that I can burn scraps. That's probably moot because here I can get scrap wood chipped up for mulch. We're considering installing an oil stove downstairs and running it on biodiesel... I'd say we're 90% sure on that one.
On other materials and techniques it's a lot harder to call.
I like plywood sheathing and think it's a more durable material than OSB... but plywood is made from logs whereas OSB is or can be made from scrap and fast-growing immature trees. Which is more green?
We chose aluminum clad wood windows. No painting on the exterior and I hope that they'll last a lot longer than a plain wood window (and require no paint)... but... does the production and fabrication of the aluminum outweigh that possible advantage?
I like felt over housewrap... but what are the negatives associated with the production of 'asphalt saturated rag felt'? The rag felt part sounds OK to me, but the asphalt sounds like a non-renewable for sure.
We put in a great concrete foundation, it will last ages. But... could I have installed a pin foundation or something with piers and used a lot less concrete? It takes a lot of energy to produce concrete, and a lot of diesel to truck it around.
How to weigh the longevity of the building vs. the embodied energy and production cost of the material used? It's very difficult as far as I'm concerned.
Of course, what I'm talking about here only touches the 'green' concept slightly. This is typical wood frame construction. My plumber back in CA built a rammed-earth house, and I know someone else who did a straw bale house. I believe there's someone here doing a straw bale or similar.
Your point about how the cleanup costs of what we're doing are not being paid by us... that's the most important point of all.
"Of course, what I'm talking about here only touches the 'green' concept slightly."
I don't agree. I think you are very conscious of the ramifications of materials choices, David. That might be the key, the ability to sift through the hypeperbole surrounding these issues and decide for yourself which compromises you are willing to live with and when you draw the line and say "no, I have decided THAT material (or technique) is not okay with me. I will not support it anymore."
Those questions you raise about what is "more green" are exactly the complicated kinds of questions that cause people to throw up their hands and say "I don't have time to study this stuff enough to understand it. The heck with it, I'm going fishing".
But. Like VATom said. There are a lot of people who are now in middle age, who are remodeling, and building new, maybe downsizing into their retirement home who are looking for advice from building industry professionals who DO have a little real life knowledge (Mike Smith's bad experience trying to sell a solar heated home for example) about Green concepts.
When you read a little, and talk to people a little bit about these principles, the vast majority of people say "yes, of course I'd like to make the responsible choice(s)". In many ways, I'm starting to believe it's just a matter of giving them that opportunity. Tipi, Tipi, Tipi!
http://www.asmallwoodworkingcompany.com
It would do me a world of good, mentally, to think that lumber was being handled responsibly. All of the framing material I get here is from Canada, and I know they are clearcutting to get a lot of it. I need to start looking into sustainable sources for lumber and plywood, and start encouraging the two lumber places here to get it for me.
We got a large load of decking from the Environmental Home Center. Ipe, FSC certified. It cost more than local but I'll pay more to know that it's selectively logged, and so will some of my customers. I can guarantee you that many of my customers would buy a $100K project for $105,000 if I could show that every stick and every sheet was coming from FSC sources. You're right, it's up to the industry to show the customers that there are options. People care about this stuff but unless we develop alternatives for them they'll just go fishing, like you say.
How to weigh the longevity of the building vs. the embodied energy and production cost of the material used? It's very difficult as far as I'm concerned.
Of course, what I'm talking about here only touches the 'green' concept slightly. This is typical wood frame construction. My plumber back in CA built a rammed-earth house, and I know someone else who did a straw bale house. I believe there's someone here doing a straw bale or similar.
I think it depends on what you define the "green concept" as. We all know that it's not a settled issue- some people are more concerned with low VOC paint and recycled wood, others want ICFs or SIPs for low lifecycle energy use.
I don't entirely agree that you're only touching the green concept, in fact I think you're plumb in the middle of it. I've worked on a straw bale house, and a good friend of mine has built 3 of them. They're appropriate for over here on the dry side of Washington state, but I think you'd be swimming upriver to build one over on the wet side. For one thing, you'd have to truck strawbales from a couple hundred miles away, rather than driving 15 or 20 miles for them.
I think that the life cycle costs (in dollars and embodied energy) for a place like yours is closer to a strawbale house than it is to a mcmansion. I think the debate of plywood vs. OSB and Al cladding vs. wood resembles the debate among climatologists- will global temperature go up by 10 degrees or 11?
It's good to debate these things, but it's incorrect to think that there is no consensus on how to build a better than average house.
I'd be curious to see the embodied+used energy for a concrete house using almost no electricity or gas like VATom's, versus a well insulated stick built, over 30 or 50 years. Tom, how does it figure?zak
"so it goes"
>>I think that the life cycle costs (in dollars and embodied energy) for a place like yours is closer to a strawbale house than it is to a mcmansion. I think the debate of plywood vs. OSB and Al cladding vs. wood resembles the debate among climatologists- will global temperature go up by 10 degrees or 11?
The difficulty I have is talking this stuff with customers, and they do want to talk about it. Is a clad sash more 'green' than a primed wood sash? Is an ipe deck more green than a cedar deck? It's difficult to have a solid answer to any question like that... which makes our industry look like it doesn't know which way to go in order to improve.
<<The difficulty I have is talking this stuff with customers, and they do want to talk about it. Is a clad sash more 'green' than a primed wood sash? Is an ipe deck more green than a cedar deck? It's difficult to have a solid answer to any question like that... which makes our industry look like it doesn't know which way to go in order to improve.>>There is no solid answer -- as both you and Zak are pointing out.There are responsible answers, though.<<Is a clad sash more 'green' than a primed wood sash? Is an ipe deck more green than a cedar deck?>>1) I don't know.2) It depends.3) It doesn't matter. Pick whichever one you like.Energy use over the life of the building is a factor. Embodied energy is a factor. But only a factor.So are waste disposal at the end of the useful life of the component, pollution created during production, manufacture and distribution of components, indoor air quality, durability of the overall system, resale value, the result of the project on the local surface water quality, changes in local wildlife habitat (think pollinators), light pollution, changes in traffic patterns, solar orientation . . . you get the idea.Each project needs to be evaluated against a set of specific and general considerations, some of which will weigh more heavily than others under various circumstances.As for your deck, they could also consider any of the synthetic products, and you could point out that any of these (cedar, Ipe, Trex) are preferable to pressure-treated lumber, let's find the one that works best for you.As for windows, same thing; do they like doing maintenance? Do they ever plan to remodel or add on? What are all of the reasons you would consider one over the other?To try to sort out how much embodied energy goes into a half pound of aluminum versus a quart of paint (what paint?) is a fool's errand.Certainly some materials meet all of these considerations better than others (some carpets would not fare so well against recycled hardwood flooring), but you can look at the problem too closely and be distracted from the objective.
I think Catskinner beat me to a similar answer.
For me, wood seems like the more green material- easy to maintain (although it definitely needs it now and again), and low energy to produce. And then there's the next step of green-ness, if you're interested: get someone like Jim to make windows from salvaged doug fir, and cut down on things like transportation energy.
OSB sounds more green than plywood to me, but again- I don't really know the lifespan of each, and whether the sheet goods will reach the end of their lifespan before the house fails for other reasons, or where the lumber for the osb/ply comes from.
I think it's good to discuss these things with customers that are interested, because they are obviously interested in it. But the more important point is to maintain perspective- the more important decision is to build appropriately for the area, with intentions of longevity and relative energy/resource efficiency over the long term. After all, the long term is what we're discussing with "green" anything.zak
"so it goes"
Hey! He can build his own frikkin' windows! I got enough to do!Tipi, Tipi, Tipi!
http://www.asmallwoodworkingcompany.com
But what is the definition of "green"
I think I noted in an earlier post that "green" is a very slippery word.
To some it means more healthy, i.e. low VOC paint, no formaldehyde glues in anything, and a good ventilation system.
To others it means sustainable materials, like strawbales, recycled wood, or logs for a cabin.
To me it means being concious of the energy and resources used in the materials and labour going into the building house, as well as the energy and resources needed to sustain the house over a long period of time. In addition, the house should be a good home- comfortable, enjoyable, and worry free.zak
"so it goes"
I'd be curious to see the embodied+used energy for a concrete house using almost no electricity or gas like VATom's, versus a well insulated stick built, over 30 or 50 years. Tom, how does it figure?
The answer, of course: it depends. For a starter, you need to define what creature comfort energy that well insulated stick built house consumes. Plus you need to include purchase and maintenance costs (including embodied). I'm passive, no moving parts. Clearly one can build a super-insulated house (as Mike Smith's inclination) that uses little more energy than mine. The question is cost. Which isn't far from the embodied energy concept.
It's pretty easy for me to ignore embodied energy 'cause it's the fly in my ointment. But I have no problem defending my choices to the alt arch purists who believe concrete use is evil. Part of my argument is lifespan. My embodied costs are spread over a very long span. Which isn't universally accepted as a good thing.
Some would prefer what I consider disposable housing. A lighter footprint on the land. It's a valid argument, just not one I promote.
This is where we must each go our own way. I have an affinity for BB's views even though I don't quite share them. As housing is normally the largest piece of anyone's net worth, it seems reasonable to pay attention accordingly. What I have has shown to appraise extremely well. Surprised both me and the client. So what we enjoy was both very inexpensive to build, very inexpensive to live it, and appraise very well. I even managed to get a ridiculously low assessment, but that has more to do with location- and perseverence.
That's why I'm building a replacement house for myself that's very similar to what we now live in. Seems to me that's the true test: would you do it again? Mike Smith says "no". The tire-house builders I know say "no". BB says "yes".
Gotta figure that out for yourself. One size does not fit all.
BTW, there are numerous strawbale fans who believe it appropriate in every climate, even with the trucking costs. Spokane is a hotbed, largely from one very vocal proponent. To me, looks like very expensive insulation. PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
to me... building is all about low energy use..
and low energy use also means low maintenance... whenever i find a product or material that tends to reduce maintenance i try to adapt it to our use
examples of this over the years:
molded interior doors
steel doors
fibercement siding
50 year asphalt shingles
clad windows with factory finish interiors
hardwood floors
ceramic tile
skimcoat plaster
acrylic paints
composite trim
in terms of energy use: super insulation.... whatever methodology you choose to pursue... low voltage lighting.. energy star appliances and heating systems
but at the same time i feel we made a lot of errors in our initial trials in the '70's.. basically , we built a lot of ugly houses.. today i am always striving to incorporate all the above into pleasing architectural style.. if it ain't pretty, why build it ?
and that doesn't mean it all has to be traditional architecture either, but i am leery of a lot of the avante-guarde
how many A-frames & geodesic domes are still being built ?
another thing i try to steer our customers towards is thinking about how they are going to maintain their houses.. do they really want to deal with contractors more often than they need to ?
if we put gutters on their homes .. who is going to clean them? do they really want to add a thousand dollars for gutters and another thousand for leaf guard ? do they really want to pave their driveway with asphalt ?... so many things we do today are really just knee-jerk and unneccessary....Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
so it takes alot of heat to create cement, most of this heat will be generated by burning of tires, which would be in a landfill anyway. Since we not going get rid of automobiles, tire will alway be there.once the cement is made. the making of concrete is not that much energy.My next house will be poured concrete walls. concrete roof if I can figure it out. total concrete, massive concrete, but small about 750 sq feet.concrete takes energy, but if I dont buy it somebody else will, so the factor of energy is a negative almost netural. and since I will save energy by using concrete, and almost bomb proof, then it should be green.its not a house but a shelter, warm, safe, dry, secured. fire proof helps too.
<<so it takes alot of heat to create cement,>>As of about 10 years ago the manufacture of Portland cement was the #3 contributor (worldwide) to CO2 emmissions. It's important to note however that the #3 spot was a very small percentage of the total, because #1 and #2 made up such a large part of the aggregate (oops) picture. <<most of this heat will be generated by burning of tires,>>Really? <<which would be in a landfill anyway. Since we not going get rid of automobiles, tire will alway be there.>>True.once the cement is made. the making of concrete is not that much energy.Also true, and important.<<My next house will be poured concrete walls. concrete roof if I can figure it out. total concrete, massive concrete, but small about 750 sq feet.concrete takes energy, but if I dont buy it somebody else will, so the factor of energy is a negative almost netural. and since I will save energy by using concrete, and almost bomb proof, then it should be green.its not a house but a shelter, warm, safe, dry, secured. fire proof helps too.>>IMHO you might be one of the greenest guys here. Brownbagg The Accidental Green Builder. <G>In all seriousness, you really are on to something. One of the implications of your design approach is called mass-compensated thermal performance. I'll see if I can find any web links. The idea is that with all that additional mass, with the right solar orientation, placement on site, ventilation, and shading, you really can build a near-perfect house from an energy-use perspective.It has been done. I have spoken with an engineer from one of the national physics labs who built a solid concrete house in the 1970's. He did all the analysis and design work. The house has no heating system and has never gone below 68 degrees or above 72 degrees.I suppose VA Tom might have some good things to add about this.As for the concrete roof, it should be easy. Three ideas come to mind; Dy-Kor (precast) panels, Hambro trusses (these are steel trusses you place the slab right around the top chord, and ICF. Reward Wall Systems was talking about an ICF concrete deck, I don't know if they ever perfected it.I think you are on the right track all the way around. A little attention to solar gain and shading and I think you will get good results.
Seems to me you pretty well covered it. I view concrete walls/roof as a great start, but needs a lot more mass.
For me, PAHS (passive annual heat storage) is the only way to go. A recent thread concerned applicability in cooling climates, which simply means changing the parameters. Mass doesn't care what the design temp is. Just hangs there, changing only a few degrees annually. No moving parts, no maintenance, no cost.
For economic reasons my roof has steel bar joists, topped with thin concrete under my 2' earth load. 30' span here but the client house got 40' with no cost penalty. He put in a finished ceiling, we like looking at the bar joists.
Thin shell concrete would be my preference and one day I'll know how to do it. Again, with the required earth loading.
It has been done. I have spoken with an engineer from one of the national physics labs who built a solid concrete house in the 1970's. He did all the analysis and design work. The house has no heating system and has never gone below 68 degrees or above 72 degrees.
You're talking about something that (slightly) outperforms all the PAHS I know. Pretty sure there's a little more to that picture unless it's in Hawaii. Simple concrete walls/roof ain't gonna do it. Do you have a link?PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
my concrete block filled with concrete hovers from 69 to 81. its in high ninety outside now and it will hover around 81. with ceiling fans on. thats not bad.
<<For me, PAHS (passive annual heat storage) is the only way to go. A recent thread concerned applicability in cooling climates, which simply means changing the parameters. Mass doesn't care what the design temp is. Just hangs there, changing only a few degrees annually. No moving parts, no maintenance, no cost. >>I agree. Something I very much want to keep working on.<<Thin shell concrete would be my preference and one day I'll know how to do it. Again, with the required earth loading.>>Any interest or experience in ferrocement?<<You're talking about something that (slightly) outperforms all the PAHS I know. Pretty sure there's a little more to that picture unless it's in Hawaii. Simple concrete walls/roof ain't gonna do it. Do you have a link?>>You are correct. This house was outside Albuquerque. The engineer was with Sandia Nat'l Lab. I probably have him in my notes somewhere, this was about 7 or 8 years ago I spoke with him. I'll see what I can find.
This house was outside Albuquerque. The engineer was with Sandia Nat'l Lab. I probably have him in my notes somewhere, this was about 7 or 8 years ago I spoke with him. I'll see what I can find.
Please. While I'm very happy with our PAHS performance, I know how it could be improved. And am always very interested in what someone else's done to tweak it some more.
One factor often unmentioned is air changes. Most of my temp swing is due to (relatively) inefficient windows and our .5 ACH. Not that I'm planning on anything different for the next house.
Any interest or experience in ferrocement?
Yes, participated with the ferrocement list for awhile. At the time, I was the only one actually building below grade. They were very interested to hear about a real-life PAHS, but only academically. The problem was lack of engineering. Two members offered to solve that problem, but neither ever produced. MxSteve http://www.geocities.com/flyingconcrete/did built a wine vault with earth cover, but without any engineering- or much earth cover.
Still hear from a couple of the list members occasionally. One's re-burying a horribly failed PAHS in Oregon. We had long discussions about its problems, which were very straightforward.
On a related note, thin-shell engineering exists, but other than Cloud's saying that his shell design could support my earth loads, I don't have any. Tried to get my engineer bro-in-law (certified for public works) involved, but he declined. What I haven't done was haunt the halls of the local U. engineering dept. The two local PEs aren't worth much...
Milo Ketchum's site is fascinating http://www.ketchum.org/milo/index.html
Two or three hundred tons of dirt overhead isn't something to be taken lightly. <G>
PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Mike, hope you don't mind my interest. I've quoted you many times about gutters. Not anything I live with. Design error? Yup.
You're also on the mark about maintenance. That was a big part of the interest recently exhibited by the prospects. And my very-deep-pockets guy who's still trying to figure out what he wants for a barn.
To quote myself: a house should keep you dry, warm in the winter, cool in the summer, have no exterior maintenance, be cheap to build, and cost nothing to operate. From that web page the Florida guy put up about me.
Wasn't aware until this thread you were trying to sell your place. Guess I should tune in more. Good luck.
BTW, those translucent panels are wonderful. Used EPDM weatherstripping, no leaks and no silicone caulk.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
tom.. i still haven't figured out where you live.. my brother lives in Tappahannock
are you near there ?Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
LOL, sorry. We're in Albemarle County, S. of Charlottesville, hr and a quarter W. of your brother. + marks the spot http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=17&n=4206494&e=702713&layer=DRG25
This isn't the best season to visit, but if you're looking to relocate there's 21 ac available on the other peak here. Building site just above the 1200 mark on the map. You'd make a great (not close) neighbor- if you could put up with my (unseen) junk. <VBG> Contrary to popular belief there is no deed restriction requiring underground housing.
PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Howdy nieghbView Imageor, In Charlottesville here.
Dan
guess I need to use spell check
Edited 7/10/2006 7:13 pm ET by dfblake01
In Charlottesville here.
Hiya. Off Rose Hill Dr? Want any boulders? Just repaired the machinery (Cat and Case) today. Back to excavation in Crozet tomorrow. Available from small to ~12 tons. Loading's free, transport's not (just cheap). Also lots of raspberry plants- bring your shovel.
You haven't filled in your profile, but shoot me an email if you'd like a tour and a beer.
If the map didn't make sense, we're near the county fair grounds. PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
I like your answer- I know there is no one size fits all, and I've got a pretty good idea that your house will be keeping it's occupants comfortable for a long time to come.
It's really quite a shame that simple concepts sell so well. Simple is good in many ways, but choice of housing is not one of those ways.
I've met some of those people who push strawbales for every climate, and I'm not too far from spokane; this is a good area for strawbales. My friend who has built a few does not find them at all expensive to build, and he's doing it for profit. It goes without saying that many strawbalers would do it again the same way.
When I build a house of my own, I probably won't go with straw or concrete. I'm not entirely sure what I'll do. My point is, there are a lot of good ways to build, and no perfect way. Why try to sell "green" by comparing it with other "green". It's an alternative to the shoddy building that we all see around us.zak
"so it goes"
I'm aware of structural strawbale, is that what your buddy's doing? If so, I retract my observation. But if he's simply using strawbale for infill post&beam, cheap it ain't.
As an interesting, extremely low-mass, builder once observed: walls are the easy part, just pile up pretty much anything. It's the roof span that gets interesting.
People love to talk about their strawbale houses, but that's simply the walls. Still gotta have floor and roof, the more difficult (expensive) parts. Which are usually conventional construction.
Guy in Kansas who wrote to me had owner-built post&beam/strawbale but wanted something considerably simpler for his next project. Yup, underground.
I've seen strawbale arch roofs, but rarely. Starting, obviously, with structural bales.
It's really quite a shame that simple concepts sell so well. Simple is good in many ways, but choice of housing is not one of those ways.
Gotta disagree there. My choice is a simple (or not) box that you pile dirt around. Really easy to conceptualize. Couple that with zero exterior maintenance, roofing included, and it's an extremely simple concept that many find interesting. Sure is easy to understand. I'm also happy to explain/show a failed example I know of in Oregon. The reasons for failure are so obvious nobody's worried.
