Living Car Free - Sustainable housing

We often talk about sustainable living and I have often been interested in my carbon foot print. After getting rid of one of our cars I now have a carbon foot print much smaller than most people I know. But we have been planning on visiting a place in Taos that I saw on TV that seems like a good idea.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/earthship-homes-desert-save-owners-cash/story?id=12501438

http://www.earthship.org/

I see a lot of this on TV... new "green" designs.

My first thought is that the greenest approach would be to improve ( or maybe even just leave as is...) some already existing.

In fact, a lot of older housing could be considered "green" because they're generally a lot smaller than newer homes. Less space to heat or cool.

It may have a utility bill of $100 per year but it costs $400,000 to build and it's on an acre of land in the middle of nowhere. When they start building them on 25 foot frontages on Main Street, then it will really be green

I see a lot of this on TV... new "green" designs.

My first thought is that the greenest approach would be to improve ( or maybe even just leave as is...) some already existing.

In fact, a lot of older housing could be considered "green" because they're generally a lot smaller than newer homes. Less space to heat or cool.

They have some smaller lots if you research the site. Some start as low as 40k in the development. But you get to live off of the grid. I took a trip to Kenya with some people to introduce some of the building methods mentioned here. The cost is considerably less when people do their own work. But look what it has. They grow their own food, provide their own power and even plan for their own sewage. We have often talked about the effects of how we live on the earth and nothing we have built to date is as green using steel, concrete, and public utilities.

I am just saying main street will never be green using coal and oil to generate power. And city goveernments aren't in the position to add solar, water collectors and grey water plant hydration. Right now my place is paid for and my utility bills are pretty small but if things changed they are already doing what many of us can only dream of doing.

There's a book on this I read lately.. Starts out by noting that per capita, the most environmentally friendly place in America by far was New York City. NYC residents have a tiny environmental footprint compared to everyone else.
If you want to go green, go live in an existing place in downtown and go carfree. Unless you're willing to go all the way to Amish, it doesn't get much better than that. Building a place eats power and a lot of those green designs are also huge examples of exurban sprawl. Also, they use a lot of huge, poorly insulated windows. Windmills and solar cells do NOT lower consumption of coal, and you cannot buy your way to being ecofriendly.

They have some smaller lots if you research the site.
...
I am just saying main street will never be green using coal and oil to generate power.

Yes, good points. Sometimes with existing housing, you can achieve smaller lot size by doing in-fill housing. This can mean a lot of things, but turning garages and basements into apartments sort of achieves this effect.

Sorry... I'm not trying to dampen you enthusiasm for green housing, but I am concerned when I see people destroying perfectly functional housing to achieve a "green" goal. Often, I suspect, the net energy saved is minimal. Or even negative.

The buildings themselves may be marvels of green engineering, but there just isn't enough land for everybody to live on the land. So if this kind of housing is used for farmers, and game wardens, and border patrol officers, and even people who work from home and only need to go into town once a week, there will be ecologic benefits. But if all the million plus residents of Albuquerque and the other cities of New Mexico all tried to get out of town and live this way, it would destroy the desert with sprawl.

The problem as I see it is we are just as resistant to trying to change ourliving styles as we are of changing our transportation styles.

If you will follow my reasoning for a moment you can see I am only interested in looking at things that are happening not things I wish would happen. (Understand I come from a person with an American Indian, traditional African and Australian aboriginal perspective as far as living with nature goes.)

Roody posted not long ago that for the first time our urban population now out numbers our non urban population. Checking that out I discovered he is correct and that just over 50 percent claim to be urban dwellers. However using the statistics from the EPA and other government agencies our urban areas use between 73 and 75 percent of ouravailable energy. Every urban house holdget 100 percent of their energy from the grid and urban dwellers can do very little about it individually.



Green communities can produce enough energy to sustain them and if you read some of the things on one of the sites their construction is already taking place all over the world. But even if they could only produce 75 percent of their energy needs that is 100 percent more than moving to downtown anywhere.

These communities also collect their own water and process their own waste. So far that kind of conservation simply isn’t available in any major urban area. It also seems as if many of these people work from home as cyber commuters and business people. They also tend to grow more of their own food precluding putting additional strain on our food supply and the necessity to use fuel oil to truck in food.



Now living with nature rather than fighting it like the buildings in Chicago may or may not be of interest to some but I find it fascinating. Chicago buildings have actually changed the wind pattern in the area.



Just where I am coming from.

Green communities can produce enough energy to sustain them ...
These communities also collect their own water and process their own waste....
They also tend to grow more of their own food precluding putting additional strain on our food supply and the necessity to use fuel oil to truck in food...
Now living with nature rather than fighting it like the buildings in Chicago may or may not be of interest to some but I find it fascinating. This is fine for a relatively small population, but can you scale it up to accomodate 300 million Americans?

This is fine for a relatively small population, but can you scale it up to accomodate 300 million Americans?

Don't know if it could be scaled anywhere but a few states but in New Mexico if you spread people out there would only be 15 per square mile. Everyone would get 117 square yards and if they used this building system they would produce their own food and power.

I am only talking about being green from a sustainable concept. We have discussed this before and many have concluded society as we now see it is not sustainable. Like I said right now 50+ percent of our population is urban and it used more than 50 percent of our energy. Traditional construction will continue to tap into the grid till at some point the grid will not be able to support the population. From our own governemt information half of our energy is used in transportation and that leaves half to be used to power our living and industry. It is hard to see a 50+ percent of the population using 73-75 percent of that available energy as being green, having a low carbon foot print or being earth friendly unless something changes.

