this house is the habitat version of the hybrid tahoe SUV.....giving a wasteful (green) nod to the house.

t

So you guys would rather bash a family who is at least making an effort to reduce their carbon footprint, instead of mentioning the hundreds of thousands of McMansions that do nothing at all except consume, consume, and consume.

"Congratulations to them both for doing the right thing in reducing their electricity consumption in a coal-powered state." from above article

Thank you for this positive note. Being green does not mean having to be cheap. While I agree smaller houses have less of an enviro impact... would you rather the money was not spent on the green things such as solar panels, etc.?

I have had treehugger as my home page for over a year and I am so tired of the negativitiy towards people who earn more money. It was nice to see a few positive comments about people who are interested in making a difference.

Let us take a step forward. Everyone's steps can be different.

Jordan, I am not bashing them at all, I think it is great and said so: "Congratulations to them both for doing the right thing in reducing their electricity consumption in a coal-powered state."

If anyone, I am bashing the journalist for suggesting that this house is green, rather than just energy-efficient, which doesn't sound as good and doesn't work with hippie analogies but is more accurate.

Green isn't just about energy. That is the only point I am trying to make.

I quote myself again: "Don is correct when he says "It's just the right thing to do," but as Miss Peggy Lee might have put it, "Is that all there is, to green?"

Let's talk about this house.. my husband worked on it before we moved to tn. If memory serves him correctly... A. they tore down a house that was on a lot before they built this one. B. they were talking about having not 1 BUT 2 pools. 3. they have toto toilets WITH heated seats, remote flush, bidets, remote controls, and a 120volt plug behind it. Not to mention how big this house is! If they got a green designer in there to REALLY do it green, they wouldn't have a power bill since it is the sunshine state. It's just another example of overconsumption in west palm beach... one reason we moved.

A tiny step in the right direction is better than no step at all, but it is important to acknowledge that is what is really going on here. We associate success with bigger everything, and that in of itself is not a sustainable thought process. In order for the word "green" to actually mean something, it is going to take more than a couple bandaids. I'm talking real life-style changes here. If they want to be "green," 2-5 people simply do not need a 5K+ sq. ft. house. Period. I don't use solar anything, and my monthly energy bill never goes above $40. Sure the temperature is not constant within a 1 degree range, and I don't have all sorts of rooms I have no idea what to do with, but we're happy and living just fine!

They don't need it, but they expect it.

Admit it. In a capitalist society, some people have a lot more money than others. Its unreasonable to expect them to not spend their money, just as its unreasonable to expect corporations not to make every last drop of money they can.

I'm sick of the American ideal that an individual can change the world, even more so that a corporation can. Only governments can make the changes that will, in the end, benefit the most people.

I still contend that in modern society, these people are a net plus over what they could be. Should I be criticizing everyone on this board, because they own a computer? Look at all the people in Africa who live without one. What about a car? A god damn house even.

Just as everyone here, as fat Americans (or generally westerners) we try to impact less than we could if we didn't. But, compared to most of the rest of the world, we are such utter wasters.

In America, we have 300K people. In China, they have 1.3 BILLION people. And yet, we emit roughly the same amount of GHGs. Pathetic? Yes. But thats life.

I'm sick of the idea that an individual can't change the world. Of course they can. Even if just a tiny bit.

These people may have greenwashed their house and their souls a bit, but they ARE the problem with America, with its wealthy, and with their damned sense of entitlement.

Unless there's a family of 20 Cuban immigrants in this house with them or something, they are just wealthy, wasteful 'Merkins.

They'll get theirs, hopefully soon.

Just because they expect it doesn't mean that it is justified - there are moral implications to choices that people make.

One could argue that how we choose to spend our money has huge implications. Supporting unfair trade and the exploitation of human labor, for starters. It is not only the practices we support, it is the ideology behind them. Is it unreasonable not to spend money on certain things? I think that there is plenty of reasons why the existence of such gluttony as displayed in the picture above should make us sick.

Secondly, I think that our consumer sovereignty is an important power that we need to yield in order to affect positive changes in industries. Where would change start if not with the individual? Do you think that anything would be sold if no one purchased it? We have huge power to influence how things are made, what things are made out of, etc.

It is all too obvious that we cannot wait on our government to influence positive change to protect human rights and our environment. Good luck with that. I'll put my money on passionate people propelled by moral obligation.

We need to be positive, forward thinking people, who don't give up easily, that teach and inspire others if we want to secure a better future.

The norm is not the ideal, anonymous.

If it were not for individuals who wanted change, where would we be? If everyone just said, "Screw it! Human nature's a bitch!" where would we be? If people like Rosa Parks and Ghandi had said that individuals can't make a difference, where would the world be?

Sure, I don't think these people are the anti-Rosa Parks and I sure as hell don't think I'm anywhere as significant as Ms. Parks. But I do know that if everyone were as submissive as you, the rights of the individual would be suppressed far more than they are today.

Hell, that's even why I support Mike Gravel.

I think it is great that rich people want to go green. Like it or not, most innovation is funded by early adopters, who pay too much for immature technology. If it weren't for all those showy rich people showing off their shoe-box sized mobile phones in the 1980's, there might not be the inexpensive, tiny, ubiquitous cell phones we have today. Hurray for rich people getting on the green bandwagon! That gives me hope that these start-up companies will be able to fund more innovation; and soon I'll have my own solar roof that is better and cheaper than anything available today.

You who criticize these people need to get a grip. Yes they are rich. Yes they are succesful and yes they could conserve more, but guess what knuckleheads? The more people like this who get solar power, the better for everyone. The price of solar will drop due to economies of scale and then people who are bitter because they cant afford solar can get it too. Those who spend time complainging on this site are what is wrong with the environmental movement today. You want to piss and moan and vilianize everyone while you do nothing. Get off your ass and make a difference or shutup.

Hey "d" if you avoid the name calling and the absurd ad hominem attacks, someone might actually take what you have written seriously.

Unfortunately two issues are being twisted together when they really shouldn't be. Clearly, OUR government has constructed a series of laws that allows those who have paid their taxes and made money to spend it however they like. If one doesn't approve of spending as a means in and of itself then turn off your computer, organize and lobby your legislator(s).

The second issue is whether the acquisition of such technologies is a good thing. I think we would all agree that it is.

Mixing the two issues together invites unproductive and time wasting questions such as whether it is better to simply buy a smaller house which is simply an anecdotal and poorly constructed restatement of the first issue I pointed out.

I applaud those who see the positive rather than the negative. Obviously, the house isn't green from the point of view of an ardent environmentalist. But from the point of view of the REST of Palm Beach? Maybe you people need to take look from a viewpoint.

Try this one - Reatlity Check: Many cities and HOA's in this country still have ordinances agaist such "greener" practices as installing solar panels or even hanging one's laundry out to dry. You can't plant a garden instead of decorative shrubberies or (worse) let your front lawn "go native" in many places - it is against zoning.

Why??? To maintain the cLass stratification that is a foundation of our society.

And this is the sociological issue at hand that you people fail completely to get. UNTIL we change the SOCIALLY-COSNTRUCTED ideas of CLASS, SUCCESS, MORALITY, HUMAN WORTH and CONSUMPTION (which are inextricably connected in American culture), we will have these articles.

Perhaps the reporter of the Palm Beach article is NOT making "lame hippie references". Perhaps she is reassuring her readership that "others" have not moved in, that property values will not decrease becasue something different has been done ("unsightly" solar panels have been installed) that one can make greener choices and not have "to drop out of society" or loose one's social standing as a "good citizen" (clean, moraled, proper), or give up what one is psychologically comfortable with to make a greener choice.

Perhaps, when these people, for whom "green" is quite literally a threat to their way of life and their personal identity, are reassured that the social constructions of which they are completely unconscious will still be intact, preserving their place in society, then they will feel comfortable with taking small steps to reduce their consumption.

I own a green boutique - the first in the Midwest - in St. Louis, no less. Believe me, people fear loosing class status and WILL not buy anything that would possibly result in that happening. I still have people walking in asking if the clothes are "used" because if they were, or even looked remotely "hippie", they will run, not walk, out the door.

Some will call what I do "green washing". Selling clothing that is organic rather than just telling everyone to only wear used. Well, guess what. we tried that - it didn't work. Just like the hippie lifestyle didn't go mainstream. The success of the green movement is going to depend on its ability to adapt to mainsteam sociological strata. The hippies may have been right, but since few listened, what real difference did it make?

As I said "They don't need it, but they expect it."

You people seemed to have missed my point.

Go live in your backyard for a WEEK. Shut off the electricity. Running water. Gas. Park your car around the corner. Grow/hunt your own food.

THEN talk about how people who use more than you are evil.

The article states that "green" is not just about energy. But the article doesn't put forward a consistent definition of what green actually is. Is it about carbon? Is it about a zero footprint? Is it about agonising for ten minutes in the grocery store about which jar of honey is most environmentally sound?

What you've just expressed is one of the core attitudes that is preventing being green from really getting uptake in the cultural consciousness. Many people go too far in their green zealotry, advocating for silly small changes that aren't really making a difference.

Others don't understand what's quantitatively important in going green, and so carry their "I'm not a plastic bag tote" and stuff it full of produce shipped from halfway across the world and drive home in their SUV.

I would argue that any steps a family goes to in order to reduce their carbon footprint is a step in the right direction of being green. I think what this family is doing is fantastic, and assume that if they are combining this change with fuel-efficient cars, recycling, and water conservation, they would be establishing an interesting model for other homes to follow.

MANY people are ignoring the point that this post.

