[Greenbuilding] Debunking Energy Efficency

Thu Feb 22 17:18:51 CST 2007

Yes, that's the Monbiot book to which I have been referring. In my approach,
no trees are sacrificed--they are only pruned. But yes, we could use those
willow cuttings for building furniture and trellises instead! What do you
propose in lieu of the woodburning cookstove, Norbert?

Mary Bull, Co-director
Greenwood Earth Alliance, Save the Redwoods - Boycott the Gap Campaign
252 Frederick, San Francisco, CA 94117 http://www.gapsucks.org
Chalice Farm and Sustainable Living Center, 748 Montgomery Rd, Sebastopol CA
95472
415-731-7924 - 415-509-1188 chalicenew at earthlink.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Norbert Senf" <mheat at mha-net.org>
To: "Greenbuilding" <GREENBUILDING at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Debunking Energy Efficency

At 09:08 AM 2/22/2007 -0800, Mary Bull - Greenwood Earth Alliance wrote:
>(snip)
>Monbiot shows that energy efficiency historically leads to the generation
>and consumption of more energy. There's actually a "law" named after the
>researchers who proved this. So then, why should energy efficiency be our
>primary (often stand-alone) criteria--? So what if a thing is not the most
>energy efficient, if it does not destroy resources, generate CO2 and other
>harmful bi-products, nor have other attendant detrimental effects, AND you
>are left with enough renewable energy to cover your needs???

I just happen to be reading Monbiot's latest book at the moment (Heat).

He is from Britain, a mild climate where people
are used to freezing their ass off in the
winter, and think this is quite normal. The housing standards are simply
atrocious.

He mentions his own house, which is close to
downtown, but a total energy sieve. When the previous
owner did the renovation, he could have been slightly less sloppy about
retrofitting insulation while the ceiling was pulled down, etc., and made
a huge difference. Now, it is too late and not economical to spend the
$30,000
to pull everything down again, and redo it.

His point is that, with an efficient house, you are then tempted to turn the
thermostat up to (egads) 75F, and walk around in a T shirt and burn more
fuel
than if you stayed in thick sweaters and warm booties. If you get a car that
gets 50 mpg, you are tempted to drive more.

It is an interesting point. In Canada, we have
the R-2000 housing standard, which
will cut your fuel (carbon) use by 30 - 50% over conventional construction.
It only adds about 10% to the cost, because you
can do things like put in a smaller
furnace. Not only that, the energy savings more
than cover the extra mortgage payment.
So, a positive cash flow.

Is it popular? Not at all.

Over the lifetime of the house, a 30% drop in
carbon consumption dwarfs, by a huge
margin, any considerations of carbon content in
the actual construction. A graphic
showing the barrels of oil used for construction
vs. the barrels of oil consumed
during operation would be quite shocking.

His point, which is quite good, is that you have
to ration the carbon equitably,
which only then will give you the incentive to
build the R-2000 house, because you
can then use your extra carbon allotment to take a holiday, etc.

If you heat your house with wood, you wouldn't
use up your carbon allotment, either,
efficient house or not. But why not save those extra trees for somebody
else?

-------------------------------------------
Norbert Senf---------- mheat(at)heatkit.com
Masonry Stove Builders
25 Brouse Rd.
RR 5, Shawville------- www.heatkit.com
Québec J0X 2Y0-------- fax:-----819.647.6082
---------------------- voice:---819.647.5092

_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding email list
List info:
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
      publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec(r)
Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org