I admit I am in a good position in that I can consider this as a possible alternative way of living. At face value once I have cut my transportation energy use to a minimum it seems far more earth friendly to look into a green community than to move to a concrete, glass, and steel energy user. Is it any more radical to ask people to look at there energy useage because of where and how they live as opposed to how they get to work?

But more specifically aren't many of our suggestions about organic living better addressed by green communities rather than asphalt, glass, steel and concrete? maybe not during our working years but what about after we retire or reach a place in life where we no longer have to commute or pay rent?

Maybe I should just ask if there is a better way to escape the rat race and live off of the grid?

Everyone would get 117 square yards and if they used this building system they would produce their own food and power.
...
Like I said right now 50+ percent of our population is urban and it used more than 50 percent of our energy. Traditional construction will continue to tap into the grid till at some point the grid will not be able to support the population. From our own governemt information half of our energy is used in transportation and that leaves half to be used to power our living and industry. It is hard to see a 50+ percent of the population using 73-75 percent of that available energy as being green, having a low carbon foot print or being earth friendly unless something changes. The transportation costs are the potential achilles heel. If all these settlers stayed home most of the time, then perhaps they would realize the environmental benefits promised. But you spread people out at 15 per square mile, and a big concern would be all the roads and car travel that might generate. For the food they don't grow themselves, it's going to be a pretty inefficient and expensive distribution system getting it to all those spread out residences, compared to trucking stuff to a farmers' market in a downtown site, where people can carry it home on foot.

I think the size of the housing is more important than where it is located when it comes to sustainability. The materials matter less too. Two-thousand square feet of any type of house will use plenty of energy in its construction and its daily operation. A three-hundred square foot house would use so much less materials and energy that it would pay for itself in saved energy costs.

I've read about people making housing out of tires stuffed with dirt for thirty-five years. The Earthship people were a couple of hucksters a while back. The guy did the talking and his super hot ex-model wife did the showmanship around their personal expensive Earthship house. They would take donations constantly while claiming to run a foundation to build communities. They built about ten houses in twelve years. Maybe they're finally getting around to it in an effort to avoid going to jail for fraud.

Their ideas (though not original) are very environmentally friendly. Their house plans are extremely expensive for what you get. I think you would get a better deal from Monolithic Domes or Cal-Earth. Just build your own greenhouse next door or attach one to your house.

The whole Tumbleweed Housing idea is far more environmentally friendly for a single person or a couple. The footprint is tiny. The house is portable. It uses a tiny amount of energy and could easily be solar powered. It could also be made from recycled materials if one were inclined to seek such things. My dream is to make something similar but not as tall. The Tumbleweed designs are thirteen and a half feet high. That limits their portability because not all highways have such a high clearance at overpasses.

Roody posted not long ago that for the first time our urban population now out numbers our non urban population. Checking that out I discovered he is correct and that just over 50 percent claim to be urban dwellers. However using the statistics from the EPA and other government agencies our urban areas use between 73 and 75 percent of our available energy. Every urban house holdget 100 percent of their energy from the grid and urban dwellers can do very little about it individually.
I can assure you that a large number of the people in the areas the EPA consider "urban"do not consider themselves to be urban, much in the same way that most people consider themselves to be "middle class", which actually has a definition that does not encompass most people. (In short, to be "middle class", you must A: be able to live entirely on your investments and such without going to work, and B: you have to hire employees for some reason. That's what "Middle Class" MEANS.)

That's the strangest definition of middle class I've ever seen. The more common definition is something like:
Upper class (top 1%, Ivy league educated, heirs, celebrities, household income >$500,000, multi-millionaires and billionaires)
Upper middle class (next 15%, highly educated, professionals and upper management with a high degree of autonomy, household income >$100,000, good amount of assets, generally on track to be millionaires)
Lower middle class (next 30%, college educated or skilled labor, white collar technical or mid-level management some some autonomy, household income >$50,000, little assets outside 401k and the home)
Working class (next 40%, high school or some college or semi-skilled, blue and pink collar jobs in service, clerical, and labor with little autonomy, household income >$30,000, no assets.
Working poor (some high school, unskilled McJobs paying little more than minimum wage)
Poor (At most limited participation in the workforce, completely dependent on government transfers and charity)

There's a lot of overlap there. For example, a family relying on the income of a janitor making $10 an hour would be poor while if the wife also worked at a gas station they'd be working poor. A lawyer working in public interest sector (starting salary of 30k) would usually be considered either upper or lower middle class rather than working class (as their income would indicate) because they are highly educated and have a great deal of autonomy.

Working class (next 40%, high school or some college or semi-skilled, blue and pink collar jobs in service, clerical, and labor with little autonomy, household income >$30,000, no assets.

What country is this? US?

[Roody posted not long ago that for the first time our urban population now out numbers our non urban population. Checking that out I discovered he is correct and that just over 50 percent claim to be urban dwellers. However using the statistics from the EPA and other government agencies our urban areas use between 73 and 75 percent of ouravailable energy. Every urban house holdget 100 percent of their energy from the grid and urban dwellers can do very little about it individually.

I said that 50 per cent of the entire world's population is now urban. The US is very much over 50 % urban--more like 85 % IIRC. So you might have to recalculate your estimate of the portion of energy that is used by urbanites. Scientists who study land use are now saying that urban living is more efficient (and therefore "greener") on a per capita basis.




[ Green communities can produce enough energy to sustain them and if you read some of the things on one of the sites their construction is already taking place all over the world. But even if they could only produce 75 percent of their energy needs that is 100 percent more than moving to downtown anywhere.

They produce all of their own energy only if they never imoport anything. If they buy food at a store, or order machine parts and building supplies, they are clearly NOT energy independant. Did the community you're talking about grow/produce everything they use.


These communities also collect their own water and process their own waste. So far that kind of conservation simply isn’t available in any major urban area. ....

Actually, all communities in America already do that. My city treats its sewage, removing (most) human waste, and discharges the almost clean water back into the Grand River. then the people of Grand Rapids get to reuse our water a couple days after we're done with it.

I think many parrales can be drawn between the world of cyling and the sustainable housing issue. Just like with bikes, there is no "one" bike that is perfect for everyone around the world.

Between Snow-bikes, single speed work bikes, Dutch bikes, BMX and Hybrids and road bikes(just to name a few, don't be insulted if I left out "your" type of bike), are ussally really good at some areas cycling but lack in other(comfort, distance, speed, weight).

Pre-fab homes, cabin kits, container homes, yurts, cob&straw bale, modern SPI panel, domes, tiny on a trailer, and mobile homes, all illustrate the need to account for the pluses and a learn how to deal with a list of compromises. An earth-ship would be great in the desert with a bunch of free labor from friends to build it fast ideally with free(recycled) material, but odd and not suited to the cold climates(-35c at times) of the north, where I live.

The solution to our housing need is similar to the solution to our energy needs. One solution(living car free and using pedal power) is fine for the urban dweller, but maladjusted to the farmer who grows the beans and cabbage that said urban dweller buys at the local farmers market and pedals home on a hip townie bike with a porter front rack.

end rant

I understand that some were digging in underground very deep to avoid the oppressive Las Vegas NE heat. Shortly after that I saw the post discussing Detroit MI. Both were quite interesting- and could not be much more exactly opposite in my opinion. Just today I came across this:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/las-vegas-looks-a-lot-like-the-new-detroit-2011-05-13
The Earthship housing idea has been around a while but I have not seen or heard similar comparisons. Now if I could figure out how to open a hole in the ground Lucas-movie style (Tomorrowland; I think), ride in, and close the door- I would be all set!

What country is this? US?

Yes, that was loosely the Thompson, Hickey model.

Here's a fairly decent summary of it.
http://social-class-in-the-united-states.co.tv/script%3E#Middle_class

In my experience, people get far too caught up on the money and pay little to no attention to the attitudes and perceptions which at least, if not more, important.

It may be "strange" to you, but it's what it is. It's the dividing line where you are no longer "working", but you do not have any real power over the world on a real scale.
Then again, a lot of people I see who have incomes >100,000 are what I would consider "poor", since any disruption in their cashflow will almost instantly bankrupt them, and as such they are utterly dependent on the person above them in the heirarchy.

According to who?

I do love people say things like "it is what it is" about subjective descriptors which have no commonly accepted definition. At least do tell whose definition of middle-class you are using.

I said that 50 per cent of the entire world's population is now urban. The US is very much over 50 % urban--more like 85 % IIRC. So you might have to recalculate your estimate of the portion of energy that is used by urbanites. Scientists who study land use are now saying that urban living is more efficient (and therefore "greener") on a per capita basis.


They produce all of their own energy only if they never imoport anything. If they buy food at a store, or order machine parts and building supplies, they are clearly NOT energy independant. Did the community you're talking about grow/produce everything they use.

Actually, all communities in America already do that. My city treats its sewage, removing (most) human waste, and discharges the almost clean water back into the Grand River. then the people of Grand Rapids get to reuse our water a couple days after we're done with it.



Really? I didn't realize that each home in lansing collected and processesd their own water and sewage? How much of their own food can most urban hoseholds produce? :D I am just saying if we do believe in sustainable living we have to find a way to live with the earth and not against it. And just as many scientists are saying that large urban areas are part of the global warming problem. And I have posted the studies. The point I was making is they do produce energy per household and are already doing what cities need to do in using more green energy.

The other point I am making is people are just as unlikely to review their living choices and be defensive of them as the 90+ percent are of their transportation choices. We wish and hope things will change but when change takes place in an area other than where we wish and hope for we simply say it will not work.

The thing seems to be many don't want to hear about Tumble weed houses, Straw construction, Earthships, geodesic domes or any other number of housing options for a US without maunfacturing or enough jobs to support our large urban areas. If your predictions of 9 billion people comes true producing your own food and collecting your own water may be the only way some will survive. Once again just why I am looking at what I am looking at.:eek:

Really? I didn't realize that each home in lansing collected and processesd their own water and sewage? How much of their own food can most urban hoseholds produce?

To live sustainably it is not necessary that each household treat its own sewage or grow its own food, if those functions can be done as efficiently, or arguably much more efficiently, collectively. If some folks do it all on their own, good for them, but there just isn't anywhere near enough space available in the USA to replace all the apartment buildings in Manhattan or Brooklyn or Los Angeles with Earthships, and there certainly aren't enough used car tires. So the lifestyle you are describing can only work for a fraction of the population, and even then, only if most people don't try to do it.

Now if I could figure out how to open a hole in the ground Lucas-movie style (Tomorrowland; I think), ride in, and close the door- I would be all set!What about Radon gas?

To live sustainably it is not necessary that each household treat its own sewage or grow its own food, if those functions can be done as efficiently, or arguably much more efficiently, collectively. If some folks do it all on their own, good for them, but there just isn't anywhere near enough space available in the USA to replace all the apartment buildings in Manhattan or Brooklyn or Los Angeles with Earthships, and there certainly aren't enough used car tires. So the lifestyle you are describing can only work for a fraction of the population, and even then, only if most people don't try to do it.

