McMansion under construction by merfam

Remember when people where trending on such topics as “downsizing” and “simple living?”  It seems like just yesterday.  With untold McMansions listing in their weed-infested suburbs across the U.S. it would seem that the time was indeed ripe for reason to reenter our housing market and smaller footprints and more practical usage of square footage to be valued and rewarded.  The only problem is that downsizing is easy to talk about and hard to do.

American’s love things big.  As my wife and I have listed our 4 bed 3 bath, 1990 sq. ft. home in SLC for sale we have discovered that it is too small to demand top dollar (in our current crappy homes market).  I thought such a home would be ideal for all the people who have been talking about downsizing from their 3,000 sq. ft. 3 bed and 3 bath houses.  But, apparently there aren’t any such people.  What there are, are people who are looking for their first home and finding that 2,000 sq. ft. just isn’t big enough.

Redonculous.  Undergirding current U.S. home sales, or lack of them, is a symptom of our addiction to size.  Appraisers and Realtors still evaluate homes by dollar per sq. ft.  I realize this is a handy little tool to come up with a quick and dirty estimate of a home’s value.  But seriously.  Any builder can come up with stupid ways to waste square footage in order to drop this ratio.  The 1990’s stand as proof.  For decades now U.S. homes have attempted to find all sorts of ways to bloat themselves just for the sake of bloatage – no practical use at all.

I design a home with practical and usable spaces, small bedrooms, custom-built closets and multi-use family spaces and it gets undervalued in the market because it doesn’t waste space well enough.  Realtors advise their clients to steer clear, because after all, they can find a home with more square footage for the same price.  And we all know that bigger is better.  Well, my family’s is about to experience a gypsy’s square footage, if we can ever sell this just less than 2,000 sq. ft. house.  Maybe I’ll add a 1,000 sq. ft dirt room on the back.

Yeti by Philippe Semeria

The only question in regards to the death of the current green enthusiasm is, “Will the new green fad die via popular adoption, or via wholesale abandonment?”  Well, I guess this is the first question, not the only.  The second one would be, “What will green living look like when it is either abandoned or adopted?”

An intelligent reader (I know you are out there!) would of course respond, “Well, economical solutions will be adopted while unrealistic and utopian greening will be abandoned.”  And while making sense, this sort of reasoning with the American people is redonculous at best and dangerous madness at worst.  Just look at corn ethanol, still going strong all these years despite its fairly wide-known economic unfeasibility.  And we all know that the milk of the female Yeti could be a financial boon for holistic medicine if someone would just put in the hard work to create a Yeti milking program, or at least learn to synthesize the stuff.

All good fads come to an end.  Bad ones sometimes uncannily remain, but good ones, they always end.  Some of these fads become the next compact disc or Garth Brooks Juice Tiger juice diet – loved and embraced by all, effectively ending the fad.  Compact fluorescent bulbs have reached this level in the green world.  LED’s are currently still just a fad, but they may reduce CFL’s to vinyl status eventually.

On the other hand, some fads fade away like goldfish shoes and Scientology (ouch! I am such a insensitive jerk.  Luckily, jerkiness is hear to stay.)  Within the green living movement there will certainly be many such fads that never cut the mustard. (Mmmm, green mustard…)  A list of undecideds include smart home meters, ERVs (energy recovery ventilators), urban chicken coops, hemp diapers, anti-polyethylene-terephthalate and/or polycarbonate mania, cloth shopping bags, not wasting water on Kentucky Bluegrass in Utah, and duel-flush toilets.

New technologies are sexy, and they can make going green seem Hollywood.  Getting a green app for your iPhone can be a breathless affair, but this is all a bunch of who cares in the end.  Sure LED lights, if made affordably and practically, could once again radically alter energy consumption from structural lighting.  But so could turning off the lights when you don’t need them.  So why is it that buying flashy new bulbs is hip while insisting on turning off unused lights is totally fuddy-duddy?

I, for one, think that this latest fad of green living will actually die a death of wide-spread adoption.  It will no longer be a fad due to being mainstreamed more than forgotten or ignored.  While this makes my dirty, hairy toes all tingly with excitement like a cool squish in the mud on a hot day, I also fear it may not matter much in the end.  If the lasting heritage of this round of green living includes only a smattering of genuine technological innovations clumped together with a bunch of persisting yet questionable green devices, then who cares?  Really?

Behaviors have to change and Yeti’s must be milked if this new green fad is to become anything that will matter in the end.  If only our behavior would truly be driven by economic sustainability and a rational passion for sustainable free-markets, then we might see some wonderfully amazing and surprisingly simple ideas.  These could include wasting less, workable new energy sources, sweatshop-free labor, more shared-space and less consumer-product redundancy (a TV in every room and a lawn mower in every garage).

