Commute Contradiction...
The Michael Corkery of the Wall Street Journal has a blog post exploring people's willingness to pay for a green home. The numbers are encouraging as owners are willing to pay more than they were in 2004. However, buyers prefer to purchase in outlying communities instead of urban centers and in effect negating the benefits of the green housing.
I wrote yesterday about established firms creating green products, and it show how pervasive greenwashing is. Life Carbon Offsets, paying money is a modern version of Indulgences.
Habit changes require some kicker to make it happen, both externally and internally. I wonder what will change our minds about where we want to live?
posted by Charles @ 11:41 AM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
It is a tough one, isn't it? It's my understanding that living in a city or more densely populated area is "greener" in the sense that it cuts back significantly on commuting and transportation related emissions. Many folks interested in self-sufficiency, though, would prefer to live where it is more rural. I, myself, would love to live in the country, have enough land to grow my own food, keep chickens, have my boys run and climb trees and explore creekbeds. But we are tied to Silicon Valley right now by my husband's job. A longer commute would negate alot of the things a country life would provide. Besides, there is not enough country for all of us.
Based on vehicles consuming almost 40% of our power, its clear that the green fantasy of living self sufficiently in a rural area... is just that... a fantasy. Even if you never leave your giant property, somebody has to truck all the stuff you need to your abode in boony land.
- Roger
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home