Yes you may be right. But for those in a position to do so doing something different seems more reasonable than doing nothing. Remember someone suggested that I move downtown somewhere to be green rather than look into alternative living? But for me to move down town anywhere would increase my carbon footprint, (At least according to any carbon caculator you can find.)

Like I said in my origional post I have done most of what I can do personally to become less of a burden on earth resources. It is a lot easier for someone that owns their own property and lives with less restrictive building codes to do something to live with nature rather than fight or build against it in my opinion.

Yes you may be right. But for those in a position to do so doing something different seems more reasonable than doing nothing. Remember someone suggested that I move downtown somewhere to be green rather than look into alternative living? But for me to move down town anywhere would increase my carbon footprint, (At least according to any carbon caculator you can find.)

Like I said in my origional post I have done most of what I can do personally to become less of a burden on earth resources. It is a lot easier for someone that owns their own property and lives with less restrictive building codes to do something to live with nature rather than fight or build against it in my opinion.

Yes, it's a great model for a few wealthiy people--perhaps less than 0.1% of the world's population. Certainly better than the standard MacMansion that many wealthy people choose. I hope that any earthship technology that develops will trickle down to other people who will perhaps make better use of it.

However, the earthship model is NOT sustainable in my opinion. It requires too much capitol, for one thing, to build such elaborate structures on large parcels of land. Capitol is in short supply at the monent, even for the wealthy.

Even more to the point, earthship is so NOT energy self-sufficient. You have to remember that every thing that is brought into earthship, whether food or building supplies or anything else, required energy in its production. This energy is an "input" to the earthship. It must be accounted for. This definitely and inarguably means that earthship is not self-sufficient, no matter how efficient it is. Efficiency is not sufficiency, so to speak.

I also wonder about the effect on culture and society of all of these people--presumably some of the best and brightest people--living in splendid isolation on their earthships. Do these people care about the rest of socienty? Where do their loyalties lie? What is their true community?

I think the size of the housing is more important than where it is located when it comes to sustainability.

It depends on whether the location incurs other costs. A small house on a mountain top only accessible by helicopter would require the resident to expend a lot more energy on transportation than someone who lived in a larger house in town and walked 3 blocks to work.

Yes you may be right. But for those in a position to do so doing something different seems more reasonable than doing nothing. Remember someone suggested that I move downtown somewhere to be green rather than look into alternative living? But for me to move down town anywhere would increase my carbon footprint, (At least according to any carbon caculator you can find.) If it might work for you, that's great. However I still disagree with your conclusions about urban living. Moving into town would also be a good choice.

Yes, it's a great model for a few wealthiy people--perhaps less than 0.1% of the world's population. Certainly better than the standard MacMansion that many wealthy people choose. I hope that any earthship technology that develops will trickle down to other people who will perhaps make better use of it.

However, the earthship model is NOT sustainable in my opinion. It requires too much capitol, for one thing, to build such elaborate structures on large parcels of land. Capitol is in short supply at the monent, even for the wealthy.

Even more to the point, earthship is so NOT energy self-sufficient. You have to remember that every thing that is brought into earthship, whether food or building supplies or anything else, required energy in its production. This energy is an "input" to the earthship. It must be accounted for. This definitely and inarguably means that earthship is not self-sufficient, no matter how efficient it is. Efficiency is not sufficiency, so to speak.

I also wonder about the effect on culture and society of all of these people--presumably some of the best and brightest people--living in splendid isolation on their earthships. Do these people care about the rest of socienty? Where do their loyalties lie? What is their true community?

Allow me to restate then. They are more self sufficient than typical urban construction. ;) They are also more earth friendly as far as construction. If you visit some of the research site for some of the green communities you will also see they allow for solar powered geodesic domes that are very low in construction costs and can be had for a single person for 40k. It is listed on one of the real-estate sites.


So at the very least they are more energy efficient than concrete, steel, asphalt and glass. They also have room to grow some of their own food unlike people living with no green belt and little more than a window planter.

But we are drifting here. Let me address your question about community. Community is not in a city town or even a state. Community is the people you know and associate with. I get this definition from my experiences. As a hint to those experiences I will say that this summer I will be going to visit my sister for a family reunion. We will be going to her house for three days on the Yakama Indian reservation. So yes I understand community and yes I understand trying to live with nature than trying to fight it with concrete, steel glass and asphalt. In short one side of my family was able to live close to the earth and in renewable building materials for 1000s of years before the industrial age allowed for people to be stacked one on top of the other and tell us it was a good thing.

Remember one of the early responses to my OP was I would be better off moving to some down town city center and go car free. For me it would be a giant step backwards for my carbon foot print and an increase in my total energy consumption. :eek:

for 1000s of years before the industrial age allowed for people to be stacked one on top of the other and tell us it was a good thing.

Maybe while you're in Taos you can also visit this site:

http://www.taospueblo.com/images/visiting_sm.jpg

Solar power isn't eco-friendly; the cell production creates a lot of negative externalities. Also, unless the power is being stored ON SITE, which it generally is not, it is being fed back into the grid which is already running a surplus, and turns into heat and is not used; the only thing it does is make the one with the solar cells feel warm and fuzzy and increase everyone's electric bill.

How are you getting to Yakima?

