It's also worth noting, for people that complain about 2nd homes, that there are plenty of people as wealthy or wealthier than I that have only one home, but consume more energy, water, materials, etc than I would with three. I have a 120-year-old rowhouse without CAC, I have energy-efficient appliances, CFLs everywhere, and I take transit to my job 1.5 miles away. Is the house bigger than I need? Sure. Does it use anywhere near the resources of a new house in the suburbs? Not even close. I don't think you should even bother feeling guilty about your geodesic dome, you're obviously not part of the problem.

Ya why worry? If you didn't own a 2nd home someone else would own it and possibly live there year round. And chances are they would not be so environmentally conscious.

some social conscience in general prefers kicking trees and pride themselves in not being a tree hugger...trees once really felt and lived in play a significant role in healing the wounds of a war bound earth

Guilt? Lets leave that to religion.

Is your footprint small? Yes.
Could it be smaller? Yes.
How small is small enough? I don't know.

How do 'we' decide how small is small enough?

lloyd: what a thoughtful post that hits a lot of things right on the money. this modern eco-movement that we are in (if it can be considered a movement at all, which i'm not really sure that it can) isn't about denying yourself or making life less convenient or giving up things we love. it's about living smarter and becoming more connected to our envirornment-and let's not forget that "environnent" means not just trees and owls, but also the built environment--highways and buildings, too, yes, are part of this giant landsccape. while excessiveness and greed do indeed need to be tempered in order for the human race to achieve certain goals, moving backward in terms of comfort, happiness, and evolution does not. we should be worried about how we achieve certain goals--energy efficiency, less resource consumption, less pollution--not about whether or not we should be making ourselves less happy, less comfortable, and less mobile. my goal is to move forward and evolve smartly, not try to deny the human race the pursuit of various happinesses.

I'd consider getting an RV to enjoy the outdoors, as a mobile basecamp of sorts.

EcoTourism keeps the environment in sight. Not getting out keeps damageout of sight.

A second home, properly managed, out in the boonies helps, especially if one is involved in the community there.

I don't know if Al Gores homes qualify as 'well managed'.

jingojaymes, that's the problem, treehugging has become a religion to many.

Meg, great post. Nice to see some balanced thought here.

While I agree that it is hard to justify the travel to the second home, there are other benifits. If like me you have many acres of wilderness surrounding your 2nd home you are actually consuming CO2 when you are not there and providing habitat for wildlife. By keeping the density down in the rural area you are still being green. I spend a lot of time and energy at my second home improving the environment.

Nice to see some balanced thought here.

"Balanced" is one of those words used by right-wing types to denote something which generally sucks for the environment.

Rock on, "you dumb greenies!" trolls.

Great post!

I don't know if I can really ever justify getting a second home, but to just up and call it sinful, without really inspecting its benefits seems like yet another bunch of people rallying against things they already don't have.

I think in your case though, that your second home is barely a second home at all (20 ft.??)... it seems more like camping out in the woods in a really sturdy tent. If everyone had a second home like yours, there would be no worries about it in the first place. :P

Lloyd, you are not the problem. The problem is people building massive houses on formerly "wild" lakes, planting a lawn down to the shoreline, complete with fertilizer treatments, and then complaining about the algae fouling their formerly clear lake.

I am in principle opposed to second homes for many reasons - loss of unfragmented habitat, increased nutrient loading on lakes and streams (I live in Wisconsin, which is in a one-up-man-ship struggle with Minnesota over who has the most lakes in the nation), increased resource use to construct those homes, increased property values because of those homes, driving locals out of the market, the fact that they sit empty for most of the year, require power plants and power lines to be built to sustain them, etc. etc. And on a purely aesthetic point, it just irks the heck out of me that wealthy westerners feel they can afford a second home but cannot afford to donate to charities working in third world countries to develop housing. The generation that is most active in buying luxury second homes is the same generation that is the stingiest in charitable giving in history.

Sweet - 2.5hrs north of Toronto. Is that Lake Simcoe? I've been wanting a little low-energy cabin for a while myself. Wish I could find some out-of-the-way lake and build my own a bit closer to the GTA than 2.5 hours.

