Home Green Home

Why legislation ????? Educate and cut the cord !!!!!! Cut the oil hose DAH. Just get independent. We have ben brainwashed buy electric Co. and Oil Co. for so long!!!!! We have soler calculators . So we can have solar computers. Off peak home heaters so we can have solar off peak heaters. We have point of use AC and water heaters that don't take a EPA licence to install. Water COOL systems that clean the air at the same time as they COOL the air and you do not need a tite house to use one efficantly . Solor Atic fans and vent fans Windmills have pumped water and now electricity with no oil . Solar cars and wind cars are on the lab shelf waitting for us to accept ! Not for any other reason . Ask for it and recieve it . Greedy People is all that makes recycled Cooking oil more expensive then deasel oil or wind power . solar power. 1 YR electric power bill in solar power equipment will give you free electric for 10+ YRs. today. $3,000. 240 amp power.

Everybody seems to want to go green. I know that people are worried about spending a lot of money to protect ang rebuild the environment . however we have a limitted income, we have difficultly in spending money for that . the problem is that people voluntarily assist the amount of expenses for green. of course there is a greater investment in green technologies, the answer is that we have to know how we invest effectively.

EP Rob - One thing you might want to check is whether your bills are actual readings, or just estimates. We had a problem in that our energy bills were being estimated based on past usage at this address, because the guy who was supposed to read our meter never did so. When we finally got someone to come out and read the meter, it turned out they had charged us for a bunch of gas we hadn't actually used. For the next 4 months our bill was $0, b/c we'd been overpaying. And now, our bills are almost 50% less for gas.

I think it is very resourceful and convinient to have "the Green home." for it is much cheaper and it seems it is helping the world by cutting the energy costs. Also by saying convinient it means it has the five essential things that is very helpful like the concerns in leakage, the solar lights, helping in air-conditioning, the waters saving washing machines and the lights inside the house. It is indeed cheaper for it will have immediate results like having the energy bills cut in half. In addition it is very easy to upgrade an old home. and that is why i agree with the Green Home.

We have an ideal situation, a south wall that is all windows for heat in the winter but no sun in the summer. Our place was built in 1994 and meets all the criteria for Green. I have recently put in Compact Flourescent bulbs in over 50% of our lighting. Somehow using less gas and electricty doesn't reduce our utilities, however.

I think people have a stress when circulatory system ,solar as well as fluid system are not efficient ,could create poorly energy efficient houses for living for buyer,so remodelling makes them better and good contioned house could sell in good price.

Regarding the comments that we should do whatever we can at whatever cost, the problem is that saving resources use resources. Everything involves tradeoffs. You have a limited income and a limited amount you can spend to "go green" while still affording food, clothes and a roof (green or any other color). If you waste that on marginally effective things that make your conscience feel good but actually do little or nothing to help the environment, you are wasting resources that could have been spent effectively. A great example is planting trees. Recent research indicates that planting trees in northern climates actually increases global warming rather than decreasing it. So, just doing "anything" is not necessarily helpful. We want to know which investments will actually pay back in terms of helping the environment, but we also need to know which will pay back in terms of our own budgets so we will know which things we have the resources to accomplish. The other problem is that time and time again it gets proven that if you depend on people voluntarily spending their own money for the global good without any immediate direct, tangible benefit to themselves, only a few will do so. To get the great mass of people to do something, you have to make it pay for them. The best way to get people to conserve enery is to raise the price. The second best is to find ways of saving energy that money for the consumer. Getting people to voluntarily do altruistic things is just not very effective. Show them things that will save them money and you will get more results.

posted By:arshee@11/9/0710.am
comments:I think every one have a stress in fixing solar as well as circulatory system when they built a house with trouble working and not energy efficient ,could create more pollution and poorly living condition for buyers ,so investing dollars on upgrading or remodeling is better to save energy.

LEED is for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, NOT leadership in Energy Efficient Design. The other proper title is the US Green Building Council (USGBC), NOT the Green Commission. This article is poorly researched and supplies basically NO facts examining the cost effectiveness of Greening your home. Ashley did you do any research? I expect a lot more facts and professionalism from Newsweek.

I agree that we need to take a larger view of the ecology and our impact on it ten years from now and further out, but also ten days from now, and tomorrow. I believe saving the Earth makes good karma along the way.What WILL our legacy be to the next generation?

I don't understand the controversy here. Everybody seems to want to go green, but I understand when people are worried that they will spend thousands of dollars (that could have been put towards groceries, college funds, etc) that will do nothing for them, when there are much cheaper ways to protect and rebuild the environment (planting a tree, driving less, etc.). Homes are very expensive and should be treated like investments, whether it is for green living or not.

I don't understand the controversy here. Everybody seems to want to go green, but I understand when people are worried that they will spend thousands of dollars (that could have been put towards groceries, college funds, etc) that will do nothing for them, when there are much cheaper ways to protect and rebuild the environment (planting a tree, driving less, etc.). Homes are very expensive and should be treated like investments, whether it is for green living or not.

Unbelievable!!! This shouldn't even be an article. If you have lots of money, maybe you should do your part to save the planet. It's not always about money. Sometimes it's about Karma. So incredibly closed minded this article is. How about the return on your investment when your kids in NYC are under water from glacier melting?

In my opinion the discussion should be more about what we can do to reduce the greenhouse gasses we contribute to, and how we can help fo begin to fix the state we have found the Earth to be in now. What price do we put on the further distruction of Planet Earth and all who live here? What is the legacy we will leave our children and grandchildren? THAT's what needs to be discussed. We have managed to help polute the earth through our lifetimes, now it's time to do whatever we can, at whatever cost, to attempt to fix what has been done. Remember, there's only ONE Planet Earth.

I wonder what price we can associate with climate change, and all the results of our continuing to polute our Earth? In my opinion we need to be more far sighted and think about the condition we will leave the Earth in for our children and grandchildren. Think about what we've done to mess the Earth up, but more importantly what are we going to do to help fix it in some way. THAT should be the discussion

The photograph accompanying the article is an unfortunate example of solar energy. There are many more elegant examples of solar electric and solar hot water systems. Why would the editor chose a photo of such a poorly constructed system? It has got to be one of the worst looking systems that I have seen. Why would anyone want to go solar if it meant their house would look like that?

No discussion of the Energy Bill, set to expire this year. Solar water heating is less capital-intensive than photovoltaic, but IRS requires a certified systemfor the credit. Thanks for at least mentioning shade!
I think the engineer'scomments are circular and confusing.

The comparison to hybrid vehicles does not make sense. The question referred to purchase price vs. reduced fuel charges over the life of the vehicle -- at what point does the extra investment come back in reduced expenses. The answer in the case of the houses should be the same as vehicles. Of course there is a greater investment in green technologies and of course the utility bills are less immediately, but at what point does the extra investment come back in reduced bills? The answer given seems untruthful. In my opinion, we must move toward green alternatives, but our data must be truthful, accurate, and transparent so that everyone can make an informed decision and trust the source of the data.

Just a slight correction: It is actually not the Green Commission but the US Green Building Council (who owns LEED) that are pushing the 'Green Envelope' and pushing legislation. Good article regardless.