Remember one of the early responses to my OP was I would be better off moving to some down town city center and go car free. For me it would be a giant step backwards for my carbon foot print and an increase in my total energy consumption. :eek:

If anybody advised you to move to the city, it wasn't me. But many people who study land use are now saying that the individual or percapita footprint of city dwellers is smaller than the footprint of people in rural areas. Remember that these figures are averages and many individuals (like you) are exceptions to the rule.

Personally, I applaud your clean and green lifestyle out there in the suburbs. Keep up the good work, and thanks for sharing it with the rest of us. :)

I think the earthship program makes some wild claims about being sustainable. I would have more respect if they kept the tone down a little.

I think that reusing old car and truck tires in the construction of a house is a very environmentally friendly thing to do. Those tires don't go to landfills and become potential fire hazards. These days most old tires are collected at tire shops and trucked to a tire graveyard somewhere.

Tires are very durable and strong materials. With the correct amount of cement mixed with the dirt that gets stuffed into them, they become super hard. I bet buildings constructed with them will last hundreds of years.

Sometimes I think about combining several building ideas. Making a dome home with walls of old tires would be a very strong structure that could withstand very high winds. That is something to think about in states with very high winds and tornadoes. My favorite idea for a permanent structure would be an underground dome home. If I ever find a place where I want to remain for the rest of my life I'll build one, if the location isn't in a flood plane or prone to flooding.

If anybody advised you to move to the city, it wasn't me. But many people who study land use are now saying that the individual or percapita footprint of city dwellers is smaller than the footprint of people in rural areas. Remember that these figures are averages and many individuals (like you) are exceptions to the rule.

Personally, I applaud your clean and green lifestyle out there in the suburbs. Keep up the good work, and thanks for sharing it with the rest of us. :)

I think the earthship program makes some wild claims about being sustainable. I would have more respect if they kept the tone down a little.

I didn't say you said I should move to a city only that someone said it. I agree the claims are like a sales pitch but that is what they were supposed to be. It is also why we will be looking at the place, I didn't say moving unless it seemed more earth friendly and affordable for us personally.

Almost all of our transportation and living choices have an effect on the planet. people in cars don't like to hear they are part of the polution problem and people in large urban areas don't want to hear they are part of global warming simply because of where they want to live.

I think that reusing old car and truck tires in the construction of a house is a very environmentally friendly thing to do. Those tires don't go to landfills and become potential fire hazards. These days most old tires are collected at tire shops and trucked to a tire graveyard somewhere.

Tires are very durable and strong materials. With the correct amount of cement mixed with the dirt that gets stuffed into them, they become super hard. I bet buildings constructed with them will last hundreds of years.

Sometimes I think about combining several building ideas. Making a dome home with walls of old tires would be a very strong structure that could withstand very high winds. That is something to think about in states with very high winds and tornadoes. My favorite idea for a permanent structure would be an underground dome home. If I ever find a place where I want to remain for the rest of my life I'll build one, if the location isn't in a flood plane or prone to flooding.

Interesting ideas. But if tires are a fire hazard, would you want to build your home from them? Also, would your home smell like old tires?

If anybody advised you to move to the city, it wasn't me. But many people who study land use are now saying that the individual or percapita footprint of city dwellers is smaller than the footprint of people in rural areas. Remember that these figures are averages and many individuals (like you) are exceptions to the rule.

Personally, I applaud your clean and green lifestyle out there in the suburbs. Keep up the good work, and thanks for sharing it with the rest of us. :)

I think the earthship program makes some wild claims about being sustainable. I would have more respect if they kept the tone down a little.

Can't find the link, but the US city with the lowest carbon footprint per capita was NYC...:eek: and it has to do with the density.

Aaron :)

Can't find the link, but the US city with the lowest carbon footprint per capita was NYC...:eek: and it has to do with the density.

Aaron :)

Less than a third of the U.S. average. Interestingly, 67% of those emissions were from buildings. The 3% vs 20% for transit vs on-road vehicles (including buses) is also of note. I'm not sure how much traffic the subways account for but with 5+ million riding a day I suspect its a decent sized chunk.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/ccp_report041007.pdf

What about Radon gas?

After living with unsafe popcorn asbestosis ceilings, cement slabs from 1960 with 40 foot underground columns, and internally mold-ridden walls for 20+ years (the building complex was red-tagged in 2010; asbestos and careful tear-down going on now):roflmao2:; radon is the very least of my worries!

Can't find the link, but the US city with the lowest carbon footprint per capita was NYC...:eek: and it has to do with the density.

Aaron :)

why do I feel that even you don't believe that NYC is green? They are the poster child of heat islands, something that is listed by the EPA. It has more steel and glass and Asphalt than just about anywhere. The reports listing big cities as green are like the ones listing them as safe in crime. They compare them to other large cities. However they aren't rated as high compared to all US cities.

http://www.countryhome.com/greencities/greencities1_100.html

But if you were to compare a single person or family living in NYC to one living in a green community do you believe the one living in NYC will have a lower carbon footprint? Not saying that Roody isn't correct that if they tear down and rebuild parts of some of our larger cities to include large green belts and places to grow food they will become greener. Till they can find a way around the typical city building codes that isn't going to happen.


I have been talking about more than CO2 I am talking about energy recovery that an individual can do something about. People living in single family places can add solar panels to their homes and some even sell power back to the utility companies. I am talking about being able to grow your own food, or at least part of it. Not that big cities can't improve only that no big city right now is all that green in reality. Plus to me, and maybe I am a minority, sustainable means you can go for a period of time off the grid. Most of the green communities I have looked at are better equipped for things like a major power failure than places like NYC.

