for the treehugger crowd im probably a little right wing. Im receptive to the green message, a bit lazy to act on it, and skeptical of 'Old Left' solutions like what Monbiot is proposing. Lemme go out on a limb here and predict that in 10 years, America will enact approximately 0.000% of his proposed solutions. We may or may not avoid global warming, but command and control economics wont save us.

Oops! This article does not seem to match the original where he says a 60% emission reduction by 2050 is too little too late.

What he actually wants is a cut of 90% by 2050 - with the bulk of the reduction to occur ASAP.

LA: you are right! the number is so extreme that I went right over it, as you did- it is 2030, not 2050.

Just to be nitpickety: Most German PassivHauses have heating systems. The houses are designed to use some 10% or less of the normal heating energy. I don't know of any that use 0%. Most that I'm familiar with use natural gas to top-up pre-warmed (via ground-source and exhaust-air heat exchangers) controlled ventilation intake in the winter months. Because of the intermittent nature of the top-ups, gas is the most appropriate source, though maybe electric could also work.

Nevertheless, the PassivHaus standard is an excellent one. It's easy and affordable, and should be immediately implemented in all temperate countries.

Why doesn't typekey sign in work? Still?

I've never heard of the PassivHaus, will it work in the colder parts of the world? Sounds like a good idea. Are garden lights and patio heaters a large problem? Doesn't seem like it. especially if the lights are LED and solar.

Who in their right mind would leave their car at a gas station to charge over night. I must be missing something.

Matt, I don't know what you're talking about. None of these proposals look particularly "Old Left":

1. Cap 'n' Trade systems use the power of the market mechanism to promote efficiency and thus drive innovation. They were invented by a republican administration for the Clean Air Act, and ironcially I believe the Kyoto Protocol's cap n trade structure was also an American insistence, as opposed to a straight cap which the Europeans favoured.

2. Banning substances deemed harmful is hardly a "lefty" idea. Traditionally, liberal economies do much better at that than command and control systems: cf. the ex-Soviet Union. It's one of the most-cited reasons that capitalism is better than communism

3. In the UK, countryside development controls (out-of-town stores, road building) are the preserve of the Conservative party who, in this case, are really acting as "conservers". It's a little different from, and possibly contrary to, economic conservatism, but it's a divide that most UK conservatives are happy to bridge.

Matt, you should get your ideologies straight before you reject ideas for ideological reasons.

Oh look - putting up the Monbito Red Meat again to generate traffic and "controversy".

He's a crank, pure and simple. Anyone who keeps flogging his ideas is simply trying to inflame people.

Oh look - putting up the Monbito Red Meat again to generate traffic and "controversy".

He's a crank, pure and simple. Anyone who keeps flogging his ideas is simply trying to inflame people.

care to back up any of that with any sort of reasoning or facts? or are you just purely emoting?

Jilted-

The PassivHaus is an EU initiative, but it's most highly developed in Germany and Austria. It's a voluntary, demonstration scheme, but it's probably already influenced code in many coutries, and will likely do more.

The only requirement is that a dwelling use less than 15 kW/sqm/year for heating. How this is acheived is up to the individual, but in practise it usually comes down to a combination of: large, well-insulated (triple glaze, gas-filled) south-facing windows with summertime shading and good thermal mass to store solar energy, a highly insulated and airtight building envelope to keep the heat in, and a controled ventilation system with heat exchangers for incoming/outgoing air. The first buildings in the 80s came in at 1.5 times normal cost, but since then costs have come right down.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of passive houses built, all over Europe including Scandinavia and in Alpine regions. Since it relies so much on passive solar in winter it would probably be less effective nearer the arctic circle, but they've been done in cloudy climates like Belgium's and Ireland's. They'd certainly be doable in most of the US and (inhabited) Canada. The usual solutions are not really tailored for cooling-dominant climates like the American Southwest, but I know that the standard has been acheived there using other techniques. The hot, humid Southeast might be harder...I can't really speak to that.

Good information can be found here. Unfortunately, the best information seems to still be in German.

