Residential and commercial buildings [account for](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#commercial-and-residential) 31% of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, after accounting for “indirect” emissions like electricity use, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That’s more than other economic sectors like transportation and agriculture.
The Biden administration has adopted various policies to cut residential emissions.
“Zero emissions”? Doubtful. These people almost certainly eat beans.
Ahh?
Aaaaahh??
I’ll see myself out.
What a ridiculous article. The closing advice is to turn lights off?? Yes, because turning off my LED light in my bedroom that consumes a whopping EIGHT watts is going to save the environment. 🙄
Zero mention of building practices that would actually enhance sustainability and reduce emissions, such as re-zoning our cities to support denser housing and mixed use buildings and neighborhoods, which is both more energy efficient and also allows people to live a car-free or car-light lifestyle.
It’s interesting to me how, even without a mass movement of any kind of crazy expensive high-efficiency building projects, the carbon footprint of the average person in Spain is about a third of the carbon footprint of the average American – and it’s all because a much higher proportion of people in Spain live in flats and other more efficient buildings and can walk to shops and restaurants and grocery stores and wine bars instead of driving.
Did they use livestock to deliver the materials? And mill the lumber by hand? That crazy
This is absurd. It is a really bad example of a sustainable house. This house cost $1.1 million, and they still weren’t able to completely get off the grid, even with all that money they poured into it. They are wasting a bunch of heat and AC by having gigantic vaulted ceilings and just a huge amount of unnecessary space. It’s not embedded into the ground at all. It has a bunch of windows in order to lose more energy. They didn’t mention having any way to store their excess solar for use later, which is the main problem with solar, so they are probably just buying from the grid to compensate for low periods. They also made no mention of any water catchment system. And they have a gigantic multicar garage instead of not owning cars at all. And they have used a bunch of materials in the construction. And they have a lawn that reduces the density of the neighborhood and might take watering and fertilizer. A regular small apartment would be more sustainable.
You can’t associate a million dollar home for one family, as being ‘zero emissions’ or environmentally friendly. That’s not how money works. That’s not how any of this works.
Some odd design choices for a house attached to a goal of sustainability. Seems to be lots of heavy, foreign-sourced stone slabs that would have required a lot of emissions to transport across the world. And then there are the high ceilings which in the winter would mean that you’re constantly having to work to keep floor level heated while all of your heat rises up to your double height ceiling. The house might endeavor to operate near net zero. But its dressing choices seem to suggest that it would operate at a carbon deficit for a long time.
7 comments
Real estate is a [key puzzle piece](https://www.fhfa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/wp2405.pdf) in achieving the U.S.′ climate goals, according to federal officials.
Residential and commercial buildings [account for](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#commercial-and-residential) 31% of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, after accounting for “indirect” emissions like electricity use, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That’s more than other economic sectors like transportation and agriculture.
The Biden administration has adopted various policies to cut residential emissions.
The Inflation Reduction Act, [enacted in 2022](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/13/how-to-qualify-for-inflation-reduction-act-climate-tax-breaks-rebates.html), offers financial benefits including[ tax breaks](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/07/american-households-claimed-billions-in-clean-energy-credits-in-2023.html) and [rebates](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/20/more-states-poised-to-offer-inflation-reduction-act-energy-rebates.html) to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient, for example. The White House also recently [issued guidelines for buildings](https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-national-definition-zero-emissions-building) in order to be considered “[zero emissions](https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/national-definition-zero-emissions-building),” meaning they are “energy efficient, free of onsite emissions from energy use and powered solely from clean energy,” according to the Department of Energy.
More: [https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/24/take-a-look-inside-a-1point1-million-zero-emissions-home.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/24/take-a-look-inside-a-1point1-million-zero-emissions-home.html)
“Zero emissions”? Doubtful. These people almost certainly eat beans.
Ahh?
Aaaaahh??
I’ll see myself out.
What a ridiculous article. The closing advice is to turn lights off?? Yes, because turning off my LED light in my bedroom that consumes a whopping EIGHT watts is going to save the environment. 🙄
Zero mention of building practices that would actually enhance sustainability and reduce emissions, such as re-zoning our cities to support denser housing and mixed use buildings and neighborhoods, which is both more energy efficient and also allows people to live a car-free or car-light lifestyle.
It’s interesting to me how, even without a mass movement of any kind of crazy expensive high-efficiency building projects, the carbon footprint of the average person in Spain is about a third of the carbon footprint of the average American – and it’s all because a much higher proportion of people in Spain live in flats and other more efficient buildings and can walk to shops and restaurants and grocery stores and wine bars instead of driving.
Did they use livestock to deliver the materials? And mill the lumber by hand? That crazy
This is absurd. It is a really bad example of a sustainable house. This house cost $1.1 million, and they still weren’t able to completely get off the grid, even with all that money they poured into it. They are wasting a bunch of heat and AC by having gigantic vaulted ceilings and just a huge amount of unnecessary space. It’s not embedded into the ground at all. It has a bunch of windows in order to lose more energy. They didn’t mention having any way to store their excess solar for use later, which is the main problem with solar, so they are probably just buying from the grid to compensate for low periods. They also made no mention of any water catchment system. And they have a gigantic multicar garage instead of not owning cars at all. And they have used a bunch of materials in the construction. And they have a lawn that reduces the density of the neighborhood and might take watering and fertilizer. A regular small apartment would be more sustainable.
You can’t associate a million dollar home for one family, as being ‘zero emissions’ or environmentally friendly. That’s not how money works. That’s not how any of this works.
Some odd design choices for a house attached to a goal of sustainability. Seems to be lots of heavy, foreign-sourced stone slabs that would have required a lot of emissions to transport across the world. And then there are the high ceilings which in the winter would mean that you’re constantly having to work to keep floor level heated while all of your heat rises up to your double height ceiling. The house might endeavor to operate near net zero. But its dressing choices seem to suggest that it would operate at a carbon deficit for a long time.