Not to open a wound but all of the nation saw what happens when a major brown out hit NYC in 1977. Many of us watched in horror as people hit the streets looting within a few hours. ( not a big thing because they do the same thing in LA if the Lakers win a championship.) It may have been an anomoly but once seen it is hard to get out of your head. I have lived in communities where the power goes out for days and all you hear is private generators being fired up and people waiting out the problem. When asked about community I wonder if rural and mountain communities haven't grasped the concept a bit better.

It may all be perception but it is also personal experience and I have been to many large and small towns in the US. It is because of those experiences I simply doubt moving to any major city would be as green and moving to a community established to increase sustainability be it Tumble weed, Straw construction, earth domes, Geodesic homes or whatever.

Can't find the link, but the US city with the lowest carbon footprint per capita was NYC...:eek: and it has to do with the density.

Aaron :)

This information comes from David Owen, who wrote "Green Metropolis". Here is what he had to say:

[Manhattan’s density is approximately 67,000 people per square mile, or more than 800 times that of the nation as a whole and roughly 30 times that of Los Angeles. Placing 1.5 million people on a 23-square-mile island sharply reduces their opportunities to be wasteful, enables most of them to get by without owning cars, encourages them to keep their families small, and forces the majority to live in some of the most inherently energy-efficient residential structures in the world: apartment buildings. New Yorkers are the lowest per-capita energy users in the country, and they have the smallest carbon footprint—about the same as the average citizen of Sweden

While the population density might cause heat islands, these can always be reduced through green roofs and other methods, such as fewer parking lots. All of these people, if they were spread out on their own little plots, there would be no limits to exurbanism. Let the farmers (the pros) grow the veggies in bulk, near the cities if possible, then sell them to us. Or have community gardens, or container gardens. While having your own back yard vegetable garden sounds incredibly noble, if it means living out in exurbia to do it, it certainly becomes less so.

One day I was riding my bike down a country road in the middle of nowhere, about 20 km from the nearest town. I saw a sprawling house, with a huge manicured lawn, and of course two or three SUV's parked out front for the residents to go where they needed to go, as there were zero services near their home. I also saw a small vegetable garden. Heck, maybe they even had a solar panel or two. I'm thinking to myself, I bet these people are feeling quite good about themselves because they are growing some of their own organic food, and saving on their electricity bill. All the while, the minute they need anything, or wish to entertain themselves, or need the lawn cut, or their kid needs to go to soccer practice, they are burning fossil fuels. Not to mention the fact of what was that place before they moved there? Was it a woodlot for natural habitat, or a farm that had the capacity to feed several hundred people?

Look I am not saying large cities can't do anything about their problems any more that someone would say people can't do something about their transportation choices. I am saying that right now today they aren't as close as a dedicated green community. It is also clear that people are just as resistant to the hard choices it will take to change our living choices as they are to giving up the car. Once people have started to address the energy and polution costs of how we move ourselves we need to look at the other 50 percent of our energy usage. Just like climate change heat islands are a fact of life. Take a look at some other green advocate reasoning: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_n4_v78/ai_13180171/

A quote from the study of green places to live: "Data was collected from sources which include the Census Bureau, the U.S. Green Building Council, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the GreenPeople.org online directory."

"Among its unique green attributes, Burlington has developed a compost facility that collects food scraps from restaurants, supermarkets, institutions and food manufacturers, and the yard clippings and leaves from local residents and landscapers. Once finished composting, local farmers, gardeners and landscapers purchase this nutrient rich soil to use.
Over 16 percent of Ithaca residents (or 5,000 people) walk to work Ð the highest percentage in the nation. Combine that with bike riders, mass transit users and home office workers and Ithaca has the greenest commuters.
In Corvallis, over 15 percent residents, as well as the city government, purchase renewable energy. Corvallis was the first city on the West Coast to achieve the Green Power Community designation from the U.S. EPA. The achievement was met after the Corvallis City Council passed a resolution encouraging residents to switch to Ôgreen power.'" :thumb:

High density obviously doesn't trump green technology.:D

Look I am not saying large cities can't do anything about their problems any more that someone would say people can't do something about their transportation choices. I am saying that right now today they aren't as close as a dedicated green community. It is also clear that people are just as resistant to the hard choices it will take to change our living choices as they are to giving up the car. Once people have started to address the energy and polution costs of how we move ourselves we need to look at the other 50 percent of our energy usage. Just like climate change heat islands are a fact of life. Take a look at some other green advocate reasoning: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_n4_v78/ai_13180171/

A quote from the study of green places to live: "Data was collected from sources which include the Census Bureau, the U.S. Green Building Council, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the GreenPeople.org online directory."

"Among its unique green attributes, Burlington has developed a compost facility that collects food scraps from restaurants, supermarkets, institutions and food manufacturers, and the yard clippings and leaves from local residents and landscapers. Once finished composting, local farmers, gardeners and landscapers purchase this nutrient rich soil to use.
Over 16 percent of Ithaca residents (or 5,000 people) walk to work Ð the highest percentage in the nation. Combine that with bike riders, mass transit users and home office workers and Ithaca has the greenest commuters.
In Corvallis, over 15 percent residents, as well as the city government, purchase renewable energy. Corvallis was the first city on the West Coast to achieve the Green Power Community designation from the U.S. EPA. The achievement was met after the Corvallis City Council passed a resolution encouraging residents to switch to Ôgreen power.'" :thumb:

High density obviously doesn't trump green technology.:D

Why not high density and green living. San Francsico has been composting since 1996: http://earth911.com/news/2011/04/27/san-francisco-composting-program-recology/

People living in single family places can add solar panels to their homes and some even sell power back to the utility companies.
That does not save power though. It removes the power demand from that home right when that home isn't actually consuming much power, gives them warm fuzzies, and gets the power company to write them a check for pumping power back into the system when it's in a surplus state and has no way of absorbing it or doing anything productive with it. It's like getting warm fuzzies and happy giggles because you "helped feed a poor family" by giving a family of poor rice farmers a bag of rice during harvest time during a glutted rice market.