Best of all, perusing the projects will show you that the standard can encompass many different building types and situations, and that style doesn't have to be sacrificed (though sometimes is.)

I might be mistaken but what I take from it is that a 90% reduction in domestic heating for new houses is achievable now, almost anywhere in the developped world. And that's a pretty major thing.

Oh, and another thing: I would have no problems leaving my car at a gas station overnight. It would probably be safer than the street or parking garages.

Sounds interesting. I'm not sure of the climate in the Swiss mountians, but Ireland climate is pretty mild. I was thinking more of the north east US.

My point on leaving the car at a gas station is that you still need to get home. So it would have to be a close one, which is definitely a possibility.

care to back up any of that with any sort of reasoning or facts?

LA: actually if you read the article he is more explicit- gas stations should have cranes and batteries so that you can change them and leave them. I abbreviated it for clarity and just confused the issue

My house has 4 gigantic south facing windows and 2 full size (south facing) sliding doors with deciduous trees in front, so they are shaded in summer and get direct light in winter. Problem is the windows are old (1972) and inefficient despite being double pane.

I want to take advantage of this situation and get the windows replaced with some form of thermal windows which are sealed well yet can generate all the heat needed for the house. Anyone have any good links to such products or information?

Oh great, more Moonbat rantings. Wouldn't be anything to do with him having a book out would it, or am I just being a cynic? He's certainly not held back on advertising, that's for sure, as the London Underground is absolutely plastered with posters for his new book. Hope they're carbon neutral. I really think the green movement, such as it is, would be much better off without the likes of Monbiot - he just gives the impression of saying whatever will get his name in the press, most of which involves banning everything and being generally joyless and authoritarian.

Actually, I read his book and found it very good. He does argue forcefully, but logically. The book is factually detailed and well referenced.

None of the 9 proposals above is particularly new or original, except possibly no 7 above (which is a bit in conflict with his emphasis on public transport).

What Monbiot does, and does very well, is present the reasoning and the arguments for the steps we will have to take. And where there is no easy technofix (e.g. aviation), he says so. Maybe that's why he annoys some people.

He does argue forcefully, but logically. The book is factually detailed and well referenced.

Many people say the same thing about Ann Coulter's books.

What Monbiot does, and does very well, is present the reasoning and the arguments for the steps we will have to take.

Steps which will not be taken, thus making his "solutions" not solutions in the least.

And where there is no easy technofix (e.g. aviation), he says so.

I see - so he's the final authority on Earth as to what is possible? I didn't realize his experise on transportation technology (as well as his ability to think of new solutions) was so advanced. Funny how no one in the field considers him an expert.

Maybe that's why he annoys some people.

No, he annoys people because he's judgmental, hypocritical, alarmist, and simply doesn't hit the mark factually when it matters. To be wrong, then to judge others based on that wrong notion, is the pinnacle of being annoying.

I really think the green movement, such as it is, would be much better off without the likes of Monbiot - he just gives the impression of saying whatever will get his name in the press, most of which involves banning everything and being generally joyless and authoritarian.

Exactly.

4) ban incandescent lights...
This should be given top priority because it would be so easy to do.
6) stop all road building and widening programs; invest in coaches and trains.
Amen!
7) make every gas station have battery charging stations...
A no brainer.
9) ban and close out-of-town superstores.
Wouldn't miss them.
My own.
10. Ban fossil fuel powered garden equipment, lawnmowers, leaf blowers, weed whackers, garden tractors, etc..

4 - ban
6 - ban
7 - ban
9 - ban
10 - ban

Likelihood on a global level = 0%
Likelihood in the USA = 0%

As usual I love the theory, but know that realistically we need a more inspirational approach, rather than a punitive approach. Negative policies don't tend to be sustainable, while inspirational policies tend to keep people doing the right thing, because they want to.