These solar panels are definitely an improvement and a positive role model for others who have done nothing, but this cannot be labeled "green". Lately, society has been throwing this word around and allowing it to simply mean that "something was done". Perhaps the true definition of being "green" should become more distinct, but it definitely does not mean reducing direct energy consumption by almost 1/2. What about the materials used in the construction of the house? Are there exoctic marbles transported from distant locations inside? Are there carpets coated with toxic chemicals? Those questions are just the 2 at the top of my head... there are MANY, MANY more valid considerations where that came from. I am positive the answers to these questions would drop it from the green list in no time.

I guess my point is, kudos to those who do at least something. Kudos to this family for not completely ignoring the environmental movement... but we cannot change the meaning of the word green and let people think they have done "good enough". If any of you have ever read "cradle to cradle", the author mentions that a partial effort can be worse than no effort at all.
Now hear me out on this, he makes a good point. The point is that when we do the job halfway, we begin to improve and get by on these efforts. But it is like feeding the disease... we are supressing it, out of sight, out of mind. We never killed the disease! It is just slowly building up but slow enough that we feel safe. Feeling safe enough, is not good enough when it comes to the well-being of our planet. Just a thought...

Well, it does seem to beg the question:

What constitutes green? The world has already been through, and continues to go through, a Holier Than Thou phase; does it need a Greener Than Though phase?

Are the people in the article leaving a smaller footprint than before? And is the world a little better off that they're doing what they're doing, rather than doing nothing at all?

Sounds like most people would find the house better if it didn't have solar panels, then at least they could have a true reason to dig into the people's lifestyle. I guess there are little kudos for people who try.

I'll grant most of the posters here that this house is excessive -- it's *meant* to be! I'd rather they grabbed all of the energy from the solar panels, but they still cut it by half. What I like about the article isn't that they're crowing about their green-ness to us, but that they're crowing about their green-ness to their neighbors. These people aren't going to convince us to be better stewards of the planet, but they might get their neighbors to install solar panels or take other easy steps forward. The readership here may have moved away from the baby steps, but there are plenty of people out there who think that "going green" is so scary that they simply tune us out. Would I rather that they used only solar? Yes, but every little bit helps...

Wow !! So Much Going On!

I think this may be a 'baby steps' scenario. But first, a couple of goodies... I like that 'consumer sovereignty' expression and also the 'early adopters' one. I have talked about that without knowing the right phraseology.

Net total consumption -
The guy (girl? I forgot) said he went from a $700 electric bill to a $300 or $400 one. Well if everyone in the area did that, there's your coal energy decrease. Maybe he could add a few more panels and wind generators to power the place at night. Add in a biodiesel back up generator when times get tough (Like the hurricane blows the panels away) and you're cooking with gas, or something.

Shades of green -

Pea green - the hybrid SUV

Kelly Green - a modest house with some green improvements.

British Racing Green - the Tesla

Sage Green - a metrosexual green gizmo guy with a solar powered I-Pod.

Emerald Green - an off the grid guy or No Impact Man.

Is the cloud's silver lining really a lightning bolt coming at you?

Anyway, Live large, consume little. I think every bit helps.

vsk

I'm sorry - this is EXACTLY what "green" has always meant... An improvement over the mainstream version of something.

Maybe people need reminding that "Green" does not mean "neutral to the environment". Unless you are talking about population reduction, that meaning for "Green" has never been part of the discussion.

Do some reading and quit fighting against people trying to change the world - That change is our only hope.

every little bit does help - if we don't lose sight of the real goal. i don't know why people think this article is completely bashing on them for not going all out. we simply need to make sure people don't eventually accept partial solar energy as being completely green! i understand that those people not as in tune with environmental lifestyles do not want to up and change everything, so we can take the process slow with them, but our community can't lose sight of what it really means to be green. that way, once they are settled into the solar panels, they can take the next step, knowing that there is a next step.

if we forget the final goal, or let them believe they've reached the final goal, we will fall into the trap that "cradle to cradle" warns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_building

this page clearly states:

"Green building is the practice of increasing the efficiency of buildings and their use of energy, water, and materials, and reducing building impacts on human health and the environment, through better siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal — the complete building life cycle."

complete, not partial.
they are not being criticized at all for taking a step in the right direction, but we cannot lose sight of the definition. every bit is appreciated, no one is denying that.

Ok, obviously these people are going to live their life stayle this way without changing it too much. But they are making a difference, they could just have said screw it and do what the majority of rich idiots out there do, consume and waste it all for nothing, cause they can. These two people took some steps to reduce their impact, and thats great!! I only hope that they do 2 things, get their other rich friends in on the bandwagon, and buy me a solar panel for my house!!

Timberding, thank you. You succintly spelled out my thoughts and saved me the trouble. Hope you post more comments in future.

And thanks to Lloyd for the article.