Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would your suggestion then be that the size of homes be reduced? And, if so, and if the individual won't "down size" voluntarily, the government should force smaller home upon the public?
Ideally people would voluntarily conserve, reduce reliance on oil, etc., etc., but I suspect that instead we'll see "lemmings" instead.
Ideally people would voluntarily conserve, reduce reliance on oil, etc., etc., but I suspect that instead we'll see "lemmings" instead.
Let's assume for the moment that our hypothetical family can "live in" 1500 sq ft but, would be much happier and more comfortable in 3000 sq ft. Would you support government restrictions to require / mandate this family live in the 1500 sq ft home v building a 3000 sq ft?
Money has to be invested to make either efficient. My statement was targeting homes where the investment is not made and it's not efficient...
Normal construction practices and normal insulation values of an out of the box design preform equally well, they both still have to meet the 2006 IECC energy standards, which requires an almost 5 star energy star rating.
Every pound of copper requires a certain amount of energy to extract and refine. Same goes for concrete, lumber, shingles, windows, countertops, faucets, carpet, drywall, paint, siding, etc.
you are going to use the same energy regardless of if the home is large or small, someone is going to use the items, it could be installed on two small homes or one large home, the company will still manufacture the same amount of material.
Normal construction practices and normal insulation values of an out of the box design preform equally well, they both still have to meet the 2006 IECC energy standards, which requires an almost 5 star energy star rating.
you are going to use the same energy regardless of if the home is large or small, someone is going to use the items, it could be installed on two small homes or one large home, the company will still manufacture the same amount of material.
That's a weak argument for bigger homes. If everyone (or even simply most) used less, built smaller homes, etc., it would make a big difference. There isn't really any good excuse for wasting resources ("because I want it" isn't).
the 2003-2006 IECC are the standards used. The code may vary a little between each jurisdiction, but most likely they will make more strict rather than less.
That's a weak argument for bigger homes. If everyone (or even simply most) used less, built smaller homes, etc., it would make a big difference. There isn't really any good excuse for wasting resources ("because I want it" isn't).
I dont think it really is a weak argument. You have seen how many homes a sub-division will build. You can easily fit twice the small homes in the same land that may be sub-divided for larger homes. These materials will be made regardless if they are made for small or large homes. The increased demand for small homes will probably see an increase in production of these materials.
That's a weak argument for bigger homes. If everyone (or even simply most) used less, built smaller homes, etc., it would make a big difference. There isn't really any good excuse for wasting resources ("because I want it" isn't).
Again, why shouldn't one have what they want?? Why must someone compromise with something less than what would make them comfortable?
Again, why shouldn't one have what they want?? Why must someone compromise with something less than what would make them comfortable?
Nobody said you can't have what you want, so don't get your knickers in a twist. You can still have the big house and big car that make up for your small......concern for the environment.
The thread isn't even about whether you should use more resources. Its only asking the simple question of whether a little house that uses $1500 a year in energy is more eco-friendly than Al Gore's mansion that uses $30000 a year worth of power.
Noahma says bigger houses are equally efficient, and that the little house will use the same amount of energy as the big house, so we should respect his expert opinion and quit pestering the poor guy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