How about giving everyone who wants one a free solar system or wind system, and a bike (with bike driver training as a part of the deal), and offering free classes in sustainable building, permaculture gardening for small yards (I agree with your George, lawns are silly and unsustainable!) and double the public transit system and make it free? Fund these programs with a heafty proportion of the current Homeland Security budget (as soon as Bush gets out of the White House). And viola! People driving bikes, building sustainable homes, using public transit, and growing their own food instead of giving their monoculture grain lawn a crewcut every few weeks.

If you want it to happen, tell your elected officials and candidates. Tell them that your business depends on creating a sustainable market. If enough people do this, it will happen.

Alex,
A quick suggestion. Try insulating curtains. Appropriately designed and made insulating curtains will provide greater insulation at a much cheaper cost than replacing your windows with new high-insulation windows. The main inconvenience being that you have to open and close the close the curtains every morning and evening. Those sliding glass doors are probably quite bad though if not properly 'weather stripped' at their edges. They may leak considerable hot air. Try the curtains first. If they don't do a good enough job, then install advanced windows. Of course, if you have the money, best to do both.

Intriguing. I've never heard of this guy outside of Treehugger and have never even seen any of his books advertised anywhere. If no one bothered to comment about this guy then I would have simply moved on to the next TH post. But some people who think he should be ignored are the ones least capable of ignoring him. And these people talk of him in more or less the same way they accuse him of talking about the environment. I'm starting to wonder if maybe these people are paid to promote him by bashing him - cause the more they bash him, the more I want to read one of his books to see what all the fuss is about. If one thinks he should be ignored, one should ignore him. If one thinks he shouldn't be, he should say something...anything...especially good would be to throw verbal hail and brimstone. That should really peak interest.

But some people who think he should be ignored are the ones least capable of ignoring him.

Aren't you the person who penned over 100,000 words on a thread about him? So by your logic, you think he should be ignored?

I'm starting to wonder if maybe these people are paid to promote him by bashing him

You figured it out! Our scheme has been exposed!

especially good would be to throw verbal hail and brimstone. That should really peak interest.

That's exactly what Treehugger does. You're catching on.

'Aren't you the person who penned over 100,000 words on a thread about him? So by your logic, you think he should be ignored?'

Amazing. You really have a knack for distorting other people's statements. I do remember having a very lengthy discussion with a Mr. Anonymous (maybe you). But that lenghty discussion was about air traffic emissions, their growth and the need to control that growth. It was not about Mr. Monbiot. Why your confusion on this issue? Second, considering that I was discussing air traffic emissions based on statements made by some that I disagreed with and considering that I have already mentioned on several occassions that I don't know this Monbiot, don't know his ideas, and haven't read any of his writings, it should be obvious that I don't have an opinion about him or his ideas and therefore can't have a personal opinion of whether he should or shouldn't be ignored. What I do know is what certain individuals have posted here at Treehugger regarding their own personal opinions of this guy, including a certain Mr. Anonymous (which may be you), that makes clear those individuals distate for his ideas and their belief that his ideas are basically worthless in some way or other for some reason or other. These people have clearly implied and implicitly argued that we other Treehuggers shouldn't give him the time of day because they think his ideas worthless. They want him ignored yet can't ignore him themselves. I have already mentioned above that if it wasn't for the automatic vitriol some expose at the mere mention of his name, I wouldn't have bothered to write anything under these posts that mention him. I am not responding to the post about Monbiot - I am responding to the posts that posit faulty arguments or ingrained hatred for this guy. But if you are Mr. Anonymous of the previous discussion, do feel free to eliminate every NOT that I have written in my statements and add a NOT wherever you feel like you wish I had written one - why do I say this? Why not, you are going to do it anyway.

'You figured it out! Our scheme has been exposed!'
An appropriate yet cruder sarcastic statement in response to an equal yet more subtle sarcastic statement. An equally sarcastic and crude response from my part would have been: 'I knew it!' But since you have a tendency to misinterpret my meanings, best not to confuse.

'That's exactly what Treehugger does. You're catching on.'
Yes, it sometimes does this against companies and individuals damaging the environment. And we do this to force a spotlight on the issue. Considering that you and a few others seem intent on keeping this Monbiot out of the spotlight, you don't seem to be catching on.