Green: A marketing scheme used to sell environmentally destructive crap to unthinking dupes.
Here's an eco-fantasy article crafted to sell second homes. Scaling from the French doors in one picture I calculate that this "cabin" is twice the size of my own two-story, two-bath, four-bedroom home in Seattle. Half of this visible wall is window, having half the insulation value of a typical wall:
Located 50 feet from the house are two solar-tracking arrays with a total output of 3 kilowatts. The system is tied to the power grid, feeding excess electricity back to the electric company in a process known as reverse metering. The home is designed to produce more energy than it uses.
Truth in advertising is an oxymoron. A solar array of this size in this area might produce more electrical energy than the home consumes only because the home will be empty 98 percent of the time, not to mention it is being heated with propane while empty (the tank is suspiciously absent in all photos).
Another mountain meadow bites the dust to fulfill the status seeking urges of a couple of upright walking primates. This home is not cool. It is a badge of shallowness. Spread the meme. Mockery is one way to change status symbols, which are relative. They can take just about any form, from a meadow-destroying cabin to a Mother Earth tattoo on your chest. We are in need of many cultural changes and picking appropriate status symbols will go a long way towards making those changes.
A $4 billion push to make affordable housing green
For public transportation to survive, we all need to ... drive more?
Weatherization will save us all
Comments
View as Threaded
amazingdrx Posted 3:39 pm
15 Jul 2008
The newer replacements are more like the one you are talking about bio-d. It would be nice to see the old designs replicated in super insulated, composting toilet, green mode. With the same small footprint of the originals and zero carbon footprint.
There would be status in a resort like that, a 100% green resort, with the classic style of the old summer lodge, camp grounds, and cabins.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
314159265 Posted 8:54 pm
15 Jul 2008
I'm waiting for the invention of the compostable compost heap frame, 100% organic.
Permalink
randino Posted 10:04 pm
15 Jul 2008
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:15 pm
15 Jul 2008
And which increases the amount of steel and concrete required. These are both materials with bad CO2 rap sheets. While not all environmental issues are to do with carbon emissions, the use of plantation-grown wood in construction actually sequesters carbon for the life of the building, and with appropriate re-use, even beyond. Why would we discourage this?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 11:36 pm
15 Jul 2008
I take your larger point, but let's not lose sight of the fact that green has become sexy. It may not all fit our personal definitions of greenery, and it may not be a green style that all can afford economically, or that the globe can afford all to deploy environmentally. But the directional impulse to think about less-energy intensive materials, add PV, etc. is not a bad one - and I think we're better off acknowledging those tentative first steps and encouraging more than just blasting these efforts as misguided greenwashing.
Behaving in an ecologically-responsible way is complicated. Some are new to the game. Just as you wouldn't yell at your kid when they start talking because their grammar sucks, we shouldn't bash these first steps either without also acknowledging their improvement over the that which preceded.
Permalink
MikeGiberson Posted 11:42 pm
15 Jul 2008
But you must be right about the PV system. Possibly over the year it generates more electricity than the house uses, but overall energy consumption has got to be much higher than the solar system can generate (or else the house is much much more impressive than they are letting on).
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 2:11 am
16 Jul 2008
The big problem with a lot of cabins is that they're meant for summer use only, which means they're not insulated. And people don't realize that conventional fireplaces are excellent for toasting marshmallows, not so good at heating.
I've been trying to think of ways to make over-consumption uncool. I mean, if you're over-consuming, you're compensating for a lack of meaningful things in your life. Alas, meaningful things like good family and friend connections are not exactly the height of coolness. Besides, I'm all busy growing and cooking food for my friends...
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 2:13 am
16 Jul 2008
Permalink
sindark Posted 2:31 am
16 Jul 2008
Of course, I think it gets fostered better by no-impact camping than by lounging about...
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
archigeek Posted 2:31 am
16 Jul 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:42 am
16 Jul 2008
Using second homes to promote green technology is counter productive for multiple reasons.
It promotes imitation, the backbone of status seeking, stimulating others to build second homes with solar panels so they can be cool too.
The net envirommental impact of this cabin nullifys the solar panels many times over. The more of these you build the worse it gets. They should have greened up their existing homes.
As with boats, second homes are rarely used after the shine wears off in a year or two.
Second homes are a mental fantasy. Owners fanatsize about entertaining and impressing guests with them, which almost never happens after a year or two. The novelty wears off, they become boring, the next sucker gets in line, another meadow gets turned into a septic field.
Compare the environmental impact of this home to a Hummer. Even with its solar panels it makes a Hummer look green. Hummers devour fewer medows, use fewer natural resources, and won't emit as much CO2 in its lifetime. I suppose you could mount a solar panel on top of your Hummer ...
That's the way status seeking works. It's all a matter of perception.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:43 am
16 Jul 2008
10 by 14 feet is fine, pre-built with all the low impact stuff built in. SolarPV/heat, composting toilet, gravity water supply, ultra-efficient tiny wood heater for really cold weather.
People would realize they could do without that huge carbon footprint, and be much happier. That would be a real green vacation. maybe a plugin hybrid shuttle ride to and from the train too?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
javaearth Posted 3:07 am
16 Jul 2008
Honestly, why not just have a tent and go camping, pick up your stuff at the end and than go home.
Why do humans like to make very thing so much more complicated than it has to be. Why do we insist on using up every last resources to have more sh!t that we actually need. There is no other species that causes this level of destruction that we do every day!
I only have this one life, so I am going to try my very best to make a positive change.
--- The Happy & Healthy Vegan ---
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:35 am
16 Jul 2008
But to me, a "cabin" was always like 20 x 20 or smaller, like the size of a one or two car garage. No way a house over 1,500 square feet could be considered a cabin. Sounds like marketing smack-talk for the uber-rich.
Cabins, by their very definition, were not insulated in the old days, often no more than glorified tarpaper shacks. Maybe I'm just an old fart but the minute you start talking about energy efficiency, insulation, heat pumps, and PV, you're not talking "cabin" anymore. In this case it sounds more like "second McMansion." -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
justlou Posted 4:20 am
16 Jul 2008
Aldo himself took a run down shack on a run down farm in Wisconsin and made a retreat of it, but he used it wisely as a base for nature writing and promoting land conservation and land ethics.
Many of these 2nd homes are being built in critical areas of wildlife habitat including grizzly bear range. In some cases they are driving up the price of land and are competing for prized areas with private conservation organizations. With your tax support, much of fire fighting in the west now focuses on protecting these developments. And they must also be interfering with the ability of conservation agencies to manage prescribed burns. There was a recent instance in Montana of the Forest Service or the Interior Dept. giving some luxury home developer the green light to blacktop logging roads on public land leading into their development. Plus, this puts financial pressure on local communities by greatly extending their range of support services.
Additionally, the truly wealthy get to their properties via private or commercial jet. So, compute the carbon footprint on these folks. In these cases of luxurious consumption I prefer "carbon assprint".
Putting any kind of green label on any of these properties is some delusional thinking. But when you start out with a base point of a truly delusional and alien sense of "ownership" then it is easy to jump to this distortion or disregard of land values and ethics.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:29 am
16 Jul 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:39 am
16 Jul 2008
To me, that's what's needed. Small. Smaller cars, smaller homes. In some sense, smaller people. If we get all the growth hormones out of our food, the average height can creep back down again -- smaller everything.
http://shelterhome.blogspot.com/2007/02/small-homes-that- ...
Permalink
Hal 9000 Posted 5:54 am
16 Jul 2008
More broadly, the accumulation of wealth is either our dominant cultural imperative or near the very top of the list. Given the enormity of the task of cultural change, it seems inevitable that we'll at least partially "green" our culture through this imperative. For example, the notion of individual home, commercial building, and neighborhood energy independence should really be appealing within our existing culture as an alternative or supplement to centrally owned and generated power.
Given the effect of the dominant culture's values on the environment, it's also obviously critical to challenge cultural assumptions and promote change to values that no longer serve the culture. Bill McKibben's dissection of "more is better" in "Deep Economy" and works on the "pursuit of happiness" (once basic needs are met, most people find satisfaction, happiness, and meaning in common pursuits and relationships, not things) are useful examples.
These ideas may also provide a helpful backdrop for the "cabin" article. On one hand, it's easy to write off a second home, especially of this magnitude, as ridiculously conspicuous consumption. On the other hand, "green" was at least a value the homeowners considered when the home was built. Since many Americans do own second homes the consideration of "green" as a value matters culturally. Finally, the dominant value behind the choice to build a second home at all may really be relational--the "pursuit of happiness" through the creation of community and relationships (a "cabin" as a retreat building that will endure for decades for a multi-generational family business). Obviously, there are more environmentally benign ways to create community, but, given the range of choices the "cabin" owners could have made, it could have been much worse.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 7:47 am
16 Jul 2008
That goes to some very failed land policies about building expensive houses in forested areas, which need to be protected (at very high taxpayer cost) from wildfires and other natural disasters.
So you're right, Hal, if some government agency is silly enough to allow such wonton destruction, you can build all the "green" homes you want.
But there once was a time when real cabins, some made of logs and quite energy efficient, had a very small footprint. No land was cleared except for a narrow dirt lane and enough to sink posts into the ground for foundation pilings. Such cabins were used by fishermen and hunters and might only have a few cots, an oil lamp, and a potbelly stove. I will say that when spaced far and wide, these real cabins were sustainable (some are approaching 80 years old). Completely different vision, bruddah, and I'd love to see how long these richie-rich people could last in really rustic conditions.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:31 am
17 Jul 2008
...once basic needs are met, most people find satisfaction, happiness, and meaning in common pursuits and relationships, not things.
Missing from McKibben's short list of things that elicit consistent, low level, pleasurable sensations in social primates (happiness) is level of status. Note that a cabin, like a yacht, is a "thing." It isn't always possible to parse out the "dominant" reason for our actions. The dominant reason for buying a car is for transport. The dominant reason for choosing a Hummer or Prius is more difficult to determine. The Hummer owner will have his reasons as will the Prius driver (safe, off road capability, or emits fewer emissions, uses less oil). What they won't say is that they also bought them because they have high status in their respective peer groups. Which was the dominant reason for the purchase? There are thousands of models of cars, with new ones coming out every single year. The market for these cars exists because of our subliminal instincts to try to differentiate ourselves. Cars kill two birds with one stone. They are a convenient means of display and differentiation, plus they are a way to get around.
It does not matter what a person's reasons are for despoiling an ecosystem, or how they do it. In this case it's with a home that will suck energy and resources while being empty 98% of the time. Cabins despoil a chunk of the planet for very little if any actual emotional or spiritual gain. They are the result of fantasies. Buying a yacht or second home in the "pursuit of happiness" (an attempt to create community and relationships) is killing a mosquito with a sledgehammer. In a world of limited natural resources, a cabin gives you very little bang for your buck in that respect. It's an inefficient (stupid) way to seek community. However, as a status display, it meets all criteria: expensive, opulent, and beautiful. It is an undeniable display of the owner's wealth, capability.
A common motivational fantasy behind every cabin or yacht purchase is that it will become a place where three generations of family and your 100 closest friends will come together to enjoy one another's company. In reality, that only happens once or twice in total, or possibly may evolve into an annual thing, in the form of family reunions or possibly a fourth of July celebration. One certainly does not need to own a cabin or yacht to do these things.
On the other hand, "green" was at least a value the homeowners considered when the home was built. Since many Americans do own second homes the consideration of "green" as a value matters culturally.
It is good that greenness is beginning to take on a measure of status. But status has and always will be a game of cat and mouse. It is rife with deception. Those solar panels, like a car, serve multiple purposes. They generate electricity and they are conspicuous displays of status. Which is the dominant reason they were installed? Does it matter? Will this cabin with its token panels motivate others to build cabins, thus magnifying its already significant negative environmental impact? You can bet on it. This baby is a big paving stone on the road to hell.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink