Just a few days ago I met with a potential client who very much wanted me to design a rural green home on the edge of a wetland. He would have to compensate for the damage the home would do by funding the planting of native flora to help restore another wetland.
I declined even though it would have been interesting and lucrative. I am fully aware that he will just hire someone else and besmirch the wetland anyway. This happens to me on occasion. I refuse to design rural homes or cabins, especially off-grid ones, purely out of a sense of self-righteous indignation. They are sores on the face of the planet. I don't really blame those who are chasing their eco-fantasy, and I don't really blame those who will eventually do the designs for them, I just don't want to participate in the rape of the planet any more than necessary.
But today, I got the following email:
I recently purchased some property on a Caribbean Island off the coast of Panama. I plan on building two houses. One small over the water guest house (depth approximately 3 feet) approximately 702 square feet which includes a 180 sq loft and 180 deck. The main house will be on 9 ft pilings and will be approximately 2560 sq which includes a 560 sq loft and 600 sq feet deck. It will be two bedrooms, two bath + the loft. The house will be off the grid with solar and a water catchment system.
I have completed basic draft plans with pencil and paper. I am looking for someone to make recommendations and complete house plans on CAD or similar format. In addition to your normal compensation I would offer a free week stay at the guest house if interested.
Please let me know if this is a project you have interest in working on and next steps.
I have no idea if this is a legitimate request, the musings of a dreamer, a scam to get me to buy a timeshare, or worse, a joke from my brother-in-law.
It doesn't matter, because I can still use it to make a point. The profit motive is extremely powerful. Once an environmentalist starts a business to capitalize on some aspect of the present popularity of "going green," all pretenses of neutrality are off. When a publication starts to accept advertising, a biofuel distributor defends biofuels, or a carbon-offset business owner defends carbon offsets, they had better have some very defensible arguments, because the presence of rationalization bias, both conscious and unconscious, is almost guaranteed.
Should I delete the email so I won't be tempted? What would you do?
Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1
Slideshow: Reinventing the JP Green House
Comments
View as Flat
JMG Posted 4:47 pm
18 Aug 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 5:54 pm
18 Aug 2007
The profit motive is extremely powerful. Once an environmentalist starts a business to capitalize on some aspect of the present popularity of "going green," all pretenses of neutrality are off. When a publication starts to accept advertising, a biofuel distributor defends biofuels, or a carbon-offset business owner defends carbon offsets, they had better have some very defensible arguments, because the presence of rationalization bias, both conscious and unconscious, is almost guaranteed.
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:10 pm
18 Aug 2007
You hit a raw nerve with me on this one. The place described in the email sounds like Bocas del Toro in Panama. The type of house is being built at a rapid pace in this tropical jewel. Do a Google search on Bocas del Toro. You will see pictures of many similar dwellings.
I lived in Panama in the late 60s during my teen years. I surfed at a few pristine beaches on the Pacific coast that were almost devoid of any development save a few rural residences and very quaint little vacation houses. Now, several miles of these same beaches are built up with resorts, condos, and massive houses with walls, fences and armed guards. Truly depressing to revisit these almost unrecognizable places now.
Much of this is being built by wealthy Panamanians but much originates from US citizens who are buying a piece of paradise. Land prices have risen sharply. A lot of this is on the grid growing the demand for power. There is a fight going on in Panama now between beach front owners and private investors who have somehow purchased property and rights to build dams and hydro plants on rivers that feed sand to the coast and maintain the beaches. Some rich irony there.
The vast majority of people have no qualms about all this happening either here or there. I am a paddler and I am offended by people who are purchasing land along very scenic waterways and building very opulent vacation homes. These people have the idea that they are somehow improving the property and have absolutely no sense of ethical constraints about destroying the commons. Some more progressive states and local communities have placed zoning restrictions in some river valleys to prevent the worst abuse but many states with a more laissez and conservative view of property rights have put the green light on such building which they view as good for their economies (Panama most certainly is encouraging development and the influx of expats).
What would I do? I'd write the guy back and tell him that it conflicts with your values, ethics and morals. Steer him toward ideas that would possibly have much less impact farther inland, away from this rich coastal area.
I don't know the term that describes your dilemma -- if I don't do it someone else will. There probably is some word that ethicists have coined to call this. But there is a simple test to see the end results of such thinking -- what would the world be like if everyone does it? And if I don't like the image should I be like everyone? Of course, many will exempt themselves from the test through their elitist lens by giving themselves the green light of having somehow earned it on the ladder of success. Not everyone can do it because they can't pay for it. Problem is there are enough of those who can pay for it to screw it up.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:50 pm
18 Aug 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
PeterReefman Posted 11:33 pm
18 Aug 2007
What sticks in my mind with things like this is "Be part of the solution, not part of the problem".
Actually, "When you're digging yourself into a hole, the first thing to do before trying to get out is to stop digging" might work too...
Isn't there plenty of good progressive & sustainable medium density projects to be involved in?...
You must be the change you want to see in the world.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 12:09 am
19 Aug 2007
But of course, you should try to understand what you could do as contractor/consultant to affect the project, green-wise.
"Free week stay at the guest house" does not sound like any mighty inducement, though, does it.