There's a thread here about radiant floor cooling. Sure it'll work, but why bother? KISS works for me. Bells and whistles are better elsewhere.
Take a look at tire bales, if there's a baler near where you want to build. If you need design help, there's a tire guy in Colo. who'd be happy to help you out.
PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
"Gotta disagree there. My choice is a simple (or not) box that you pile dirt around. Really easy to conceptualize. Couple that with zero exterior maintenance, roofing included, and it's an extremely simple concept that many find interesting. Sure is easy to understand. I'm also happy to explain/show a failed example I know of in Oregon. The reasons for failure are so obvious nobody's worried."
You see, I didn't say that housing couldn't be simple, because it can be. I said that the choice is not simple. Not just because the same house doesn't work everywhere, but also because not everyone wants to live in the same type of house.
Finding the house that is comfortable, low input, beautiful to the owner, etc, is not a simple task for most.
My friend has built 2 or 3 load bearing (structural) straw bale houses, and 1 post and beam with sb infill. He prefers the load bearing. From the studies I've read, the post and beam/infill houses often use no more wood than the load bearing houses. zak
"so it goes"
From the studies I've read, the post and beam/infill houses often use no more wood than the load bearing houses.
Large labor difference.
Keep reading. Choices are simple. PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Brownbagg,
The trouble is that there is a whole latitude of what green is, It's not spelled out clearly because of the variety of factors that enter into it..
For example, Here in Minnesota we go to extrordinary measures to reduce heating costs. By using less fuel to heat our homes we polute less over the life of a home. In a state with over 11,000 lakes use of water is a non-issue..
Things would have other priorities in the southwest. water is expensive and heat is really a non-issue..
Now add the complexity of free choice and things quickly get muddled. You use a toilet you bought at a modest price from a chain store and because it meets the currant requirements for water usage are proud of it.. You could of purchased an evan cheaper toilet at the salavage yard and for less total cost renovated it. Hence you are "green" at least with regard to thAT ASPECT. If wealthy person choses to build a home with 20 low flow toilets, is that "green"? I mean they can only use one at a time per person..
I bought almost all the materials I'm using in my house from local sources.. That doesn't mean the store was local but that the sources for my material were within a hundred mile radius. In the southwest that would probably mean Adobe, here in Minnesota it means Black walnut and other hardwoods.
It's true I'm building a large house.. However it's a multigenerational home with three generations expected to live here, and 6 people.. so am I "Green"? Normally there would be three houses to provide shelter for those whole will live here.. If we assume modest 1800 sq.ft. homes, that's still larger than the currant home.. plus one large becomes more efficent than three smaller. at least in energy usage.
Your comment about spending a million dollars to save one dollars worth of energy doesn't really relate..
For example you could spend a million dollars on a home built with no attention to energy savings and the annual evironmental costs would be extremely high. Or you could spend money on solar and wind generating equipment and be entirely self reliant.
It's not so much how much money is spent but what it's spent on..
We've been involved in a number of projects that the owners and/or architects considered "green", and they all had a different definition of what "green" was. For some, it was all about gathering enough points (as cheaply as possible) to get LEED certification for the project. That would allow them to either market the project as "green", or be able to promote their companies as being "green". For others, it was truly about saving energy and resources.
But the best explanation of "green" building came from a residential project that is being designed by William McDonough, who is one of the fathers of the green movement (he wrote "From Cradle to Cradle"- a book about the life cycle of materials). At one meeting, the owner asked the architect to put together a list of the "green" features that he wanted us to include in the estimate. The lead architect for the project told him it's not about "getting points" or certain "green features"- for them, it's about using materials smartly, and creating great-feeling spaces and features. It's kinda like what Sarah Susanka preaches in her "Small House" series (though I still find it odd that her idea of "small" averages out to almost 3,000 SF based on the homes featured in her books...lol).
So the first thing I'd do is sit down and define what you think of as "green building". That will help you to figure out what direction you need to move in. In the meantime, feel free to email me- I've got my LEED Accreditation, and have spent a lot of time researching various green topics. Maybe we can do a "Green" presentation at TipiFest!
Bob
Hi Jim,
We had a potential client who brought us plans for a house built "green". After our number crunching, it cost about 18% more to build it green that otherwise. That accounted for about $40k
The client balked and said "No way, thats a new car" and we never heard from them again.
I'm not opposed to green building just not sure why something made to be earth-friendly has to cost so much more. Its like fat-free products. Why do they cost more for less?
Mike
Mike-
What types of things were driving the cost up? Was it particular materials? High-efficiency equipment? More insulation?
Juct curious, because there are ways to build green without spending more money, but there are also items that do cost more (as you experienced).
Bob
Bob,
Well, first off they wanted to use SIPS. Which were a pretty penny themselves. No manufactures of those here in Florida. Then things like low volatile paint, bamboo flooring, speciality desgined water system, etc.
It was a nice home but I think their designer swayed them on too many "trendy" things which look and sound good but definitley add to the cost.
Like the paint for example...I don't want to ruffle any feathers but adding $8 per gallon becuase its "less harmful" to the environment? C'mon.
Mike
Here is an example of one "green" home in our area.
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/14/news_pf/Homes/Builder_s_business_pl.shtml
They say it didn't add much to the home but it is selling for $1.2 mil so a few thousand here or there is not a big deal. I've been in it and it is a nice house.
I look at some of the work showed off here and I get green with envy. And I work for green.
Maybe this isn't useful, because it's hard to advertise, but I think builders like you, Jim, are very green. I'm just going off of your website and what I know of you. You're doing modest size homes and remodels, and doing them to a quality that will last a long time, and be appreciated for more than just a few years.
It seems to me that two great ways to be "green" are to reduce the amount of materials and energy that go into a house (by making it smaller) and to keep that house around for a long time (make it high quality, and then the rest of the responsibility falls on the owners).
So often high quality materials end up being green without having to think of it, like salvaged vg fir, heavy guage metal roofing, and good insulation. The main challenge of green building is the challenge of quality building- how do you get more than a small fraction of the population to pay for higher quality and less quantity?
I worked on a house a few years ago that started out with a fairly green design, but every few months the owners would decide that they wanted more space, and to keep the budget happy, some energy efficient detailing would get cut out to offset the cost. That's pretty frustrating to see, but I think it's a fairly typical human characteristic. I was just listening to a piece on the radio the other day about how bad humans are at assessing long term dangers/costs.
zak
"so it goes"
Jim,
You have gotten some good responses in about 25 hours. Not bad. I suspect that some of these replies are the result of 25 years of thought.
While a definition is important, I would rather view green building (GB) as a direction that some of us in the industry are headed. Here is why;
We were talking about project management (oddly enough, a restoration ecology project) just this morning. Although one of the more important subcontractors did a good job and fulfilled the requirements of his contract, we will probably want to review the specifications and scope of work before we put him in the field again. If the intent of the team is to do a good job and always improve, there will always be opportunities to learn. Everyone from the designer to the project manager to the subs to the laborers will encounter something (perhaps in retrospect) that was not apparent before the project started. So with each project we learn and refine how we define the objective.
Project management is in many ways a philosophy problem. Some PMs (PMS?) will simply want a budget, a scope of work, a timeline, and everyone get out of the way because here we go. They will probably achieve the result they are looking for.
Other PMs will be more reflective; periodically re-evaluating the extent to which they are achieving the best possible iteration of the design intent and adjusting their approach and the allocation of resources accordingly. They will probably also achieve the result they are looking for.
And so it is with green building.
Before I decided to become a sub, the focus of my business was the design and construction of homes that would usually be characterized as "green" or in some quarters "sustainable." It's something that I devoted my career to until recently, and I will probably go back to it someday.
We learned a lot, and did a pretty good job, I think.
The core of green building is a design problem. It is always contextual and always regional.
While a lot of this endeavor is fairly well charted out (like energy efficiency), there is still a lot of good work to be done.
As Bob pointed out, anything by William McDonough is a great place to start.
VATom is right on the money about the tire-house people. I have repaired them. They and the people who build them are a mess more often than not. There are always problems at the fringe of any effort, and it is important to not let the extremes define the mean.
Mike and Brownbagg bring up the consideration that in my opinion is the key -- cost.
Here is the short answer, I will go on at any length you like if this is interesting. When I first started into GB it was still largely uncharted territory. There was a certain amount of pressure from clients to depart from the industrial model/module (that is to say "conventional" design considerations and increments of 4 i.e. plywood and stud spacing) and a pronounced emphasis on unusual materials (straw bale, straw-clay, non-toxic finishes, biodegradable components, cotton insulation, adobe, tires, recycled/re-used, solar, greywater . . . yep, done it all).
Anytime you depart from the inherent efficiencies of industrial production there will be a cost. That is unavoidable. What that cost is and how you use it is another matter.
What I discovered after I started learning my way through this is that there was about a 4% "green tax". That is to say, take any given design, do it the regular old way, do it green it will cost at least 4% more. That figure can go up quite a bit depending upon how you see GB, as was previously pointed out.
I also learned that few people are willing to pay a green tax. I don't blame them.
So the job for us is how to build a "better" house for the same price as everyone else. (I say "better" because at least for the purpose of this discussion we're assuming GB to be more desirable. I will answer Brownbagg's reasonable question "Why?" later).
So, we are back to a design problem. Or better said, a research problem. And research always requires capital. Sometimes you can find a wealthy benefactor (I have), but more often, that is not the case. Besides, it's not as good as it sounds. <G>
Then the capital has to be intellectual.
The good news is that I've done it. But remember, it is always regional and always contextual.
My advice; start small. Do not try to completely re-think the way you do everything. I get the sense over the past few years of reading your posts here that you are a thoughtful person who takes pride in building a durable, attractive, comfortable home and giving your clients the best possible value for their dollar. That is the very best possible place to start.
Brownbagg mentioned durability. He is so right on the money. If you consider the social, economic, and ecological consequences of a house that falls apart in 15 years or one that outlives the mortgage and can be passed on to the next generation . . . well, there is probably one whole chapter of a book there. But you get the idea, I think. Taken only on a resource consumption and waste disposal analysis it's a big deal. The economic consequences are staggering.