It ain’t sexy, but it would be a future enhanced by the fad.

Sweatshop in Chicago

Sweatshops.  Sounds kind’a nice as I watch the snow fall outside my window here in SLC, in April.  Oh, to feel the sweat trickle down the small of my back and then slowly spread along my waistband front and back until it looks like I have thoroughly wet myself.  Oh to feel a hard dirt floor with my blistered and cracked feet and to be able to gnaw on my swollen, spongy tongue longing for a cool drink of water.  Instead I just sit here at my fancy computer typing away with a hot mug of tea watching this freekin’ frozen crap cling to my grapevines and tulips.

Surely I jest.  But seriously, in my quest to discover the truth about global sweatshop numbers and stats I have discovered that this is an idiotic quest.  Much more important are the numbers and factors that make sweatshops not only flourish, but attractive.

Wikipedia defines a sweatshop as “a working environment with unhealthy conditions that are considered by many people of industrialized nations to be difficult or dangerous, usually where the workers have few opportunities to address their situation. This can include exposure to harmful materials, hazardous situations, extreme temperatures, or abuse from employers. Sweatshop workers often work long hours for little pay, regardless of any laws mandating overtime pay or a minimum wage.

Sounds great, right?  So what sort of madness causes these things to thrive around the world (even in the U.S.)?  Simply put, greed and poverty.  Nicholas Kristof raises a good point in his op-ed for the NYTimes from last year.  Sweatshops are real nice options for people who would otherwise live and work in a garbage village.  Hmmm.  So what you are saying, Nick, is that while sweatshops suck, poverty is a bit broader and can suck even more?

A study done by the Wold Bank shows that in 2005 20% of the world’s population lived in what is considered extreme poverty, on just $1.25 a day.  Around 50% live on $2.50 or less a day.  If we stretch it to $10 a day we can include 80% of the world’s population.  This, ladies and gentlemen is poverty.  Estimates say that around 12% of those living in the United States fall below the national poverty line.

The real bummer is that, like most of us, I enjoy the things that poverty makes for me.  I have a connection with my mug.  I like my computer and all the rest of the stuff cluttering my desk.  Even though I like not to think about it, I know that most of it was made by people living off of jack-crap and a cracker.  Heaven forfend, some of the crafters of my crap probably labor for a sweatshop.

So how can we combat sweatshops when so many people around the world would leap out of their garbage pile for such a swanky job?  Well, first of all, we have to share.  My two-year old gets it most of the time.  Forget the complicated economic systems and formulas.  If something is “mine,” then it ain’t “yours.”

Secondly, it is time to realize that low, low prices usually means low, low morals.  When I spend $39 for a DVD player several people just got screwed in that transaction.  When I spend $29 for a pair of jeans a bunch of people just got paid a fraction of a penny for their labor.  Crap, I know!  Sharing sometimes means we have to play fair when we use our purchasing power here in the States.  And the real stick in the eye is that I have to bother to search out commercial goods that help me share when I buy them!  Fair wage they call it.  Sweatshop-free labor.

But it’s true.  We live in such a screwed up world that it is our responsibility as consumers to ensure that we don’t get the best price on a product, but that we share our surplus wealth with those who need it.  This is one case when buying can be saving.  By buying socially-aware goods we can save human lives, dignity and health by freely offering up what we can afford to live without when we are buying the things we choose to live with.

by Alfred T. Palmer

Environmental racism has been coined as an expression describing any policy, practice, or regulation that negatively affects the environment of low-income people.  Everyone seems to acknowledge that the poor get the short end of the stick when it comes to negative environmental impacts, but at the same time the broad assumption is made that low-income people simply don’t care about the environment.

Now if I were to say that poor people hate the earth then you would probably cry foul and fill the comment box at the end of this post with vitriol and lingual excrement.  But if we are honest, yes, the majority of us well-to-dos operate under a low-level yet constant assumption that low-income individuals (whether rednecks, urban minorities or simply blue-collar) don’t care about issues of sustainability.  These assumptions have been built on a long tradition of alienating all brands of low-income folk with hoity-toity environmental clubs and lofty policies built on negative reinforcement.  What do I mean?

Well, what kind of self-respecting immigrant or redneck would want to join the Sierra Club? or would even be allowed.  (I am sure they would be allowed, even if it was assumed they were too poor and dumb to seek legal council, but I am making a point.)  When was the last time an environmental activist approached a farmer with a solution to or alternative to an environmentally harmful product/practice?  Seriously, it should not take a Green Peace genius to figure out why “putting food on the table” has become the battle cry of the rural working man in America when confronted with talk about environmentalism.

