Why it seems like just yesterday I was harping on the notion that, as long as our public policies yield built environments in which eco-friendly choices are difficult, eco-friendly choices will not be the norm.
Today I find a superb illustration of my pet notion in the Wall Street Journal, in the form of an excellent piece by Jeffrey Ball. I beg of you: go read it. (Of course, you can't unless you subscribe to WSJ, which you don't, so ...)
It's about people trying their best to conserve energy (you might recall that the president wants us to be "better conservers") in Houston, Texas. Long story short: it ain't easy.
Admittedly, one part of the problem is the typical American craving for luxury and comfort:
Karl Rabago, an efficiency expert at the Houston Advanced Research Center, a nonprofit think tank, also knows the contradictions of energy-efficient living.
He chose a house just 6½ miles from his office in The Woodlands, an environmentally oriented community north of Houston. That lets him commute by bicycle, usually wearing a green T-shirt emblazoned with the message "ONE LESS CAR."
He and his wife picked out a house in which the rooms they use most face north. That way, they get less direct sunlight, cutting down markedly on air-conditioning use. "Ninety-five percent of my energy conservation comes from the decisions I made in advance," Mr. Rabago says.
The house has a swimming pool out back, a fitness room upstairs and 3,600 square feet of interior space. He and his wife paid about $340,000 for the place, in which they live alone.
"Yeah, it's way too big for two people," Mr. Rabago volunteers sheepishly, as Simon & Garfunkel's "The Sound of Silence" plays from speakers connected to his iPod. The Rabagos bought a large house because they figured it will earn them a higher profit when the time comes to sell. "I'm not into sack cloth and ashes," he says.
But then there are zoning laws:
Yet when he requested a metal roof, which would have reflected even more sunlight, his builder said the subdivision allowed only shingles made of asphalt -- a petroleum product. When Mr. Gresham proposed covering his front yard with rocks and native plants that don't need watering, his subdivision's homeowners association told him he had to stick with grass. "It protects their property values," explains Diana Barak, director of operations for PCMI, a Houston firm that helps administer the homeowners association.
And of course don't forget outmoded cultural connotations:
The spiral-shaped [compact florescent] bulbs use about one-quarter the energy of conventional lights, generate less heat, and usually last several years. Still, the bulbs remain an oddity. Two years ago, when Mr. Rabago and his wife put their old house near Minneapolis on the market, their real-estate agent advised him to remove the fluorescent bulbs and to put back the conventional models. "Sorry, Karl, don't try to sell your lifestyle," he recalls the agent saying.
So anyway, perhaps Houston is an extreme example, but the point remains: Most places are built such that eco-unfriendly habits are deeply ingrained and difficult -- economically, socially, and just practically -- to break.
But note this:
There's a paradox at work in the way the U.S. consumes energy. The American economy is getting more energy-efficient. Partly because of a shift toward lighter industry and service work, and partly because machinery is getting more efficient, the U.S. today uses only about half as much energy as it did in the early 1970s to produce every dollar of gross domestic product. Yet the average American's personal energy consumption isn't going down.
You could view this as a troubling paradox, or you could just view it as good news. Ultimately, the large-scale energy-use picture does not hinge crucially on the personal habits of the citizenry. Changes in technology and public policy ultimately have far greater repercussions.
Comments
View as Flat
Stentor Posted 12:12 am
21 Oct 2005
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:15 am
21 Oct 2005
Home maintenance is expensive, frustrating and time consuming and the bigger the house, the worse it gets. To a point, there is no physical reason for bigger being better. It has become purely a matter of perception. People need to understand that bigger is not better. Big houses are the equivalent of Hummers and should be stigmatized similarly, removing the status of owning one.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Icelander Posted 2:38 am
21 Oct 2005
If I were selling the house, I'd tell the real estate agent "I'm not planning on taking the bulbs. They're a feature, put it in the listing notes." I'd have to replace the bulbs in the house I move into anyway, why not encourage the buyers to keep the CF bulbs I put in?
Permalink
krabago Posted 12:49 am
22 Oct 2005
Jeff Ball's article, which reflected my experiences and those of others regarding energy conservation, was accurate and captured the challenges facing individuals seeking to reduce their energy footprint.
The printed version could not, of course, tell the whole story. I think the indvidual actions of the citizenry are a key part of the solution. Personally, I am most surprised to be described as emblematic of the typical American "craving" for luxury.
My background and career of public service (13 years military service, 3 environmental NGO jobs, 1 state government job, 1 teaching position, etc.) has left me with no trust fund or giant nest egg. If I could retire on psychic income, I would have been "swimming" in luxury a long time ago.
Buying bigger and "nicer" homes has been a good strategy for building some measure of conventional wealth for me - and many others. With the economy what it has been, especially under the current administration, this has been a sound strategy - especially for someone who changes jobs and moves often.
If I am typical, it is in wanting a measure of financial security for my family in spite of not enjoying the income and opportunity others earn by working solely in the private sector or inherit by stroke of lucky birth.
In my neighborhood, I am, in fact, an oddity. I am Hispanic; I have very little debt; I have already raised my children; and I have never made half the salary of my neighbors.
And I am teaching them a thing or two about saving energy and protecting the environment. The technology and policy don't mean a thing unless people use them. This is going to happen one person at a time.
In the environmental movement, we often fall victim to the mistake of "making the perfect the enemy of the good." (It is at the heart of the threats to the vitality of the environmental movement, I think.) Some of the tone of these postings gets close to that point.
Here's another approach. Let's tell our friends that the WSJ carried a story on energy efficiency and renewables - the WSJ, for goodness sakes! The other people Jeff Ball featured in his story deserve our support as real heroes - and real leaders, doing the right thing in spite of unpopularity and even criticism from colleagues and neighbors. That's what the people in Jeff Ball's story really typify. They deserve support and encouragement from the environmental community for trying to take these issues "mainstream" and for making a difference one decision at a time.
Karl R. Rabago
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 109';l[21]=' 111';l[22]=' 99';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 99';l[25]=' 97';l[26]=' 109';l[27]=' 64';l[28]=' 111';l[29]=' 103';l[30]=' 97';l[31]=' 98';l[32]=' 97';l[33]=' 114';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink