I am not sold on the green movement for homes. I just don't see it as a viable long term strategy. There are too many extra costs and non-standard things going on with green homes to bring in the average home buyer.

I wonder if its just a trend and a ploy for certain companies and individuals to line their pockets and it will all fade away again like it did in the 80s.

I think its just a fad and the consumer will continue to drive the market toward cheap, standard built homes.

Sort of inflammatory don't you think? I understand some of the sentiment, but I think you are trying to deny something that is beyond a fad and already shifting the way people think in this country.

There is a tendency to lose urgency when monetary concerns fade, but slowly more and more people are recognizing the need to establish a more sustainable world.

Just a fad? I am a developer and I have more demand every day for more and more green features in the home. Many are willing to pay extra. It may seem trendy to complete certain measures when building a new home, but with all my years of experience, I have never seen a buying public more serious about taking sustainable steps.

I don't agree at all. Its not a fad but rather a shift in consumer trends and consciousness. Its about people understanding the impact they have when choosing a home. There are times when things are more expensive, but more and more the prices of green goods are becoming comparable with their older "standard" competitors.

I would also argue that the movement to green our homes never faded away. There was an initial surge and that died, but now we are seeing the resurgence and true mature growth of the industry.

unsure, what defines a fad in your mind. Sustainable construction predates this country and the modern movement of sustainable construction in the residential markets dates back to the 1970s. Just because the movement is gaining momentum and finally making a dent in the American conscious does not make it a fad. Sure there will be those who "go green" because its trendy, but it takes all kinds doesn't it?

A fad is a bit of a reach when describing the green movement don't you think? I am not sure if you are trying to flame bate here or what, but some of your posts seem quite inflamatory.

Building green isn't just about technology and fun gadgets. its about creating sustainable environments and thinking toward the future.

I can't believe I was reading this on a forum based on green residential construction. A fad? I don't know where you are living but this "green" movement is anything but a fad. There may be some who are in it to make a buck, but they are outnumbered in droves by those who truly wish to make a difference.

I just don't see sustainable construction ever becoming the standard for home construction. Too many home owners and buyers are worried first and foremost about the bottom line and even more so in today's economic times. To expect the consumer to fork over extra dollars to be ecologically conscious is just not reasonable.

Does green have to be over priced to be effective? I think you can obtain great results with inexpensive products that are also green. If you decide to go with a green builder see how long they have been in the green business for. Some business/products are just trying to cash in on this craze but not all and there are ways to build green and not spend more than conventional products. Do some research first there are companies out there http://www.mccarthy.com/about/green/ that have been green building for over a decade to make an environmental difference not cost difference.

angdeer. I completely agree that those who have been in it since the 70s and 80s are more likely to be reputable, but I don't know if that is the only factor. There are plenty out there that are just looking to make a buck on what they see as a new fad, but there are also new companies taking advantage of a hole in the market.

Define how long you think fads last. This movement has existed now for over 3 decades. Maybe it hasn't been mainstream or accepted as necessary by the vast majority of home buyers and builders, but buildings homes in a sustainable fashion has been and will be around for a long time.

Think of the impact that we can have if we just improve the performance of each new home by 25%. Eventually we will have a fabric of homes that uses drastically less energy. Now do another cycle of 25% from the original average energy usage. While this would take an extremely long time, the impact is measurable and without a doubt extremely beneficial.

While this method would help, it has too long of a return for our environment to benefit before we reach a threshold we can't return from. So building 0 carbon homes and renovating the home stocks we have to be super efficient is a much more salient strategy.

So is it a fad? NO!! Is it a necessity? WITHOUT A DOUBT!!!!

Fad or not the general attitude of the American public is that if they can afford to be green they will. I also think that there is a robust resistance to change that makes it very difficult for people to want to do even the smallest thing to live more sustainable lives.

One small example that I struggle with is using my canvas bags. I have enough that I won't run out even with the biggest trip to the grocery store, yet it always seems that I forget. Its not a conscious decision to not bring them in, but I have been habituated to the idea of parking my car and walking into the store and now I have to remember to open the trunk and take in the bags. Retraining oneself takes time.

Now take that time and effort and magnify it over the entire number of people in the US or world for that matter. It will take time for people to take this seriously and to make the changes necessary. If we blow it off as a fad and don't start to take it more and more serious each day then the movement will stagnate.

Going green does not need to cost you more, if done correctly. If you think adding a photovoltaic array and using expensive recycled materials is going green then you are mistaken. Stick with the basics: solar orientation, insulation, more insulation, daylighting, solar shading, efficient lighting and appliances and low flow plumbing fixtures. A lot of it comes down to design and the integration of the systems.

bosseda, I agree entirely with what you are saying, but that is not to discount the benefits of the technology and consumer goods that help with creating a more sustainable life.

There are many aspects to creating a sustainable life for the individual, the community and the planet. There are behavioral, planning and technological steps each of us can take. Buying and installing solar panels or other technologies is a step toward going green, but it isn't the entirety of the process, just like your steps are part of the process and not the entirety.

retired, I was primarily responding to the original post - 'unsure' believes that " There are too many extra costs and non-standard things going on with green homes to bring in the average home buyer." I was trying to point out that basic, time tested strategies are very reliable and cost effective.

There is nothing wrong with adding a PV array to your house, or using recycled paper countertops. It's just that these can be very expensive or have little overall positive impact and are somtimes used to greenwash a project.

bosseda,

I get where you are coming from, I just don't feel that people should look at going green as a painless action. It is going to cost us all time and money in order to try to undo our mistakes.

The easy steps you mention are great and should be the primer course for going green, but I don't feel any of us should settle with those steps as 'being green'.

Going green is a process. It grows in you. Do what you can to start and only do what you are comfortable doing. If you feel like your are holding yourself back or restricting yourself, eventually it will likely fail.

gaia. while the baby steps approach is right for some, we may not have that type of time. Large steps need to be taken by some to show the way. If all you do is look at it that you don't want to change your life or be uncomfortable, then little change will happen. The lives we live are too comfortable and too reliant on non-renewable resources. I think the small steps approach is right for some, but it shouldn't be the standard.

Baby steps is all you are going to get from many people. Millions of people believe that global warming is a hoax. And warnigs of global disaster come off to them as paranoid hype. Hey, it's great for some to "lead the way", but unless you can show some people that "going green" easy and it's going to benefit them they just won't do it. People might make a change to save 10% on their energy bills, but to do something so that Florida won't flood in ten years, well, not gonna happen.

I get that people are selfish beasts and won't do many things unless they can see a financial benefit, but we still need to push those people.

i don't want to send this thread down a tangent, but the term global warming has been determined by many to be inaccurate. It doesn't encapsulate everything that will happen to the environment. Its just too narrow. The term I choose to use is Anthropocentric Global Climate Change.