CONTROVERSY
Are we perhaps going overboard with all this worry and
agitation about climate change? Is it really logical to design
our homes primarily to alleviate climate change? Of course,
we actually don’t – we pay lip service to the concept but the
vast majority build, design, or buy based on nearly everything
except climate change alleviation.
This particular period of the earth’s history is actually quite
cool. The age of the Dinosaurs (the Cretaceous period) lasted
roughly 79 million years and was 5 to 10 degrees (Fahrenheit)
warmer than today – there were tropical plants up by the poles!
Animals and plants thrived!
I agree that the evidence of human caused warming since the
industrial revolution is overwhelming – but I don’t agree that
it will kill us all, destroy the planet, end civilization or any of the
other overly dramatic nonsense that’s commonly bandied about
these days.
So, the question becomes “what is the logical way to design our
dwellings”? Should we put the primary emphasis on our preferences
(economic, social, artistic, etc.) or on stopping climate change? So
far the vote tally is pretty clear – our preferences are ahead!
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
gstan,
I don't think we are going overboard worrying about climate change at all. The question left to me is simply whether we can do enough to alleviate the worst effects - and I see very little evidence we have the resolve to do that.
The fossil fuel companies have done a very effective job of convincing people that the problem can only be solved through individual choice rather than government action. Because it will never be solved trough individual choice.
We disagree on the likely outcomes--the rate of change in the last 100 years is staggeringly steep. But if your question is should we be prioritizing choices on individual homes to help save the planet, I somewhat agree. After a LOT of thought, my priorities when designing a home are:
1. Keep the occupants safe and healthy. That means good indoor air quality, structurally sound, temperature-controlled, etc..
2. Make the building durable. There's no sense in making a house that performs well on day one and gets worse every day after that. I don't think we need to be designing 500-year homes either, as conditions will undoubtedly change greatly in that timeframe, but I aim for buildings that will last (and remain useful--an entirely different debate) for at least 75-100 years.
3. Once I solve those issues, then it's a choice of materials. If I can provide a similar or better result with environmentally-friendly materials at a reasonably comparable price, then I see absolutely no reason not to. If a large amount of money can be saved by using foam, concrete, plastic or other materials that have a negative environmental impact, while providing equal or superior results, I am fine with using those materials.
In the 10+ years I have been following this approach, I have not once found it necessary to use excessive concrete above grade, I have only used foam above grade on a few occasions for specific reasons, usually relating to budget, and I have not used solid plastic or cement-based siding. If I can do it, so can others.
For renovations I follow a similar approach, but spray foam can sometimes solve problems more efficiently in those cases. I still don't use it indiscriminately; I consider it a precious resource and use it only where necessary for health and safety.
Michael - A fine reasonable approach in every way - if only all
builders, designers, architects, and buyers would use the same
logic instead of merely following the heard.
My motivation is to build a resilient house that is also economical. The climate always is changing so build a house that can adapt. Materials matter—entropy happens, so use material that can be disposed of safely. Removing failed concrete is a major pain in the backside —so minimize the use. Spray foam is great until you have to remove 6 inches to reach a buried duct. I really like heat pumps-not because of the climate, because they modulate lower than a boiler if you size them correctly.
My rant is that climate change is over used, poorly modeled, and now has a political agenda to take away freedom and liberty. Don’t like people cherry picking numbers to create a graph that suits their agenda. However, the new techniques and materials have benefits over the more resource intensive materials.