I am talking about being able to grow your own food, or at least part of it.Window boxes. Rooftop gardens.
I have lived in communities where the power goes out for days and all you hear is private generators being fired up and people waiting out the problem. When asked about community I wonder if rural and mountain communities haven't grasped the concept a bit better.
So have I. But that's because they're more used to the idea and actuality of power interruptions. I lived in one of those more rural areas, and moved into the city. When the area of the city I was in had a power failure (car wreck took out the line) I was totally unfased by it and pulled out a flashlight to wait it out and carry on with my business. Some of the more urban people on the floor were quite a bit more stumped, but took the example well.
Does not change the fact that almost all of the trendy "green" architecture is simply exurban sprawl, requiring substantial transportation and infrastructure cost to support, making its owners happy in the knowledge that they spent a bunch of money on feel-good "earth friendly" products for their new construction greenfield house.

Does not change the fact that almost all of the trendy "green" architecture is simply exurban sprawl, requiring substantial transportation and infrastructure cost to support, making its owners happy in the knowledge that they spent a bunch of money on feel-good "earth friendly" products for their new construction greenfield house.

This. Don't get me wrong, it's better than non-green sprawl... but look at where these things are being built. I have family in North Carolina, and those things are popping up all over the place. My uncle semi-retired to one of those places, Briar Chapel. It's, oh, ten miles from Chapel Hill. Nice place, but it's in the middle of nowhere. It's more traditional than some with the nearest shopping center being 2.5 miles away. They did build a back road to the shopping center so you can bike there but aside from the grocery store and a pizza joint it's definitely drive everywhere.

Back prior to the real estate crash there was a plan to build a huge executive green homes complex for South Bay Area types in... Lathrop, CA. Plans would have included a ACE train stop making the 60 some odd mile commute a bit more productive as with ACE you can work (and take your bike) on the train, unlike BART. Still, it's 60 miles and about 1 1/2 hours (comparable with driving given the traffic). Is that green? Even for those electing to take ACE instead of driving? Hardly. Various ideas were floated around. At one time, it was planned to be net-zero energy although much of that energy was to come from an off-site wind farm in the Altamont Pass.

On the opposite end, you have green urban infill, http://www.casafelizapartments.org/index-2.html
Of course those are targetting completely different demographics - one for poor single people, the other for affluent families - but the infill is clearly more green. Look at all the LEED Silver and up projects in Seattle, most of that is infill in South Lake Union and Capitol Hill. Most of those people work less than two miles from where they live. Not that LEED is perfect, but that makes a whole lot more sense for normal people who have to work for a living than an EarthShip 60 miles from Santa Fe, even if we wanted to be that isolated. You can make the house as sustainable as you want, but if its an hour's drive from the nearest job that pays well enough to afford it exactly how sustainable is the lifestyle of the inhabitants?

I suppose there needs to be a way to calculate the energy usage for everything created and brought to market, plus the energy used to transport that thing to the home; in addition to that, the energy needed to dispose of the thing when it has finished its life cycle.

Another thing that would need to be taken into consideration is any time or energy saved by using the thing. For instance, I think using a power saw saves plenty of time and perhaps energy compared to a man with a hand saw. Professional farmers do use plenty of resources to produce food. Would it take much more energy and resources if each family had to produce the same agricultural products? I think so.

Right now I think that money is the easiest factor one can use to calculate efficiency. Nobody creates something without being able to earn a profit. Businesses work to make their operations as efficient as possible in order to earn more profit. If all businesses were held to a high standard of environmental quality and safety in the production of their products, this would be an optimum way to calculate energy efficiency. Who knows if this will ever happen?

Right now the most cost effective way to be green at one's current location, is to fully insulate ones home. Not buying things that aren't absolutely needed is probably the next biggest way to be green. After that just "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle". Probably the biggest thing one could do is live close enough to work so as not to need a car. In the USA that won't ever be possible for everybody. Only an awesome mass transit system will be able to get rid of personal automobiles.

Reading these posts comparing living in a densely populated city and eco-communities in more suburban areas, makes me think there is a distinction that needs to be made regarding sustainable. Living in densely populated cities is definitely an environmentally sustainable way to live. It just isn't SELFsufficient.

Having one's own energy production and growing one's food is sustainable, but it takes land, water, energy, and time. Living within a city allows specialized producers to create their products in the most efficient ways possible. Those products then get distributed to the cities in the most efficient way possible, thus living in a city without a car or huge plot of land is sustainable for the environment.

I suppose there needs to be a way to calculate the energy usage for everything created and brought to market, plus the energy used to transport that thing to the home; in addition to that, the energy needed to dispose of the thing when it has finished its life cycle. A very distant relative of mine, Mike Berners-Lee (brother of Tim, the inventor of "http://www") has made a first attempt at that with a book called How Bad Are Bananas?: The carbon footprint of everything.

A very distant relative of mine, Mike Berners-Lee (brother of Tim, the inventor of "http://www") has made a first attempt at that with a book called How Bad Are Bananas?: The carbon footprint of everything.

