Well put. True costs include a wide range of social and environmental costs that are not addressed in climate change regulation. Health may be the most important factor -- yet neglected despite the trillion dollar costs.
I think you may enjoy my new book - here is chapter 1 of Accountability
Chapter 6 is on the true cost of buildings. As you say - carbon and GHG emissions are just a part of the problem. Ecotoxicity of copper and zinc is rarely addressed. Biocides in asphalt shingles are also a problem.
I love the metaphor of the idling SUV at the Coffee drive-thru. Like a paper straw served in a plastic cup, we are missing the bigger picture of overconsumption. "we have to change the culture, not the cup."
The US plans to spend billions expanding roads, subsidizing EV purchases, and charging networks. If our government actually wanted to combat climate change that money could be spent funding transit expansion, making our cities more bike-able and walk-able, and creating high speed rail networks. We are kidding ourselves if we view EVs "sustainable" or are awarding concrete parking garages "LEED Silver"
Hope you do not mind me reposting in my FB group Dome Living.
I know how you feel about domes, and your experience with your first and only dome. But I am here to tell you that there have been many improvements since then.
And since domes use a third less wood and a properly insulated dome use less energy to heat and that is what my group is all about, I thought this article would fit right in.
Now a question, since I am a big proponent of generational design of a house, which includes (in my opinion), electrical outlets higher than normal, handicap accessible bathrooms and showers, etc. in essence, making sure the house is accessible for when the occupant is disabled. I believe in this because the question is when not if (even if it is temporary).
Following the generational plan (unless I got it wrong) should also follow in the use less construct. Again it's only my opinion.
Well put. True costs include a wide range of social and environmental costs that are not addressed in climate change regulation. Health may be the most important factor -- yet neglected despite the trillion dollar costs.
I think you may enjoy my new book - here is chapter 1 of Accountability
https://works.bepress.com/david_a_bainbridge/75/
Chapter 6 is on the true cost of buildings. As you say - carbon and GHG emissions are just a part of the problem. Ecotoxicity of copper and zinc is rarely addressed. Biocides in asphalt shingles are also a problem.
My book Available June 14. epub soon.
Azby Brown's "Just Enough" is also a delight.
David A. Bainbridge
Associate Professor Sustainable Management
AIU retired 2010
www.sustainbilityleader.org passive solar, straw bale, planning, eco-restoration
Lloyd, I can see that a Kindle edition is expected, but will the book also be available in EPUB format?
I love the metaphor of the idling SUV at the Coffee drive-thru. Like a paper straw served in a plastic cup, we are missing the bigger picture of overconsumption. "we have to change the culture, not the cup."
The US plans to spend billions expanding roads, subsidizing EV purchases, and charging networks. If our government actually wanted to combat climate change that money could be spent funding transit expansion, making our cities more bike-able and walk-able, and creating high speed rail networks. We are kidding ourselves if we view EVs "sustainable" or are awarding concrete parking garages "LEED Silver"
Hope you do not mind me reposting in my FB group Dome Living.
I know how you feel about domes, and your experience with your first and only dome. But I am here to tell you that there have been many improvements since then.
And since domes use a third less wood and a properly insulated dome use less energy to heat and that is what my group is all about, I thought this article would fit right in.
Now a question, since I am a big proponent of generational design of a house, which includes (in my opinion), electrical outlets higher than normal, handicap accessible bathrooms and showers, etc. in essence, making sure the house is accessible for when the occupant is disabled. I believe in this because the question is when not if (even if it is temporary).
Following the generational plan (unless I got it wrong) should also follow in the use less construct. Again it's only my opinion.