Lloyd, In your post you villify John Tierney for pointing out some very clear hypocrisy on Al Gore and Laurie David's part. They fly around to spread their message in private jets, they maintain many homes, etc. I read the editorial you reference. Let me remind everyone, individuals must be the change they wish to see in the world. For Al Gore to have homes in areas where green energy subscriptions have long been available, and not to have made a point of taking that simple step to reduce his own carbon footprint is the height of absent minded hypocrisy. This is clear. I generally take my own advice before I broadcast it to even the closest of kin, much less the world at large. He has accepted an inherent obligation to take his own medicine by being a spokesman for change in climate related sustainability. His message is good, his willingness to carry it to the masses is admirable and worthy of praise, but he must accept the fact that he has overlooked his own obligation and his obligation to future generations to take action in his own affairs. It is a glaring oversight. The fact remains that unless each and every one of us pays attention to the mundane details of our lives routines and their sustainability we may hasten the oft predicted climate crisis. Presumably, to wave your hand and brush off what John Tierney has to say because he is often a conservative pundit is to be partisan. Truth comes in many guises, not only inconvenient ones.
Speaking as an individual with family and friends not only in New Orleans, but along the Gulf Coast of the United States, I am sensitive to the one to two degree changes in ocean temperature that may intensity hurricanes. Arguably a byproduct of global warming. I am also sadly aware of the environmental impact oil refineries have on the region. Economically speaking, the oil industry is the lifeblood of the region, but ironically it could also be the cause of it's ills due to intensified hurricanes. Not to mention the eventual downfall of human civilization. That leaves all of us to find a better way. The pursuit and refining of oil is a necessary evil to sustain the economies that lead to the moral quandry of owning second homes. The pursuit and refining of oil also leads to wars, enormous oil spills that foul the environment, and a general denial of what the trade-off is for this "prosperity." For the people of the Gulf Coast, not just New Orleans, who have lost their one and only home, most likely for good, we have to examine whether or not hurricanes are more intense because we took hundred of trips to our second homes and countless other pursuits in which oil fueled the journey. We have to examine whether or not we could have done it more efficiently. Perhaps we could have kept ourselves moving and warm with an alternative....wind power, geothermal, solar, etc.
It is clear that your second home is sensitive to it's environment, and undeniably one of the most sustainable versions of a weekend getaway. I won't add to the chorus of people who sing "not you Lloyd, not you." They are right...you are not the guy who bought a second home of grand proportions in another country, only reached by long haul flights. Arguably the least sustainably practice in the field of second homes...but a growing trend nonetheless. I will offer some suggestions for a self-confessed, second home-owning Treehugger though, one who has already made efforts to green up their getaway. Food for thought if you will. By the way, I just read a post on here from an individual who wanted to replicate your weekend getaway. Therein lies the meat of the matter. It's not just you or me, many more want their weekend getaway, and it's tough to draw the line....I'm sure their are people who quell their pangs of occasional environmental guilt by thinking "well, I only have one McMansion in the woods....the Jones' have four...their really out of step..hmmmph."

1. Is your property fenced? Are they passable by local wildlife?
2. Do you buy carbon offsets for all the mileage you, family and friends travel to and from your getaway?(p.s.- your own trees won't cover it)
3. Have you created a permanent easement on the property to guarantee no future development?(i.e.-donate land to nature conservancy, used a land trust set up for the specific intent of protecting land from development.)
4. Have you created additional habitat for wildlife?
5. Have you sat by the lake and realized "this is why I care"..."this is what I want to pass on to future generations"?
6. Do you view yourself as primarily the steward or the owner of your property?

Bottom line, enjoy your beautiful property fully. It and all the property like it is what is at stake when it comes to treehuggery.

LA: thanks for your response. However you should read David Roberts in Grist- Much of what John Tierney said was not true, but was picked up from another screed and not fact-checked as they are supposed to do in the New York Times.

Lloyd, In your post you villify John Tierney for pointing out some very clear hypocrisy on Al Gore and Laurie David's part. They fly around to spread their message in private jets, they maintain many homes, etc. I read the editorial you reference. Let me remind everyone, individuals must be the change they wish to see in the world. For Al Gore to have homes in areas where green energy subscriptions have long been available, and not to have made a point of taking that simple step to reduce his own carbon footprint is the height of absent minded hypocrisy. This is clear. I generally take my own advice before I broadcast it to even the closest of kin, much less the world at large. He has accepted an inherent obligation to take his own medicine by being a spokesman for change in climate related sustainability. His message is good, his willingness to carry it to the masses is admirable and worthy of praise, but he must accept the fact that he has overlooked his own obligation and his obligation to future generations to take action in his own affairs. It is a glaring oversight. The fact remains that unless each and every one of us pays attention to the mundane details of our lives routines and their sustainability we may hasten the oft predicted climate crisis. Presumably, to wave your hand and brush off what John Tierney has to say because he is often a conservative pundit is to be partisan. Truth comes in many guises, not only inconvenient ones.
Speaking as an individual with family and friends not only in New Orleans, but along the Gulf Coast of the United States, I am sensitive to the one to two degree changes in ocean temperature that may intensity hurricanes. Arguably a byproduct of global warming. I am also sadly aware of the environmental impact oil refineries have on the region. Economically speaking, the oil industry is the lifeblood of the region, but ironically it could also be the cause of it's ills due to intensified hurricanes. Not to mention the eventual downfall of human civilization. That leaves all of us to find a better way. The pursuit and refining of oil is a necessary evil to sustain the economies that lead to the moral quandry of owning second homes. The pursuit and refining of oil also leads to wars, enormous oil spills that foul the environment, and a general denial of what the trade-off is for this "prosperity." For the people of the Gulf Coast, not just New Orleans, who have lost their one and only home, most likely for good, we have to examine whether or not hurricanes are more intense because we took hundred of trips to our second homes and countless other pursuits in which oil fueled the journey. We have to examine whether or not we could have done it more efficiently. Perhaps we could have kept ourselves moving and warm with an alternative....wind power, geothermal, solar, etc.
It is clear that your second home is sensitive to it's environment, and undeniably one of the most sustainable versions of a weekend getaway. I won't add to the chorus of people who sing "not you Lloyd, not you." They are right...you are not the guy who bought a second home of grand proportions in another country, only reached by long haul flights. Arguably the least sustainably practice in the field of second homes...but a growing trend nonetheless. I will offer some suggestions for a self-confessed, second home-owning Treehugger though, one who has already made efforts to green up their getaway. Food for thought if you will. By the way, I just read a post on here from an individual who wanted to replicate your weekend getaway. Therein lies the meat of the matter. It's not just you or me, many more want their weekend getaway, and it's tough to draw the line....I'm sure their are people who quell their pangs of occasional environmental guilt by thinking "well, I only have one McMansion in the woods....the Jones' have four...their really out of step..hmmmph."

1. Is your property fenced? Are they passable by local wildlife?
2. Do you buy carbon offsets for all the mileage you, family and friends travel to and from your getaway?(p.s.- your own trees won't cover it)
3. Have you created a permanent easement on the property to guarantee no future development?(i.e.-donate land to nature conservancy, used a land trust set up for the specific intent of protecting land from development.)
4. Have you created additional habitat for wildlife?
5. Have you sat by the lake and realized "this is why I care"..."this is what I want to pass on to future generations"?
6. Do you view yourself as primarily the steward or the owner of your property?

Bottom line, enjoy your beautiful property fully. It and all the property like it is what is at stake when it comes to treehuggery.

I was suprised even to find that there was a "movement" against second homes. I think second homes are a wonderful way to be connected to a rural place, and feel comfortable maintaining small quarters in the city. In fact, I think if more people kept a small city apartment and had a modest second home, there would be less demand for the exurban environments that are doing the real damage. Afterall, one should compare the miles you drive to your second home once or twice a month to the miles one would drive in a large, suburban home into the city EVERY DAY.

Ouch. I apologize to all for defending John Tierney's editorial. After reading the reply to my post I searched the Times archive and found that all reference to green energy usage at Al Gore's houses had been removed...without any notice of retraction much less an apology. I also read David Roberts on Grist and learned the biased nature of the source for the "facts" of the assertions about Al Gore's lack of green energy usage. It is a stunning example of an apparently sophisticated and deliberate effort on the part of the oil industry to blatantly mislead the public about matters of sustainability and to discredit anyone that successfully offers the topic for conversation. I feel abused by the NYT for having fallen for such a blatant smear tactic. Something should have told me such an obvious oversight on Al Gore's part should raise a red flag or two. Mea Culpa. My next letter will be to the NYT.

Ouch. I apologize to all for defending John Tierney's editorial.

Tierney is a complete tool. Glad you found out.

