COMMENT OF THE DAY: GETTING RID OF WASTEFULNESS 
“It amazes me that we’ve become so rich as a society that we can collectively afford to have fashions of home improvements that will go in and out of style (although remain perfectly functional) the same way clothes do. The funniest to me is when you see on one of these HGTV shows someone espousing all the right ‘green’ mantras, but the first thing they do when they get the house it tear out all the perfectly functioning appliances, cabinets, counters and carpet…etc to be thrown in a dumpster. All the while feeling smug about how sustainable the place is because they are putting in bamboo flooring . . .” [longcat, commenting on Comment of the Day: Your ‘Updates’ Are Dating You] Illustration: Lulu
Sign up for the Newsletter
My thoughts exactly. The new stuff will be more efficient, but it would take an awfully long time to make up for all the energy and pollution that were put into its creation & transportation. By then it will be out of date again…
I agree with the sentiment, but there are some exceptions. An old microwave or dishwasher from the 70s that barely works and makes you run everything for twice as long absolutely should be replaced. Same with old, inefficient water heaters. Conveniently, the market tells you this is a good idea by making these replacements actually save you money. And I replaced a range that essentially didn’t work; I don’t apologize for that.
But cabinets? I’ve replaced them myself and I understand why people do it, but let’s not pretend it’s “green” to do so.
I bought my gas stove/oven combo on Craigslist for $50 five years ago. Was cash strapped from the down payment on the house, and the FHA inspector wouldn’t approve the sale until there was a “working stove” in the kitchen. It was the cheapest working stove I could buy.
It’s from the early 1980’s and works great. I haven’t replaced it yet because it is so reliable and I’ve got other stuff to fix/replace where I’d rather spend my cash. In another 10 years, it will probably be “retro” or “antique.”
I look at everything labeled “sustainable” or “green” with a huge amount of skepticism, partially because people who push those agendas are hypocritical a-holes, and partly because 99% of those ideas are counterproductive and are a huge misplacement of resources and lack any sort of practicality.
—
In the US we produce 1.5 times more lumber than we consume, so any wood product is already more than sustainable.
—
And what does sustainable really mean? If we run out of a certain product or it gets too expensive, we simply switch to an alternative. That’s how society has worked for thousands of years.
I have to agree with Commonsense here, and I’m a LEED AP. “Sustainable” is too often used as a buzz word to get people to pay more, or for people to feel better about what they’re doing “I’m replacing a perfectly good floor in my house with a new floor – by hey, I’m using bamboo so it’s OK”.
.
For me me, the biggest thing to go for is urban sustainability. And by that I mean we have to find a way to make neighborhoods stay nice. Neighborhoods always start out nice, when they’re new, but over time, the housing stock deteriorates, LULUs (locally unacceptable land uses) find their way in, the schools get bad, new neighborhoods are built that have nicer houses…. After a few decades, the neighborhood that was conceived as solidly middle class or even upscale, is a slum. If it’s lucky, the neighborhood is then rediscovered; to become a hip, historical place to live. But that process (derided by some as gentrification) is a long, painful one.
.
There are ways around this cycle. Build quality houses to last. Make sure the location has easy access to other parts of the City. Provide work and recreation places as well as dwelling units. Build an abundance of parks, libraries, and other civic assets. Most of all, follow a cohesive, balanced plan. These aren’t a guarantee, but they greatly improve a neighborhood’s chances of staying nice, and hence being sustainable. Unfortunately, it all gets lost in the “sustainable” buzz.
“In the US we produce 1.5 times more lumber than we consume, so any wood product is already more than sustainable.”
Commonsense, Understand that ‘produce’ in this context means cut down and processed at a lumber mill. Not that trees are growing at a rate 1.5 times greater than we use wood.
Trees can absorb a fair amount of carbon, and will ‘fart’ a fair amount of oxygen (can you believe that, we live on tree farts!), it’s true that if the tree matures and dies on its own the carbon will be released back into nature, where if we ‘produce it’ into usable products the carbon becomes locked (until you burn it, or whatever), not to mention the amount of carbon needed to produce the wood for use…
overall, it’s a better plan to go to historic houston and buy old stuff for reuse than to go get some fresh stuff. Granted, as others have said, if you’re going to go in and replace all the appliances that are brand new, just not as shiny as you want, you’re not doing a lick of good for being ‘green’.
Actually in this case it means we also plant more than we need. Since most new lumber is farmed we actually have a NET increase of forests in the US every year.
ZAW says:
“There are ways around this cycle. Build quality houses to last. Make sure the location has easy access to other parts of the City. Provide work and recreation places as well as dwelling units. Build an abundance of parks, libraries, and other civic assets. Most of all, follow a cohesive, balanced plan. These aren’t a guarantee, but they greatly improve a neighborhood’s chances of staying nice, and hence being sustainable. Unfortunately, it all gets lost in the “sustainable†buzz.”
But how do we in Houston do that?
The houses in my neighborhood are/were quality houses built to last. Our location has easy access to other parts of the City. Our neigborhood is adjacent to work places, has three parks, and lots of green space for leisure. Unfortunately, becuase we have de minimus building codes and deed restictions and NO ZONING, all of these same things which should be preventing the unsustainable cheap shoddy construction is actaully attracting it!
So, what’s a nice neighborhood to do?
@Mel:
“What’s a neighborhood to do?”
.
Study your neighborhood. Know exactly what deed restrictions are in force on what properties, and what the potential weaknesses are. (See if you can get them updated, though it can be an uphill battle) Know what properties are owned by whom, and what the concerns are on the properties. Keep one ear to the ground at all times, listening for any land sales or potential developments coming down the pipeline.
.
Most of all, be proactive. Talk to your neighbors. Establish a vision of how you want your neighborhood developed, and communicate it to the public. It won’t be binding, because if it were, it’d be zoning, but it will help developers understand exactly what your concerns are. As long as the concerns are reasonable, many of them will listen. This is preferable to what most neighborhood groups do here in Houston: which is to sit around doing nothing, until someone comes along with an unwanted development, and then mobilize to try to stop it.
Replacing good flooring with bamboo is indeed not “green”. But I don’t think most people are as stupid as you give them (no) credit for. They know that. If you’re forming opinions of how people think based on non-scripted TV shows, well, those are as reliable a reflection of reality as are the scammy links in the “Content From Around the Web” section above.
I & a LOT of people could care less. Earth is on a doomsday downward spiral partially because of human degradation of our planet. And no matter how many “green” initiatives are implemented , in the long run it really will NOT make a dent in the climate change we humans have brought upon this planet. If mankind had changed it’s ways 100 years ago ,there might be a slight chance we could pull back on the environmental damage we’ve done. But really people: it’s too late… We’ve screwed up… @ ZAW: exactly. The green fundamentalists claim they’re “green” yet their carbon footprint is do huge it’s a joke. They’re the ultimate hypocrites .. And frauds.LIke former Vice-President Al Gore. He wanted everyone to go “green” Yet the douche bag was flying in private jets, lives in homes ranging from 9,000 to 20,000 sq.ft. The elite won’t give up their lifestyles. So why even bother? It’s all a big ,fricking scam and a colossal joke.
typo correction: So huge instead of do huge…
Patrick, I totally agree with you on most of that. I don’t think it’s too late though. Take some Prozac dude.