AIA Discover A Global Warming Misunderstanding

The reality is, when business' build, they build cheap (profit over environment, gotta keep the stockholders happy). In a carrot-or-stick approach, it would be better for the government to offer huge tax breaks to business to build environmentally sound/efficient buildings and/or incorporate more green energy into existing structures. That way they can do the right thing, not hurt their precious profits, and actually have a REAL story for their PR, not just the fluff
"green" stories most of the companies talk about.

..and as for homeowners, $5k added onto a house is nothing when the avg home price is what, $250k now in the US?

Cheers,
Tom-tom

Besides the fact that the majority is ignorant, and that the people in charge may want them to stay that way, I find architects extremely irritating. Now don't get me wrong, this is a gross generalization, some architects are doing some great things in the world, but many have succumbed to the almighty dollar and their own egos since the beginning of modern architecture.

They have avoided social, civic, and environmental responsibility for quite some time making grand non functional art pieces(Ghery) or just bland environmentally friendly offices or condos(a countless # of architects). Architects are in a key position to really make a difference in the world, and some do, but many others fail to take responsibility. Hopefully with government mandates, LEED (although it is just a good money making scheme for the USGBC), and the sudden popularity of "Green"(thanks Al Gore), Architects will begin to take responsibility and will lead in developing the modern world that will be environmentally, socially, and civically healthy.

Everyone in these surveys talks big about how much they'd pay for increased efficiency, but it just isn't true when they actually start spending their money.

Do you think home builders are all idiots? If people would really spend $5K more on energy efficiency, then the builders would immediately start offering that option.

The truth is that when people have the choice between granite countertops and a radiant barrier in their attic or a more efficient air conditioner that costs more upfront but has lower bills down the road, they are choosing the countertops.

Their wallets are already doing the talking, and those wallets aren't saying "efficiency," unfortunately.

I say this as someone who installed a $2,800 radiant barrier in my own attic, and put in new Energy Star windows, etc.

I think the real issue is that most people live in a house for less than 5 years on average in the US. So as a result, they don't want to pull out their wallets and make a commitment to something that might take a decade to pay for itself.

Just look at solar power, for example. If you're willing to pay for 20 years' worth of electricity upfront, you can get clean energy right now! But when you look at the idea of paying $30K to get a $75 to $100 reduction on your electricity bill over the next 20 to 30 years, the hesitation begins.

I'm putting in solar right now, and I can't help but wonder if I am spending money that's just going to save some other guy a lot of money on his electricity bill long after I'm gone. (Yes, but I'm helping the environment, so it's worth it anyway, you say! Ok, then why don't you send me part of that $30K, and you'll be helping the environment too? Now you understand where I'm coming from. If you don't, send me a check.)

Now that I am finished ranting, I'd like to say that it's really interesting to know that people are so unaware of how much buildings contribute. Great post!

Ummm... what? Excuse my ignorance here, but how are the buildings to blame? Just the electricity they use? Or am I missing something obvious? Because if it's just the electricity, that's a very misleading survey. The emissions for the electricity come from the power plant, not the house, even if the house is using the energy, right? So I can understand why people would say power plants were the leading cause of carbon emissions. If I'm somehow mistaken, please point it out.

When talking about global warming, there are a few questions that must be dealt with.

First, is climate warming? The answer, though not definitive yet, is probably yes. We can readily see some evidence of that happening.

The Earth is a dynamic system, which means it is constantly in flux. Average temperatures are continually moving up or down. Equilibrium would mean that the system was dead. In spite of what Al Gore says, there never has been a time of equilibrium in the system, and that's a good thing.

Second, if temps are going up, what is the cause? Is it Man's contribution of greenhouse gases? Conventional wisdom (as portrayed in most of the media, anyway) says 'yes'. But the truth is that that is a hypothesis, not even a full-fledged theory yet, and certainly not an established scientific fact. Let me explain:

Obviously we can't put the Earth into a laboratory and experiment on it. Experiments must be done on climate models. Scientists formulate a hypothesis, plug their assumptions into the model, and then see if the model can predict reality.

Even the best climate models don't predict reality very well. Heck, the Old Farmer's Almanac does a better job of predicting weather patterns and climate trends.

So what's going on? Is it worse than even the scientists have predicted?

That's one explanation offered by the manmade global warming enthusiasts, but a simpler, scientific, and less hysterical explanation is simply that one or more of the assumptions programmed into the model are incorrect. That just means the hypothesis is flawed. It does not prove or disprove the scientists opinions, or establish cause and effect. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes.

So how do we get from a flawed hypothesis to a sound scientific theory? The short answer is: we don't. The hysteria is due to politics and propaganda.

How do we get from politics and propaganda to an established scientific fact? Again, we don't, obviously. What we get is more politics and perhaps public policy.

Why? In two words: money and power.

More taxes. Higher prices on energy (and everything that uses energy to make or transport). Control of energy sources. Sales of books, 'carbon offsets', and myriad 'green' merchandise.

Does it bother the True Believer that Al Gore has 200 million dollars in the bank from selling carbon offsets, which do nothing to actually help the environment? That his prediction of a 10-foot rise in sea level is echoed by not one scientist anywhere? No, of course not. Some people want to be scared. Impending catastophe is supremely sexy.

Does it bother the True Believer to learn that many of the scientists involved in the IPCC project sued to have their names removed from the report?

Does it bother the True Believer that the grandfather of global warming politics is a man named Maurice Strong, a big UN muckety-muck who happens to be a eugenicist and de-populationist? No, of course not. Those same people craving catastrophe probably don't understand the implications of those words.

But politics and global evil aside, should we be concerned about climate change? The answer to that is an unqualified 'maybe'. So wouldn't it be nice to just let the scientists work without all the propaganda and hysteria?

Despite the claims of 'consensus', the science is very, very far from being settled. Do you realize there are still scientists studying gravity? And you thought that had been 'settled' long ago, didn't you?

Bottom line: Don't let anybody take your money or freedom based on a hypothesis. And real science is not done by a show of hands. Recognize the doomsayers, propagandists, and slanted journalists (and bloggers) for who they are and get on with life.

But don't necessarily abandon your 'green' practices. They'll save you money in the long run and conservation is always a good thing.

I really really thought we had gotten past the point of doubting if global climate change was happening and if it was caused by humans. Does the prase "Peer reviewed scientific papers" ring a bell? Well it should, because NONE of these have said that global warming is not happening. Face the truth, athough is is much less comfortable than denial, so I am sympathetic to your urge to hide your head in the sand. It is happening, it is more than 90% probablity due to human activity, and it is way smarter, and safer to get out ass in gear and do something about it.

The worst that could happen is that most of the scientists in the world are all suddenly, at the same time, wrong, If that happens, Yay! You will have much more oil for your SUV because we all would have saved so much energy building efficient buildings. If that happens I will happily kiss you, Ron Kling, in 2050 and say I am wrong. But first I am going to kiss my children, and be happy their future is not at risk.