Just had a quick read over at Amazon. I like the way he starts the book by defining "carbon footprint"... This could be a very useful tool.

Living in densely populated cities is definitely an environmentally sustainable way to live. It just isn't SELFsufficient.

Having one's own energy production and growing one's food is sustainable, but it takes land, water, energy, and time. Living within a city allows specialized producers to create their products in the most efficient ways possible. Those products then get distributed to the cities in the most efficient way possible, thus living in a city without a car or huge plot of land is sustainable for the environment.

Right.
I'm really not convinced that "self-sufficient" is at all sustainable. Sure, you can do it. You'll need a lot of equipment that you can't build yourself, a lot of time, and you won't be accomplishing any of it all that efficiently. Sure, you can grow a few lettuce in your yard. Now we look over at the person who takes a plot of land the size of your house and garden, and puts up a greenhouse with an automated hydroponic system with rows of lettuce in increasing sized spaces as they grow along the line, cycling back to a big tank full of tilapia. Yeah, that one person isn't generating their own power, they aren't building walls out of mud.. but they ARE supplying a whole bunch of people beyond themself with fresh, safe, locally grown produce and high quality fish that didn't come out of driftnets in the Pacific, and they can do it in the middle of December. They completely blow the doors off of your garden in terms of raw productivity. Yeah, they're on the grid, and that's why her neighbor got the power company to put in that big geothermal plant that makes the whole place glow with non-poluting power... these people are doing a lot more than just mitigating their existence. Get 100,000 of them together in a dense, walkable space and they are going to make the environmental impact of 100,000 self-sufficient types look like the Exxon Valdez.

Right.
I'm really not convinced that "self-sufficient" is at all sustainable. Sure, you can do it. You'll need a lot of equipment that you can't build yourself, a lot of time, and you won't be accomplishing any of it all that efficiently. Sure, you can grow a few lettuce in your yard. Now we look over at the person who takes a plot of land the size of your house and garden, and puts up a greenhouse with an automated hydroponic system with rows of lettuce in increasing sized spaces as they grow along the line, cycling back to a big tank full of tilapia. Yeah, that one person isn't generating their own power, they aren't building walls out of mud.. but they ARE supplying a whole bunch of people beyond themself with fresh, safe, locally grown produce and high quality fish that didn't come out of driftnets in the Pacific, and they can do it in the middle of December. They completely blow the doors off of your garden in terms of raw productivity. Yeah, they're on the grid, and that's why her neighbor got the power company to put in that big geothermal plant that makes the whole place glow with non-poluting power... these people are doing a lot more than just mitigating their existence. Get 100,000 of them together in a dense, walkable space and they are going to make the environmental impact of 100,000 self-sufficient types look like the Exxon Valdez.

And we can go visit one of these places? Living close to palm Springs we have been using wind turbines for years. Still I don't see the area as being ultra green. More the the gulf coast true and more than the north east but still restricted by city building codes that don't allow altenative building. I belonged to a group that took this building method to Arfica but we had a hard time building anything but a temporary structure for demonstration purposes in a large urban area. Think how much more earth friendly a building made of earth and cement can be? http://calearth.org/building-designs/eco-dome.html

It took a group of us four weekends to build a small structure that could house one maybe two people. The cost was considerable less than steel or wood and it has survived earthquake testing. Everything has to be trucked to a large urban area and we no longer have large manufacturing in many of our large metropolitan areas anyway. I will admit that so far most of the places I have seen these things are new but what impresses me is how concerned the people living in them are about earth resources. I am also impressed with the extreamly low crime rates they have.

There is one other benifit I have found in some of these eco-communities, clean air and quiet evenings and you can see the stars and sky.

This. Don't get me wrong, it's better than non-green sprawl... but look at where these things are being built. I have family in North Carolina, and those things are popping up all over the place. My uncle semi-retired to one of those places, Briar Chapel. It's, oh, ten miles from Chapel Hill. Nice place, but it's in the middle of nowhere. It's more traditional than some with the nearest shopping center being 2.5 miles away. They did build a back road to the shopping center so you can bike there but aside from the grocery store and a pizza joint it's definitely drive everywhere.

Back prior to the real estate crash there was a plan to build a huge executive green homes complex for South Bay Area types in... Lathrop, CA. Plans would have included a ACE train stop making the 60 some odd mile commute a bit more productive as with ACE you can work (and take your bike) on the train, unlike BART. Still, it's 60 miles and about 1 1/2 hours (comparable with driving given the traffic). Is that green? Even for those electing to take ACE instead of driving? Hardly. Various ideas were floated around. At one time, it was planned to be net-zero energy although much of that energy was to come from an off-site wind farm in the Altamont Pass.

On the opposite end, you have green urban infill, http://www.casafelizapartments.org/index-2.html
Of course those are targetting completely different demographics - one for poor single people, the other for affluent families - but the infill is clearly more green. Look at all the LEED Silver and up projects in Seattle, most of that is infill in South Lake Union and Capitol Hill. Most of those people work less than two miles from where they live. Not that LEED is perfect, but that makes a whole lot more sense for normal people who have to work for a living than an EarthShip 60 miles from Santa Fe, even if we wanted to be that isolated. You can make the house as sustainable as you want, but if its an hour's drive from the nearest job that pays well enough to afford it exactly how sustainable is the lifestyle of the inhabitants?

I would like to see LEED do a lot more to encourage green rehabilitation of existing buildings. So far most (but not all) LEED building have been new construction. Maybe they sh0uld take LEED points away from projects where an existing structure is torn down? Or give extra points when some or all of a structure is preserved?