Big and green?
There is a very interesting debate going on over at Grist.
A "speculative 15,000 square foot mansion in Manalapan, Fla., will be the first home of its size to be certified green by the U.S. Green Building Council and the Florida Green Building Council." Is that a good idea for USGBC? That's my question to you. Obviously people are going to build big homes -- and it is better if they have green features. But should USGBC single out such "eco-mansions" for positive recognition?My response to this is bellow, i agree that a low energy home is better than a high energy one but i think there is a more important argument.
It strikes me that when we talk about many topics such as: 1. Business Energy Usage 2. Green Buildings 3. National 'Intensity' targets. We are talking about emissions relative to the past. We need to talk about emissions relative to our planet, in other words, one big paradigm change of the climate challenge is saying no to relative targets: we dont live a a relative planet the logic dosent work. If we accept relative targets for buildings (90% bigger than that size, when smaller sizes are possible) then why not for businesses? If for businesses then why not for countries? If for countries then why not for the world...answers are all the same.
Home del.icio.us Digg This!