From what I know about Jesus, which is not much, I would say, Say No to these clearly slimey and manipulative people, but see what you can do to keep in touch.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Steven T Posted 3:07 am
19 Aug 2007
No, it isn't good. But what to do besides wagging a finger at the guilty?
It may be useful to discuss the economics of the green home building industry. Those who design and construct green homes may find themselves catering primarily to more affluent customers out of economic necessity -- less affluent folks often cannot afford "custom" homes even when they are fairly modest in size and amenities.
In addition, density proponents really need to do a better job of confronting quality-of-life issues that drive sprawl, such as the typical city's relative lack of attention to light and noise pollution, dearth of green space, etc. Generally the most habitable parts of a city are the high-priced areas that only the wealthier (and/or someone with greater equity in a mortgage) can afford.
From my perspective, being green isn't just about utilitarian values such as energy efficiency. It's also about maintaining a sense of connection with nature -- which can be much harder to do when living in even a smaller town.
We need a revival of the "garden city" movement, where urban and rural values are artfully integrated. Without that, "growth management" lacks soul.
Permalink
justlou Posted 4:17 am
19 Aug 2007
In this context,how can we make our local communities more natural settings when escape during times of growing shortages might become a real luxury for the masses now crowding highways and airways?
Look at many of the "green" areas in your local environment and in many cases you will see these areas dominated by the weedy growth of alien species, a landscape with no identity or ownership, green to the eye during summer, but absolutely uninviting. Ecological restoration in our home communities has the potential of employing literally millions of people in full time stewardship jobs. I then have to ask, where is the wealth to do this? And what is done with wealth as influenced by the values and priorities of each of us individually and as a community -- which takes us back to the original question of this post.
I would not say all is lost for I do see some towns and small cities which do look like very inviting places to live and not surprising, they also attract a lot of visitors.
Permalink
trock Posted 6:08 am
19 Aug 2007
hah.
take the money.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:15 am
19 Aug 2007
Well, you could just go ahead and build it since according the IPCC he and his houses are going to be either burned to toast or flooded under "rising sea levels" in few years. Might as well enjoy the money...
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:39 am
19 Aug 2007
<<
From my perspective, being green isn't just about utilitarian values such as energy efficiency. It's also about maintaining a sense of connection with nature -- which can be much harder to do when living in even a smaller town.
>>
In my heart, I powerfully agree with this sentiment. But all our tough experience with the Gristmill community ought to teach us that environmentalists cannot expect anything from one another, so far as metaphysics and cosmological ethics go.
Then, this from JustLou:
<<
Ecological restoration in our home communities has the potential of employing literally millions in full time stewardships jobs.
>>
Absolutely. It would be terrific, if here in NYC, for example, we had a corps of workers greenifying the rooves of our homes (i.e., structures of several floors, usually, with a few households on each floor, and, typically, with a flat, black, barren roof).
On smaller cities and towns:
The PBS show "This Old House" has begun to re-run its "Austin project," a remarkably green restoration/expansion of a cute bungalow in Austin, Texas. When I first saw it, I was amazed by the kinds of recycled materials used, and even more by ways the discarded old materials were to be recycled, than by the new, energy-saving designs.
A little over a week ago, we drove through the tornado-smashed town of Greensburg, Kansas, and were awestruck, i.e. horrified, by what we saw. There are piles of rubble everywhere; here and there, there is a standing facade, like a Hollywood set; there is an emergency hospital, a compound of tents; the trees that still are standing look gnawed upon. It would be good for Grist to follow the commitment of at least a few citizens of that town to rebuild, following exclusively green standards (appropriate to the town's name, after all). I find myself wondering: in one of the reddest of red states, and in a town that even nearby Wichita does not care much about (from my own observation), where is the wealth coming from?; and the intelligent direction?; and the political and social will?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
justlou Posted 7:33 am
19 Aug 2007
Permalink
riverguy Posted 1:06 pm
19 Aug 2007
Permalink
cconservationist Posted 7:45 pm
19 Aug 2007
I understand why you didn't plan the wetland home. But can someone spell out for me why you would object to building rural homes and cabins that are off the grid? Is it particular projects?
Thx.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:49 am
20 Aug 2007
Caniscandida, I worked on several "green" bungalows up in Austin for a guy named Bill Moore and several other independents. The most interesting was not only the "green" concept but being an allergy-free house as well. Even the drywall mud and paint was special ordered to cover both bases. Good thing I bid it cost plus, since we were there forever, fussiest client ever!
Back to Panama, I don't see a problem with such a small project. If you've been reading about developments from the Bahamas down to Panama, many are HUGE developments covering a hundred acres or more, sometimes with (gasp) potentially toxic golf courses. Reef and ecosystem destruction is not caused by a cabin with a composting toilet and a RO water treatment system, but the big fellas.
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
justlou Posted 4:16 am
20 Aug 2007
Take a look at just one realty website and you will get some idea of this issue:
http://www.bocasdeltororealty.com/index.asp
And some idea of the biological and ecological significance of the area:
http://www.stri.org/english/research/facilities/marine/bo ...
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 4:37 am
20 Aug 2007
http://www.saveguanacayreef.com/
-sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink