I think I've harped on this before, but I'm designing a new house and so it's on my mind. The issues I keep coming back to all revolve around one definition, or sentiment, or concept . . . call it what you want. Energy efficiency seems to be our goal. I think it's a bad one. Sure we want buildings to be more efficient, as part of a larger strategy. But the overall strategy should not be to efficiently use energy. It should be to not use energy. Westerners love luxury. And so, we love, or seem to love gadgetry. Additionally, we seem to be thinking that we will be able to have our cake, and eat it to, as they say.
A Ferrari is efficient. It is a gas drinking car, but it performs better that most other gas drinking cars. So you don't ask who needs a Ferrari when a Corvette will do? Ask who needs a Ferrari when a Chevette will do? Then realize that that is still the wrong question. Who needs a Ferrari when a bicycle will do? Now you are getting somewhere.
I know, I'm full of it. How do I commute to my high paying job forty minutes drive away on a bike? Good question. Move closer to work. Work closer to home, for less, and save the cash you spent on the Ferrari.
I guess what I'm saying is that is seems like we need to be asking questions more fundamental than R-30 or R-19. It starts with 1800 square feet or 800 square feet.
I know I'm a hypocritical sonofabitch because here I am planning a new house while I live in perfectly good one. One that no minions of caulkers or insulators have set upon recently. I have my reasons, perhaps discussed in other entries, or in the comments section, if anyone ever comments . . .
I just don't see us solving our consumption problems by installing super high efficiency hot-tubs. I think we've gotta dig a little deeper than that.
No comments:
Post a Comment