RE: [GBlist] house thoughts

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

Fred:

Onsaught??? No.  You are absolutely right.  We can wallow in what is wrong,
and impose unrealistic and undue restrictions on our thinking and ourselves,
or we can get creative and work to solve the problems in a way that will
allow people to have what they want, including certain 'things", and a clean
and healthy environment.

Let's get those thinking caps cranking on something else other than square
footage impositions or restrictions.

Cheers,
Ralph Bicknese

-----Original Message-----
From: FUnger@aol.com [mailto:FUnger@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:23 AM
To: hollandfoley@acadia.net; greenbuilding@crest.org
Subject: Re: [GBlist] house thoughts

Following up on David & Patricia's comments,

It seems that the most important thing many guilt ridden environmentalists
seem to leave out of the equation is the potential for technology and human
ingenuity to improve lives without a negative impact on the environment. In
fact, because history is a long story of increased progress and efficiency,
the "fair share" that Patricia alludes to has been an ever increasing size
share of an ever increasing size pie for an ever increasing number of people
throughout history. Thankfully, at least so far, our intelligence has helped
us avoid all the catastrophic limits predicted by Malthus and his heirs.

Energy is the fundamental driver of human prosperity. If you look at the
progress in the utilization of energy over the past millennium of so, one
notes that as we've moved from wood to coal to oil to natural gas as primary
energy sources, several major changes have happened at each step.

1) More useful energy was taken from each unit of fuel (greater efficiency)
2) The carbon byproducts and other nasties associated with utilization has
dramatically decreased. (far less pollution)
3) Peoples lifestyles and comfort have dramatically improved.

The history of energy technology is the history of increasing efficiency,
increasing decarbonization of the energy system and increasing living
standards for greater numbers of people. We are about to embark on the most
significant technological transformation in history.

Yesterday Energy Secretary Abraham announced what is likely the most
important goal ever set for government energy policy: moving to a hydrogen
fuel based economy. Once in place, the hydrogen economy promises vastly
improved living standards for everyone on the planet. And the various
processes of converting hydrogen to usable energy all involve some form of
oxidation and all have as their only resulting byproduct H20, pure water.

I am not arguing that we be irresponsible here, but that we embrace and work
hard toward the solutions rather than anguishing under a restrained and
limited vision of what is possible. We should be strongly supporting
political initiatives like those announced yesterday. Let's quit guilt
tripping ourselves and everyone else. We've been blessed with opportunities
nobody else in history has ever had. We should endeavor to share those
opportunities rather than renounce them. Enjoy your computers, stereos and
the other gifts that are the benefit of a free and prosperous society and in
your work try to help create a world where everyone else can enjoy these
gifts too.

Think about how much wealthier a typical poor family in America is today
compared to the richest kings of the middle ages: indoor plumbing, hot
running water, rapid accessible year round transportation, incredible
education opportunities, modern health care, modern communication, a vast
array of entertainment on demand through TV, radio and various other
technologies, fresh fruits and vegetables from around the world year round,
modern sanitation and clean water...........the list goes on. Really there
are only a few ways that a poor person in America today is lacking compared
to the kings of old. First is a lack of self esteem and dignity derived from
comparison to the greater wealth, comfort and respect enjoyed by most others
in our society and compared to the unfounded deference and other perks of
power that kings got from those considered subservient to them. The other is
the freedom from worry relative to their contemporaries. These differences
are derived relative to their contemporaries however and not to each other.
Measured in actual comfort, life span, health, and other meaningful measures
of prosperity, America's poor are almost all actually wealthier than the
wealthiest people alive just a century ago.

Hopefully we can learn from lives such as those David described in Chile to
figure out what really matters in our own lives, so that all of us can live
the comfortable, meaningful and dignified lives that free modern societies
are increasingly able to provide for everyone.

Cheerfully waiting for the onslaught,

Fred


In a message dated 1/10/02 9:35:55 AM Eastern Standard Time,
hollandfoley@acadia.net writes:

<< > 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?

 Dear Patricia:

 Thanks for considerate and well-expressed thoughts.  You're not far from
the
 idea of an "ecological footprint," first explored by William Res at the
 University of British Columbia (I think).  You might also want to take a
 look at "The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices," by
 Michael Brower and Warren Leon.

 I think I was once in a place where folks had the "statistical average"
 amount of resources - the island of Chiloe, in southern Chile.  Compared to
 our lives, things were pretty hardscrabble there, but - everyone had enough
 to eat, had a basic shelter, work to do and almost everyone was literate.
 (In fact, I think they were better educated than many of my fellow
 Americans.)  Parents had children in the expectation that they'd live to
 adulthood, and family ties seemed very strong.  The basics were covered,
and
 folks there seemed as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as anyone I know
here
 - perhaps more so.  Being there helped me realize just how much of my own
 life is just clutter.  I'd like to go back there someday.

 I'm writing this lovely philosophy on a several thousand $ computer system,
 while the CD player drones in the background.

 Hypocritically yours,

 David Foley
 --
 Holland & Foley Building Design L.L.C.
 232 Beech Hill Rd. >>

______________________________________________________________________
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
______________________________________________________________________