As for the economics, the old canard about "the economy vs. the ecology" is pure crap. It's a straw dog set up by people too short-sighted to discriminate between short-term gain and true economic health.
It is reasonable to say that to some extent we measure the health and success of a community by economic standards.
Our industry is somewhere between 14% and 20% of the US economy, depending upon how you measure it. We are the biggest sector of the economy after government spending.
If you are willing to accept as a working definition, "the collective result of the expression of individual preferences in the exchange of goods and services", it is easy to see that our industry has quite a bit of influence over the quality of life in America. (BTW, that is the beginning of my answer to Brownbagg.)
So anything you do makes a differnce. But you only get to keep doing it with the permission of the marketplace.
As for the specifics of how to build green, well, again, there is at least one book to write. <G> But if you have any specific questions, I'll at least give my opinion and relate my experiences.
VATom is right on the money about the tire-house people. I have repaired them. They and the people who build them are a mess more often than not. There are always problems at the fringe of any effort, and it is important to not let the extremes define the mean.
Apparently I wasn't clear. I was only criticizing the one couple who came here, started a "foundation" and would take your money to show you how you could have a wonderful house built for only $23/sq ft. Two houses were built, theirs and one unfortunate sap who was finally able to move in after about $160/ft. This was quite a few years ago- very expensive. Both later required extensive repair.
The unfortunate thing is that it gave a bad name here to a whole building field. Not unlike what Mike Smith has experienced. And I've heard exactly the same thing here about active solar. About as saleable as a geodesic dome (major problem).
However, I've known dozens of successful tire houses. What I've never heard is anyone who built one willing to undertake the effort a second time. Major labor involvement. Tire bales are a recent opportunity, with the walls ready for finish in 1 day.
PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
<<Apparently I wasn't clear. I was only criticizing the one couple who came here, started a "foundation" and would take your money to show you how you could have a wonderful house built for only $23/sq ft. Two houses were built, theirs and one unfortunate sap who was finally able to move in after about $160/ft. This was quite a few years ago- very expensive. Both later required extensive repair.>>You are more generous than me. The whole Earthship thing looks like Amway to me, except Amway's products work better.<<The unfortunate thing is that it gave a bad name here to a whole building field.>>Agreed. It has happed elsewhere, too. I'm not saying the idea can't be made to work. Almost anything can be made to work if you hit it hard enough. It's just a generally ridiculous idea that typically costs far too much, leaves everyone feeling sore (one way or another) and casts a bad light on the rest of GB. <<Not unlike what Mike Smith has experienced. And I've heard exactly the same thing here about active solar. About as saleable as a geodesic dome (major problem).>><<However, I've known dozens of successful tire houses.>>I suppose it can be done, depends upon how you define success. <<What I've never heard is anyone who built one willing to undertake the effort a second time. Major labor involvement.>>My point exactly. Labor has value, even if you can talk your friends into beating dirt into tires with a sledge hammer. If you assign any value at all to human labor, dirt-into-tires is a net loser. It gets even worse if you consider the rest of the picture.Some ideas are better than others, and the Earthship was ridiculous. That having been said, I am a big fan of passive solar and earth-sheltered construction. I've got some success storied behind me -- I just hate seeing a good idea screwed up by snake-oil salesman.>> <<Tire bales are a recent opportunity, with the walls ready for finish in 1 day.>>If the value of the labor and material (i.e. return to the user)can be justified against the cost of taking it out of the recycling loop, and the IAQ is good, and it meets its intended purpose over the useful life of the building, then sure -- why not?There is always a risk with alternative materials and methods, and part of GB is a responsible risk/reward analysis.OTOH, experiments are important. I have had some doozies. But if you aren't crashing every now and then, you probably aren't riding hard enough. <G>
<<However, I've known dozens of successful tire houses.>>
I suppose it can be done, depends upon how you define success.
Of course. I was referring to the operation of the house. Clearly they're incredibly labor expensive to build, but that's no secret. And a major factor behind straw bale attraction, which leaves me cold.
But if that expensive tire house, earthship or not, does a good job with creature comfort and minimal maintenance it's clearly more successful than one of my clients' houses (similar cost) that requires a yearly average of $1200/mo for gas and elec.- by about anybody's standards.
Permanently taking tires out of "the recycling loop" in Va nets you half a buck/tire. It's recognized as recycling. The sole baler, in tidewater, generally sells his bales as retaining wall material. I've spoken with the mfg. of a different baler who tried hard to get me to buy one. He has been quite successful in promoting the bales as residential wall material.
Compared to concrete? Interesting question. It's not like tires are recycled back to tires. Mostly they're a problem. As is Portland production.
For me, resale's an issue. I'm not going to build something that's going to be a problem, even if it works well. I once suffered the pain of barely saleable property. That had to do with location. Won't make that mistake again.
Am planning an active solar system for our next (concrete) house, but easily replaceable if/when the time comes to sell. Minimal financial penalty as the parts are all recycled from defunct systems. And no telling, might get lucky and find myself riding the next wave... In the meantime, life is good.
PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
<<For me, resale's an issue.>Absolutely a key point. For example, banks often do not finance straw bale, and can get pretty skittish about other "alternative materials." Some funny stories there.<<In the meantime, life is good.>>Glad to hear that. Same here.
kinda related.i was working on a ford ac system, the ones with the little clamps. I ask one time "why dont they make these one piece?" well think of all the mechanic that be out of business.so we go green, we go durable, we have house that never tear down or rebuild. were saving money on material and the world tree supply grows back. we are cooking less cement. smog is lower. think of all the people that be out of a job.since the hurricane, we have gotta three extra concrete companies in town. remember we was not a direct hit. three company. each company has forty trucks. Think of all the extra concrete being sold as supply and demand increase.what if nothing broke.like Kermit says " Its not easy being green"
I understand your objection.Any time we propose changes to an existing industry there are consequences that will have some effect on the entire fabric of society, so these changes have to be considered carefully.We also need to always remember that we may only be able to foresee a tiny fraction of the actual outcome. Some humility is always in order.All of that having been said, I hope to present a more optomistic view of the economy. Your objection might have some merit if the opportunities in front of us right now were the only ones that we would ever have -- but that is not the case.I suppose from the general tone of your posts that you are a believer in the value of a free market economy. So am I. Part of the beauty of a demand economy (as opposed to a "command" economy -- like communism in the USSR or China) is its ability to respond to changing social circumstances.Like your concrete companies; great -- I hope they thrive. And when the area is rebuilt, you may only need one concrete company, so the others go to a different line of work. No problem.Your comment actually raises a point that has been a raging debate among economists for at least 20 years that I know of, likely more. That is how to understand and control the relationship between consumption, growth, resource allocation, and economic health.I do not have the answer. <G>But to assume that the only way our industry can remain healthy is to build houses that fall apart so we can build new ones is short-sighted and pessimistic. Besides, (as you have suggested elsewhere)if the only legitimate measure is your own ability to make money (i.e. not care about everyone else, that's their problem) and you have a career of 30 years and the house lasts 30 and the mortgage lasts 30, what do you care if the house lasts longer? You don't get to build any more anyway.'Bagg, I'm laughing as I write that -- I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.But it does raise a point I've been meaning to ask you about for some time now. We are all in this together. Economics included.OK, back to your original point, which is well-taken. I think we can put that into perspective by going back to the advent of the automobile. Because it would put livery stables and veterinarians and farriers out of business, should we have resisted Henry Ford's efforts? Of course not. Did we trade one set of problems for another set of problems? Of course we did. Was it worth it? Not up to me to decide, but I am generally for progress.Another example -- I have been in several communities where Air Force bases were closed. The residents screamed like piglets being ripped off of the nipple. Gloom and doom everywhere -- oh, what ever will happen to our economy?Well, it improved. Dramatically. As soon as the local efforts were in the private sector rather than the public sector, and the money began to circulate in the local economy, good things happened.Now there are a few instances where that was not the case, but where the community had the resolve, technical ability, business acumen, education, work ethic, and attitude for success, they thrived.And that is how I see green building. If I could still discuss the topic but abolish the name I would. I think the name is divisive and intellectually restrictive, but we need to refer to the concept somehow at least for now.What if doing a better job on a house (GB) meant we had more resources for other uses, some of which we don't even know what they are yet?What if the house lasts 60 years with minimal maintenance, let's say you pay off the mortgage in 30, give it to your daughter (for instance), she takes the money that would have gone to a mortgage payment, gets a medical degree, and discovers something that relieves suffering worlwide and earns herself a bunch of money and gives you a great retirement?OK, one more example of why things don't need to break to keep the economy going; Freightliner makes a great truck. I couldn't afford a new one, so I bought a used one. I spent every weekend for about a year under it, but it will probably run for another ten now.The guy I bought it from just wanted a new one. So he bought one. If Freightliner built them so they were useless after 5 or 6 years, he would still buy them because he buys new ones every 5 or 6 years anyway. But because the old one still had some use in it, I am now running it, and that is more of a contribution to the local and national economy because now we're both working.Who knows? I might make enough money with it to buy a new one and sell this one to somebody else who is just starting out. Then there are three of us contributing -- all starting out with the same truck.I don't want to hijack the green building part of this thread, but I do want to answer your objection because it is a common one and an important consideration.It all comes down to how you view the economy. If you view it a finite and limited (fear-based, actually), you will be forced into some philosophically difficult positions no matter if you are left or right in your politics. If you extend your logic out a little ways (that we need stuff to fail or break so we can make more to keep the economy going) you will find those problems, and I don't think the society that resulted from that strategy would be very pleasant to live in.Conversely, left or right, you can view the economy as open-ended, and that the real capital is human intelligence and ingenuity, and you then start seeing opportunity where others see problems.As an industry, we are already doing a better job than ever before, and so far I'd say we still look pretty healthy.<<edited for spelling>>
Edited 7/9/2006 4:58 pm by Catskinner
My business si Western Strawbale, we do all kinds of green building. Primarily we build straw bale houses here in northern AZ. These houses use many other green building techniques than just the walls. We try to address all parts of the building, water and energy use, materials and their embodied energy, efficiency, etc.
Got to get going to work, rain stopped.
Matt