The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Waging a green jihad on suburban homes > Comments

Waging a green jihad on suburban homes : Comments

By Ross Elliott, published 29/8/2011

When it comes to a carbon footprint, high density housing has a bigger shoe size than detached.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
It is suprising how Green Councils thrive in areas where no trees exist.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 29 August 2011 9:22:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only sort of justification of 'jihad' in the article appears to be 'constant assault of falsely laid allegation and intellectual derision'. The latest attack being a 'green star' rating scheme....

If only all jihads could be waged like this. I could handle that sort of jihad, as boring as it is.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 29 August 2011 10:30:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good stuff, with which I agree. But an important aspect of energy usage has been omitted, which leads me to suspect it may be counter to the author's thrust - the energy consumed in building McMansions and the necessary infrastructure (roads, utilities, street lighting inter alia) cf that in building apartments.

Logic, without research, indicates that far more is consumed in the McMansions, which would be the opposite situation to the "green jihadists" pushing electric/hybrid cars without considering the extra energy costs of production.
Posted by L.B.Loveday, Monday, 29 August 2011 10:40:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have lived in English semi-detached houses and wonder why we do not have them here.
They save a lot of waste space down one side, and keep the climate in them more equable.
Posted by ozideas, Monday, 29 August 2011 10:50:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm just waiting for some overly sensitive type to be offended by the term "jihad" in this context.. that is, not in a "kill the unbeliever" context. I note the author wisely disassociates himself from creating the "green jihad" term, since even cartoons can evidently be offensive.

Personally I am deeply suspicious of the new "smart" meter on our abode, and all the things that could be done with it, to us.

This is the portal, for the green mujihadin to see what we all do, and when we do it, and how much, remotely.

I'm thankful the Liberals are in government in Victoria, and the GreenALP out to pasture, if we even get tired of the Liberals, just have a good look at that meter .. and the connotations of big brother really come home to you.

It seems science fiction now, but I'd be amazed if the eco whackos don't start murmuring about energy quotas being put on us, to punish us for our crimes against gaia. Then will come talk of cutting you off, if you overuse.

hey whatever happened to that energy/food study on some island, Norfolk was it? Where people were going to be punished for picking too many energy rich foods or using too much fuel?
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 29 August 2011 10:53:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What an extraordinary argument, Mr Elliott.

"The latest of these assaults is the form of a proposed 'green star' rating scheme for 'McMansions'"

The "green star" is associated with the building itself, yes?

http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/green-star-overview/

The nub of your objection is the Australian Conservation Foundation's 2007 publication, the 'Consumption Atlas', correct?

http://acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=1324

Their assessment of the "footprint" not only direct energy consumption - such as household electricity use and car use - but also indirect energy consumption, which includes GHG emissions from manufacturing, processing and otherwise producing consumer products.

So, from comparing apples with... not even oranges, really, more like hub caps, you deduce that "the detached home is under a constant assault of falsely laid allegation and intellectual derision."

While there is no doubt that the more affluent folk in our community consume more, and therefore feature as higher individual indirect "emitters" of GHG, this would still hold true if they were to move into a "McMansion", would it not? The amount of "emissions" associated with their lifestyles would, if anything, increase, as they would have further to travel to find a restaurant with just the right quality of wagyu beef.

The green star treats the actual buildings the same. Delving into the personal habits of the occupants is not the purpose of the categorization. Quite simply, it encourages building greener people-containers.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 29 August 2011 10:55:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting argument, but here comes the green angle! What about all the carbon sequestered in those suburban front and back lawns? There are no offsets with apartment living. A pot of kitchen herbs doesn't count for much against your 42" Plasma TV.
Posted by Jon R, Monday, 29 August 2011 11:02:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A green star rating makes good sense and a good selling point. Who would want to bye into a power hungry and water inefficient house.
A house set up with solar and land that is not dependent on a reservoir of water to look tidy is the way to go, and for these innovations you get star ratings.
Posted by a597, Monday, 29 August 2011 1:37:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So wealthier people tend to live in inner-city areas (may well be true) and tend to have a greater carbon footprint than poorer people (no surprise there).

The surprise is that someone thinks this says something about how a city's carbon footprint would be different if it were denser.

And he seems oblivious to the possibility of a better public transport system, which doesn't happen by itself in a medium or high density city, but is much easier to get in place.
Posted by jeremy, Monday, 29 August 2011 8:33:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think suburban homes are just fine. I don't understand why so many medias think that are not appropiate. There's nothing wrong with these homes so why should they be critised?

There's absolutely no point in critising suburban houses. Besides, it's not the medias choice on what the Australian nation wants their house to be like, it's what we want, what we desire.

Suburban houses are normal house and I think critisism from the media won't solve anything about their problem.
Posted by Kittylala, Monday, 29 August 2011 9:15:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I agree that blind fanaticism for any cause is unlikely to be helpful, Mr Elliot obviously comes well armed with his own prejudices. The ACF Consumption Atlas does indeed indicate higher per capita consumption in inner city areas, but it is not until one looks at semi-rural areas that the footprint is significantly reduced. Suburban sprawl is not so innocent in this debate.

To portray the Green Star scheme which encourages better ways of building as an “assault” is plain silly. And to propose that “market forces” are the solution is another chimera; the market can certainly help drive better solutions but only when directed by appropriate regulation for the common good rather than allowed to elbow in for quick private profit.

Perhaps he is examining two ends of the same problem – overconsumption. Affluent city dwellers buy too much stuff, but it would be hard to justify the size of much of the new housing being erected on city fringes. If we accept Mr Elliott’s point that it is behaviour not building type that is the major culprit, then we need to look more closely at building types both in their own life cycle costs and in how they might affect behaviour.

Huge high rises or huge “McMansions” are both extreme, and I support ozideas’ comment above that we might be using our resources better in other forms of housing, that allow both connection with a garden and more efficient use of space and services. Most cities have limited access to productive land and recreational open space and we should be striving to maintain a healthy balance rather than approving endless accretion of what may prove to be an unsustainable dreamland. Housing must be seen in context, both local community and citywide, and there will be a mix of solutions of which high density and the suburban block will both be a part.
Posted by Robert, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 11:05:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy