Übergeek 바둑이: I keep my heat low, turn off lights when not in use, drive only 4 miles to work, don't travel much, and on and on. The US may use more (they don't use the most however) because it's more available and we can afford it.

Artful Dodger:

> I keep my heat low, turn off lights when not in use, drive only 4 miles to work, don't
> travel much, and on and on. The US may use more (they don't use the most however)
> because it's more available and we can afford it.

I think it is not realistic to ask people to cut their consumption by 80%. It is what the average American would have to do in order to bring consumption to the world average. It would be like asking people to stop using their lights, refrigerator, air conditioner, car, etc. It would not only be unrealistic, it would be economically destructive.

I think that our shcool should teach children to use energy responsibly. Teach children to waste less electricity by leaving lights on, leaving the TV on, keeping appliances plugged in when they don't need to be, etc. We should teach children to reduce wasted energy.

Then we should teach children different values. We value big vehicles. Everybody wants a huge pickup truck, a huge minivan, a huge SUV. We should teach children that cars are not toys, but working vehicles. The vehicles that we choose should be a reflection fo the work we do, not of our desire to have fun. Here people buy big pickup trucks just to show off, not because they need them for work. Those values have to change too.

I think we are decade away from getting rid of oil as a source of energy. However, that does not mean that we should not plan for the future. Oil will run out sooner or later, and when it does we better be ready to substitute it with something cleaner. There are alternatives, they are not perfect, but that is no reason to reject them outright.

One thing is true, the oil industry is trying to milk every cent of profit out of oil. Their economic interests lie with oil and not with "green" energy. Alternative energy companies have interests that lie away from oil. Our politicians are now caught between economically competing interest groups. As always, our politicians will side with whoever puts the most cash in their hands. It is the nature of the lobby system. Since the oil industry has the most cash for now, their political interests will be represented more than those of "green" energy. As green energy becomes a bigger and bigger business, the political wil will shift, but we are decades away from that.

Übergeek 바둑이: I totally agree with your post. I believe everything you said is true. I drive a small truck. a friend bought a huge truck. Mine's paid for but his not only guzzles gas, it chews up 400 buck a month. I paid 6 thousand while he around 40. Now he can no longer afford it.. Just not smart on so many levels.

Artful Dodger:

> I drive a small truck. a friend bought a huge truck.

It is just human nature. We always want things bigger. I see it here in our city. Old neighborhoods have homes that are much smaller than newer neighborhoods. Houses built in the last 10 years are easily three times as big as homes built in the 1950s. With each passing decade homes became larger and larger. At the same time families became smaller. Now people expect huge homes, and have only 1 or 2 children.

This translates into a big waste of lumber, steel, concrete, plastics and other construction materials. It takes energy to make those things, and more energy to heat a bigger home.

We are a society out of control. We are spoiled and we think we are entitled to bigger and bigger things all the time.

Übergeek 바둑이: No. Not human.. partly yes. Yet philosophically just our animal instinct to build perverted into 'things' that really have no meaning...

"Houses built in the last 10 years are easily three times as big as homes built in the 1950s."

Not in the UK they aren't.

(V):

> Not in the UK they aren't.

Here in Edmonton they are. Alberta is under a long-term oil boom. People have built ne homes in big numbers in the last 6 years. The homes are huge. Builders have lost all sense of proportion because consumers demand those big houses. Considering winters here, heating those houses uses a lot of energy. I am sure some parts of the USA face the same problem. Seeing TV shows from the USA it is obvious that all of North America has similar thinking. Bigger is better.

Übergeek 바둑이: looking at stats UK homes are on average 800sf compared to Aus/Usa 2200sf. We like our open living and don't like to be locked in. We have double access (front and back) whereas from what I have seen in UK terraces you have to go in front door to get to back door.
Imagine...having your rubbish bin outside the back door and having to transport it THROUGH the house on rubbish day...but then from what I have seen they all live on the footpath anyway :(...not healthy living as far as I am concerned...gotta have that wide open spaces :)

Bernice:  I like a home around 2500 to 3000 sq ft.. 4 bed rooms and 2 1/2 baths.. 2 car garage.. with a nice big yard to make into a garden and room for a greenhouse and a studio.. that is my dream..

ScarletRose: I already have a 1/4 acre (big enough) 3 bedrooms, 1 bath, carport LOL, a huge garden , greenhouse, and would LOOOOOOOOVE a studio.....for my cake decorating :) but what I have will have to do. ya cant be greedy...MUCH hahahaha

Bernice:

dreaming is not necessarily greed... it's a motivational tool

ScarletRose:

> I like a home around 2500 to 3000 sq ft.. 4 bed rooms and 2 1/2 baths.. 2 car garage.. with a nice big yard to make into a garden and room for a greenhouse and a studio.. that is my dream..

That is precisely the current "North American" dream. I say North American because Canada is the same. The point I am trying to make is this. We want big homes. That's fine. However, where does all the concrete, lumber, metal and plastic come from? Is the environment affected more by a bigger or a smaller home? Obviously yes. Lumber comes from cutting down the forest. Metal and concrete from open pit mining. Plastics from processing of oil products. To produce all these things e need to run refineries, smelters, factories, power plants, etc. That means carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Heating, air conditioning, cleaning a bigger home, removing more garbage from a bigger home. All these things mean more environmental impact.

Bernice pointed that in the UK the average home is 800 sq. ft. In the USA it is 2200 sq. ft. One in relation ot the other means about 3 times as much environmental impact for a home in the USA.

So people face two choices. Keep building large homes, or scale back. Since people always want bigger, the USA will continue to consume a lot of energy, until the price of oil is so high that people are forced to consume less. I suspect that in 30 years, it will be impossible for Americans to keep building like they are. We already see signs of that. In many places there is already a crisis in the collapse of home values. Since building bigger homes means that properties are more expensive, the market place is forcing a loss in the sale of those big homes.

The future probably will be such that people will see themselves forced to live in tiny, very expensive apartments. How long before rising house and energy prices forces people to build small, energy efficient homes? Only the rich will be able to afford the 2,200 sq. ft. I already see it here. Little houses worth 500,000 USD. Nobody can afford to buy those homes any more. Hence the short-term price collapse, followed by massive inflation as energy goes up in price.

Übergeek 바둑이: homes are shrinking...not growing.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/real_estate/shrinking_home/

Bwild:

From that article, it was the first time in 15 years that the average size of homes had decreased:

"To be precise, the median square footage of newly built homes fell to 2,065 square feet in the first three months of this year, compared with the same period last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau."

For the first three months of 2008. The question is: Is it a trend, or merely a one time occurrence in 15 years?

I found an interesting set of data from the United States Census Bureau:

http://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf

If we look at that table, there are some interesting things we can notice.

From 1973 to 2007 the mean and average square areas increased. Then 2007, 2008 and 2009 saw a decrease in the areas. The most likely explanation is the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008 which continues into the present.

The areas also depend on which part of the USA we look at. The northeast actually saw an increase in areas, in spite of a decrease in areas in other parts of the country.

Nevertheless the trend is clear. In 1973 the average area for a single family home was 1660 sq. ft. By 2007 the areas peaked to 2521 sq. ft. That is an increase of 861 sq. ft. or 52% increase over a 34 year period. In essence the average home added the area equivalent to that of an extra 2 bedroom apartment.

The last 3 years saw a modest decrease from 2521 to 2392 sq. ft. That is 129 sq. ft. Obviously financing for mortgages has become more difficult, and that means that people can borrow less and are forced to build slightly smaller homes.

We can only hope that the trend will continue so that the market place can add some moderation to the ever increasing house sizes.

Übergeek 바둑이: The main reason our average size 'houses' have dropped is the amount of flats being built for first time owners or commuters. There has been some 'splitting' of old large plots into multi house development, but that is now being frowned upon. Most older developments/'estates' have plenty of space, some have even won awards and had other European developers copying the layout and form.

(V): I would think England has the same issues as many "small"(land mass) countries...over population and no where to go but up.

in the U.S. its the rising costs of utilities,recession, and "green" awareness.
houses are selling for 50 cents on the dollar in some areas..which puts a strangle hold on the construction industry.
doesnt really matter...in 10 months we're goners anyways! lol

Bwild: We have land, just in some cases it's locked up in planning arguments/debates.

eg.. there is a big piece of built on unused land a couple of miles from us. It is going to rebuilt on houses wise, but not for some years. One of the problems is many of the structures were built using asbestos in various ways.

It is harder with such pieces of land to build on than with virgin plots as you know.

10 months? I thought it was summer! Who's saying December?

Bwild: HAHAHAHA....you are so spot on...the UK having no where to go but up... and (V) "there is a big piece of land "......
I wonder what you would call the centre of Autralia hahahaha

and AD.......OMG, the Brits are all nuts. Political correctness gone mad. Stupid and incompetent knuckle draggers......ROFLMBO


I love waking up to all this humour :)

Bernice: Is that Australia or Austria??

Bernice: The Brits claim a "no tolerance policy" but it's more like a no intelligence policy.

Bernice: I think you just have a strange imagination. No-one does that unless they are very strange, as it is not needed.

"but then from what I have seen they all live on the footpath anyway"

We have wheelie bins. They by law are not allowed to sit on the footpath, except on the night before collection day.

Übergeek 바둑이: read this.......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14916580

Übergeek 바둑이: ... land here in the UK is more expensive. More recent building projects have in many being squeezing in more units per plot.

"Considering winters here, heating those houses uses a lot of energy."

It does. We've seen in the UK more guidelines on what is the minimum effective insulation in the attic, which has basically doubled. This was done after thermal imaging tests showed that roofs were still leaking a significant loss. Bigger the roof area.. bigger the loss.