RE: [GBlist] house thoughts

["Ralph Bicknese" <ralph.bicknese@christnerinc.com>]

Patricia:

I appreciate your point of view but my view differs considerably in at least
one major way.

Agreed, there are limits to this world.  Unless we leave and go elsewhere we
live in a closed system.  I agree whole-heartedly we cannot continue to use
and abuse this system the way we have been. We cannot continue to fowl our
nest indefinitely without the filth piling up so high that it ruins us.
There are plenty of signs that is happening.  There are enormous signs of
major stress on our environmental systems and in some cases some major
breakdowns of those systems.  They are far too numerous too start rattling
off now but global warming is certainly a biggy.

Where my point of view seems to differ from yours is the view of how we deal
with those limits. I understand your point but the following comment is
grossly oversimplified and limiting:

<..for every extra piece I use up, someone else goes without>.

This is an approach of limits.  With this approach it seems we all loose.
We force people that are used to prosperity to (in their opinion) to
sacrifice and suffer.  People will not do that voluntarily and based on the
obstacles to marketing based on that approach, the effort will fail
miserably.  So the haves will not cooperate and even if they did, the
have-nots will only be able to achieve to a certain level and will not be
able to rise above that.  This sounds a bit too much like the communist
model that failed so badly in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.

Those that have the vision to work towards an approach of win-win have the
only chance to find a successful path to sustainability.  Our salvation will
be found in finding how to do more with what we have. Our only real limits
are the limitations of our own amazing minds.  Human beings have only
existed on this earth for a miniscule 50,000 years.  Look at what we have
managed to do (wonderful things and otherwise) in the last 100 years.  What
can we do in the next 50 to 100 years? Given the right goals and focus the
potential is incredible.

Agreed we are far from living in a sustainable way now.  But, (thinking
along the terms of what is one's fair piece of the pie) what would it take
to be sustainable?  If the world figured out how to make do by being 1/4
more effective at using things would we be sustainable?  How about if we
were twice as effective?  There are those who say we can do with 1/10 of
what we use now and others claim 1/25.  How would that piece of the pie
change then?  What if we set the goal to be not only sustainable but to heal
the earth, to restore it and make it healthier than it is now or was 100
years ago?  After all sustainability only suggests maintaining a certain
potentially still unpleasant level of occupation without eventual
destruction.

We must work much smarter to accomplish improvements.  Across the board we
must redesign (or reinvent if you prefer) every product, every service, and
perhaps every task we accomplish to this end. But this must be accomplished
not with the goal of having less but rather having an improved life.  What
can we do to create things that enhance and improve people's lives, and do
it in a way that allows the earth to heal from what we take from it and put
back in it?  Working toward this goal will get us there.  Simply doing with
less will not.

To paraphrase the architect and visionary Bill McDonough," If we are driving
to Mexico at 100 miles an hour but want to go to Canada it will not help us
simple to slow down to 50 miles an hour.  We must stop and turn the car
around."

Cheers,
Ralph Bicknese

-----Original Message-----
From: Tawney, Patricia - PNG-1 [mailto:pjtawney@bpa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 6:48 PM
To: 'clark ellison'; Green Building
Subject: RE: [GBlist] house thoughts

What about not worrying about what we have, but what we might expect?  What
are the resources that the world has available on an average day and what
would be our share (based on an average world population).  Whatever our
share is - we could then determine what size of home you might build with
such a share.  Share of wood, share of metal, share of paper, share of stone
etc. that are produced everyday.  Bet even the smallest of our homes are
using far in excess of our share of the world produce.  Especially when I
include the place I work, the malls I shop in, the roads I drive on etc.
But when you understand this number and you can then appreciate that for
every extra piece I use up, someone else goes without.  We deal everyday in
our work with the technical choices, we often over look the human impact
implications of those choices.  Anyone have these numbers?  What's my share?
How much am I really using.  How much should I give back?

-----Original Message-----
From: clark ellison [mailto:cellison1@austin.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:43 AM
To: Green Building
Subject: Re: [GBlist] house thoughts


 Here in Texas there are many illegal Mexican immigrants and legal
Vietnamese immigrants living tightly packed into small quarters. What others
like this are here I do not know, these I am in contact with. These people
are not counted as they are not wanting to be seen and/or are not that
trustful of governments. Any study would be flawed with out counting these
individuals.
 How do we count the space used by transients? One night in the shelter, a
night in a cardboard box or a night under the stars? How is the footage
being calculated for homes? Some of our list "reports" lately are including
garages and gardens and home office spaces as living spaces. In turn if I
live with my wife in a one hundred square foot building but work in a
fifty-thousand square foot warehouse with four other people do we count my
share of the "office space" of ten thousand square feet? Do we add the
square footage of the twenty story downtown bank my wife works in? Do we
count their parking garage or is that only if she uses the garage?
 The 14K sq ft house with three kitchens, list areas that should not be
counted anymore that a single family home with two offices should count the
offices, unless we want to add square footage of my before mentioned
ridicules statements.
 Parameters are needed for this so each of us actually understands what the
other is saying.
 Builders caculate square footage different that the tax people do and
apparently we have many more different ways on this list.
      Just trying to get it all on the same page,
                            Clark



> John Salmen's recent post notes an average US (?) house size of about 2500
> SF.  I assume this is an average for single-family homes only, and does
not
> factor in people living in apartments?
>
> I would be curious to know what the average living space is in the US (and
> other countries), factoring in all modes of dwelling from apartments to
> single-family.  (Space per household as well as space per person.)  Does
> anyone have figures on this, or know good sources for this kind of
information?




______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________