|
Prairie Writers Circle writer Stan Cox writes about the mess left by the popped housing bubble.
The
financial industry is suffering convulsions because it gave too many people too
big an answer to the question, “How much house can I afford?” But in looking
over the mess left by the popped housing bubble, another question comes to
mind, one of much greater consequence in the long run: “How much house can the
planet afford?”
Since 1990,
construction of supersized homes of 3,000 square feet or more has doubled, to
24 percent of new homes. Combine that with the shrinking size of the American
family, and the result is that average floor space per person has grown by
three times since 1950.
As the
heavy-breathing real estate market reached its zenith, square-footage mania
spread from the suburbs into cities, mutating into a doubly wasteful disease:
teardown fever. Normal-sized, sound, comfortable houses were demolished to free
up urban lots for the biggest, flashiest structures that could be squeezed in.
For
homebuyers with more money than time, the big bust is no problem. The Wall
Street Journal reports that luxury-home builders in places like Greenwich, Conn., and Aspen, Colo.,
are hiring armies of construction workers to complete 10,000-square-foot
projects in about half the typical time.
Whether
they’re targeting the tastelessness of mass-produced McMansions bulked up on
low-interest steroids or the ostentation of real mansions in enclaves of the
rich, critics of the oversized-house trend usually focus on aesthetics.
Monumental bad taste is indeed fascinating. But far more serious is the lasting
environmental damage these incredible hulks do.
The
manufacture and transportation of concrete to build a typical 3,000-square-foot
house generate greenhouse gases amounting to 47 tons of carbon dioxide. And
laid end to end, the pieces of lumber to make that house would stretch for more
than four miles.
Wood,
unlike concrete, gets some credit for being a "renewable" resource.
The lumber and construction industries point out that they are taking greenhouse
carbon out of the atmosphere and locking it into wood-frame houses. But that
ignores the ecological effect of wrecking complex forest ecosystems to feed
industrial wood production.
And in
addition to requiring greater quantities of wood, concrete, plastics and
copper, large houses have more volume to heat and cool, and more room for
appliances and gadgets. Over a 50-year lifetime, a standard house pumps out
greenhouse emissions amounting to 30 to 40 times the weight of the carbon
that's socked away in its frame.
The bigger
the house, the bigger the emissions. Based on University of Michigan
figures, a typical 3,000-square-footer will emit as much carbon dioxide as
would three -- count 'em, three -- 16-miles-per-gallon SUVs driven the national
vehicle average of 12,000 miles per year over 50 years.
Energy
consumption is being addressed in a limited way by eco-friendly construction.
But a 2005 analysis in the Journal of Industrial Ecology concluded that a
3,000-square-foot, super-efficient house consumes 50 percent more energy than
does a 1,500-square-foot house built only to mediocre energy standards.
Building
new, resource-tight houses without curbing their size could make matters worse.
Taking monthly energy savings into account, buyers will see that they can
afford a bigger mortgage payment -- and more square footage -- with an
efficient house.
The
long-term effect of titanic houses parallels that of SUVs and pickup trucks.
Sales of the biggest and least efficient vehicles might be ebbing, but those
that have accumulated over the past decade will be out there by the millions,
belching pollutants, for years to come.
And
American families will be living in, heating, cooling and powering their
current fleet of SUVs without wheels not for years, but for decades.
The economy
will eventually shake off its post-bubble hangover and move on to new crises.
The bigger challenge will be cutting carbon emissions deeply enough to avert
catastrophic climate change. To meet that goal, one thing we will have to do is
yank excessive square footage out from the tangle of current housing problems
and declare it a luxury whose ecological costs we can no longer afford.
• Stan Cox is a plant breeder at the Land Institute
in Salina, Kan., and author of “Sick Planet: Corporate
Food and Medicine,” a book to be released later
this month. He wrote this essay for the institute’s Prairie Writers Circle. Reach
him at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Tracy Press
Where do you go to find such “reasoned” thinkers such as Mr. Stan Cox, author of Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine? Where is Salina, Kansas, by Banta?
Didn’t the planet’s fever break this last winter?
*Polar bears, no longer drowning because of ice depths, are robbing garbage cans for take out.
*While only 500,000 cattle froze solid, 1.2 million Chinese suffered frostbite with power outages lasting up to 2 weeks because it was too cold to repair downed power lines.
* Baghdad. It snowed in hell for the 1st time in memory (or recorded history depending on the source)
*Shop-keepers and restaurant owners are gloomy in Australia with the way above average rains keeping customers away
*Thank God we didn’t set any new cold, or ice, or snow records in the States. (We did? In Hawaii for one? Who said? NOAA? Who the Heck are they?)