Same goes for making your typical house "Green"...starting with "lets make them air tight". You know, save on energy and all. Of course, we've got to put in air exchangers so people can actually breath (air tight really isn't good for the health), and well, there is the continued debate about longevity of the structures themselves. You know, I'm kind of a believer in that felt paper thing. It's worked fairly well for quite awhile now. The Green movement can have their fancy house wrap...
Point is, yes, it isn't all bad. But as soon as it's required by an all knowing government, you're probably going to wish you hadn't. Knee jerk reactions rarely work well. Same as emotional solutions.
We aren't talking about the same types of construction... I am talking about passive solar, better insulated buildings, more use of natual lighting, using natural flows of air for circulation.... These are things architects/building designers/engineers come up with to replace/reduce the consumption of energy. These are not things that green yuppies think of to feel good and work. There has been a shift recently with architects to this style of commercial building. From what I have seen there are large benefits on top of simply reducing energy usage. There are many things that can be done, very easily, during construction to reduce energy consumption..... Like growing grass on roofs....
Your arguments about air exchangers and such is a housing argument... Large commercial buildings and offices have much different needs and equipment. This is where the largest benefit will be seen. For those that say the govt will screw it up, it is all built by private firms, and while the cost is normally higher then if a private company were to higher out to do the work, I view the added cost as a means of paying for on the job training..... I don't mind that at all. But I guess I have a soft spot for cool engineering/ design......
Last edited: