pash wrote:
I'm not an ardent eco-warrior. I just wanted to point out that if the goal is to reduce your carbon footprint, you can't rationalize away the adverse impact of one aspect of your lifestyle merely by compensating in other areas. Plus-one and minus-one nets to zero.
Of course, it's eco-good that Fang's house has geothermal and insulating windows. That means his carbon footprint living there is less than it otherwise would be. We'd be well on our way to the Al Gore seal of approval if everyone made those improvements. Just don't kid yourself that you're living the green life if you leave your single-occupancy, single-family home and get into your car, alone, to drive across town to work everyday.
(Not saying that's you, Fang, or passing judgment if it is, just continuing the conversation that started with your post.)
Like I said, my electric and gas bill for this house are about the same as it was for my smaller apartment on Quality Hill, which was built in the late 1980s I think. My house was built in 1954, but it's had some modifications with the better windows, insulation, and heat pump. My appliances are also newer, and more energy efficient, than those in the Quality Hill apartment. I plan on adding a tankless, on-demand, water heater as well, which should cut my gas bill an additional 40 percent.
I guess I could have found an even smaller house had I continued looking, but I was on a time-deadline since my apartment on Quality Hill was going condo. There are some 615 sq. foot cottage houses on the next street, but none of those were for sale. I also needed a house that had already had the energy efficiency updates made. The other thing is that they didn't have a yard big enough to have a garden, which I needed for physical exercise for my health. I also wanted to raise some of my own food.
The other factor was that I needed to find a house that didn't need any renovations, which was incredibly hard in my budget range. I also needed a house that had one extra bedroom for house guests, so they didn't have to always sleep on my couch.
My carbon footprint is pretty low compared to most people, since I only put around 2500 miles on my car a year, and I drive a 4-cylinder, compact. I've lived in KC for 9 years and the first 3.5 years I lived here, I didn't have a car. I finally had to get one when my mother became ill, and I had to be able to drive up to NY Missouri. I also have a chronic health condition that was making it harder for me to deal with grocery-shopping on the bus. This was before there was a grocery store downtown.
I also lived in NYC for 10 years and didn't have a car.
That said, I did make conscious choices not to buy a larger house than I needed, and constantly had to keep reminding my realtor to quit taking me to larger houses. I did seek out energy-efficiency as a priority, and it was a big consideration in my purchase decision.
I understand that we all make a variety of choices in where we live; however, I think in this day and age, more of us need to be more socially-responsible, and make some accommodations and sacrifices where we can.
Our choices do affect others. When we use more energy than we need, it increases the price of energy for everyone, and a lot of people already have difficulty affording to buy energy now.
There is no fifth destination.