I am one of those people who are opposed to second homes - emphatically so. I will not defend the author of this post. I will not cheer him on as others have done. And I will not try to assuage the mixed feelings some here may have about owning a second home. There is absolutely no need to own a second home. The author of this post is clearly aware of the negatives of second-home ownership. I do not have to restate them for him. Others who have posted here may not be aware of them. I could, as could the author of the post, attempt to write a comprehensive list of these negatives, explaining them in detail, but such a task and such a tome would be infinite and never ending. Needless to say, it is physically impossible for everyone on the planet who wishes to own a comfortable second home to do so - the resources simply do not exist and any attempt to meet such demands would crush the planet. Second home ownership is a rich world luxury.
I am half-Spanish and half-American, with a Finnish wife. I spend almost all my time in my single home in Spain. I only travel to Finland or the US when I really have to, such as important family events. And I stay at family or friends or I rent a hotel room or a cabin or I go camping in my little two person tent with my wife. I do not need to own a second home to be able to vacation in wilderness. Recently, I took a short trip by car with my wife to Portugal in my Yaris. We took our solar oven, a small tent, sleeping bags, and some small electronics. We found a nice camping; it had all the comforts that I could possibly need - showers, pool, cafeteria, store, bathrooms, dish washing sinks, laundry, and so on and on and all in the middle of a beautiful beach forest five minutes walk from the beach. Three days cost me some 50 euros. Assuming I could get a really small wilderness cabin with a small property and some small systems for 50,000 euros (I would be lucky to get such a deal), that equals some 1000 3 day weekend trips to nice campings. Assuming that I went camping every single weekend for three days, that is 21 years worth of camping vs. one little cabin with little property. And if some here say 'nonsense, no comfort', then trade up to a rural bed and breakfast and pay a little more per day - just take into account then that you are substituting a B&B for a nicer cabin with a little more land. Lets round it out and say that you STILL get to go to a rural B&B EVERY weekend for three days for 21 years. If some still say 'nonsense, still not enough comfort' then trade up a little more and rent a small fully functioning cabin. Again, consider that buying something comparable would cost more. Lets simplify and round out again. You still get to go every weekend for three days for 21 years. There are infinite options where people can enjoy the outdoors and NOT have to own a second home to do it. Camping, B&Bs, rentals, time-shares, etc. etc. etc. And for those deadset on owning some chunk of the great outdoors that is one's and one's alone, then go ahead and buy a chunk close to where you live and tent on it. What I have been hearing in these posts is people willing to sacrifice the environment to meet their 'needs' rather than people willing to sacrifice their wants to meets the environments' needs. And for those who think me a little too extreme toward Gaia, let it be known that I do not cherish nature for nature's sake, I cherish human life and human needs and mankinds' destruction of nature puts all of mankind in danger. I care about my well-being, that of my wife, my mother and father, and brother and sister, and friends and community and society, not a clump of trees in front of my house or the wilderness view out my window or a single owl somewhere in some forest. But every little bit of nature we destroy adds up, and eventually I will suffer, my wife will suffer, my family and friends will suffer, my community, my society and somewhere along the line you too.

So your whole arguement is an economics one? You still drove to your camp site. Was the campsite green? Did they use solar power? Did they recycle? etc etc etc. Did you have a campfire?

Houston did say they brought a solar oven, and drove a Yaris (39 mpg), so that's something.

'So your whole arguement is an economics one?'
No, the fundamental argument I am making is not an economic one, it is an environmental one. The planet can not sustain everyone who wants a second home having one. It is too strainful on local, regional, and the world environment. That is my fundamental argument. The economics focus was to convince people who think THEY need a second home that there are perfectly acceptable and economic alternatives that they can be comfortable with.

'You still drove to your camp site.'
You make a completely valid point. The best thing is NO travel whatsoever for whatever reason. And as I mentioned, I try to limit my travelling abroad. And the vacationing I do I try to do to nearby locations that I can make with a short car drive. But you are right, reducing my vacationing even more is more environmental. And I will continue trying to reduce my car usage as I currently do, including for vacationing. My wife and I have considered that if we return to Portugal, we do it on kayak on the Tajo river. Or by bicycle. Or if we get too old, hopefully by then we will have an electric car that we can power up with our renewable energy system. But your main point is dead on - the less we trave period, the better.

'Was the campsite green?'
That is a difficult question to answer without knowing what you personally consider are the necessary parameters and conditions that must be met for a campsite to be classified as 'green'. Using my own qualifications, it was somewhere in the middle. Better than most, but still a long way to go. Like every business still has improvements that can be made and every individual too. My point was not that the camping solution was the best solution to vacationing, but that it was a far better solution than purchasing a second home. As you implied, the best solution is NO vacationing. But I will not openly advocate such an extreme position.

'Did they use solar power?'
I do not know if all the campsites electricity was generated through renewable energy. I did see a few solar panels, but I think these were for some small specific application within the building. In any case, people at the campsite have the option to use electricity or not. It cost 4 euros more to use electricity per day. Naturally, I did not.

'Did they recycle?'
I believe they recycled some trash, but I do not think they recycled wastewater.

'etc etc etc.'
Etc, etc, etc.

'Did you have a campfire?'
This question I simply find a little provocative or superflous, depending on what you were thinking when you made it. Why exactly would I go to the trouble of taking my solar oven if I was planning on making a fire anyway? No, I did not make a fire of any kind. In any case, Spain and Portugal have severe problems with forest fires in summer. It is prohibited in virtually all open forest spaces to make any kind of fire now. I do remember seeing a northern European family start making a small fire, but for some reason they quickly put it out.