The bottom line has been that low-income people in the U.S. have long felt that nature has been elevated above them in importance – that the rainforest and spotted owls matter more than poor people.  Who among us would care about duel flush-toilets when we are, after all, having trouble “putting food on the table.”  And so sustainability is ultimately an issue of social justice, and most Americans, whether poor or rich, care about justice.  It is just that we take a different view of the subject.

I strongly believe that low-income, blue-collar America cares just as much for the sustainability of life on earth as snooty-white-collar America.  It’s just that their solutions are less flashy and tend to focus on family and community.  Plus, they don’t have as much time to blog about it.

It seems, after many years of difficult struggle, groups such as the Hemp Industries Association and Vote Hemp might finally be gathering the momentum to bring hemp back into the mainstream of American society.  These two organizations are teaming up this Spring to bring us Hemp History Week, May 17th-23rd.  This is not the same thing as, “Smoke a Doobie, Attention Deficit Day,” or “Bake a Ganja Brownie for your Favorite Earth Sprite Day.”

These organizations, and many others around the U.S. are serious about issues of sustainability AND economy.  Hemp is a versatile crop, adept at growing in many climates and soil types.  Hemp has a growing market in more than a dozen areas of the “green” economy that Obama and others so often stress the importance of.  These areas include the building sector, energy sector, food sector, textile sector and whatever you want to refer to fabrication and containers/plastics, etc. as.

The more the American public learns about the history of Hemp in the U.S. the more crystal clear its future will become.  For that reason alone, this event in May is an important one.  The main thrust of the awareness week will consist of local events sponsored and put on by volunteers at the grassroots level.  It is hoped that these events will garner at least 50,000 signed post cards urging President Obama and Attorney General Holder to allow American farmers to grow industrial hemp.  You can click here in order to sign up as a volunteer to make sure your hometown has an event to celebrate Hemp History Week and be a part of demanding hemp be made a part of our future as well.

I will call upon someone with a modicum of professional talent in Salt Lake City to make the prototype of “One True Pants.”  Yes, the pair of pants that all others will one day bend the knee towards and acknowledge as king.  How could I expect this pair of pants to be found wondering the savannas of retail America?  No, the one true pants has yet to be woven together in the womb of its father’s mind.  Too far?  Yeah, I don’t even understand myself anymore.

Recently though, I found more helpful insight from Eric VandenBerg, the founder of the Hemp Barn.  What will really blow your mind about a place called the Hemp Barn is not that it is primarily an earth-friendly upholstery store, or that it was founded by a young, non-hippy male, but that it is based in Salt Lake City.  I know.  Miracles never cease.

Eric is a totally down to earth guy that had a dream and followed it.  Now that dream is growing into a successful business.  He admits that he still has another part-time job to make ends meet, but hopefully it won’t be long before upholstering worn-out cotton furnishings and providing hemp-based, household inspiration can pay all the bills.

As for my little quest Eric was immensely helpful in allowing me to inspect several swatches (take a moment to role that word around in your mouth.  Swatches.) as I attempt to figure out which fabric to roll with for my OTP.  It turns out that I may be able to use fabric as heavy as 14 or 15 oz. depending on the weave.  Although at the moment I am still leaning toward something in a tightly woven canvas around the 12 once weight.

The next big challenge is to find a seamstress and to determine the exact pattern that should be used for OTP prototype production.  Stay tuned.  Gotta’ go wash the metaphorical dirt out of my hair.

Orvis is the only clothing store with a website that sells hemp pants in size 34×34 for men.  I know.  A powerful statement made by a man wearing cannabis crafted clothing, but true.  Nowhere else could I find my coveted pants.  Orvis had two colors to chose from in 3 different inseams and several waist sizes.

Outdoorsmen and farmers have known for over a hundred years that hemp makes a durable yet breathable pair of pants — pants you can do real work in.  This is something many granolas apparently don’t know about.  While they sit around in yoga poses wearing their drawstring, high-water pants, I am sitting in my cushy, office chair in my durable, work-capable hemp pants.  And you know what, I might go do some real work when the weather warms up.

For now, I’ve got more NFL playoffs to attend to, and I’m glad I know I can rely on my new hemp pants to keep me cheering in style.  For now, Granolas are down 7 to 0 against Outdoorsmen.  If you would like to join me wearing the only pair of sustainable Hemp pants available on-line click here.

Credit: Modcell

Avert the eyes.  Yes, they are at it again.  Brits hold no modicum of decency when it comes to their efforts at mating sustainable products with modern building methods.  Hemp and straw are so pure and modest, while industry is so brutish and base.  Will it ever work?

Modcell is attempting, in their Flying Factory, to create the illusive commercially viable, modular, super-insulated, high-performance, low energy ‘passive’ buildings built using renewable, locally sourced, carbon sequestering materials.  I know, I know.  Crazy.  When will these money hungry, earth-lovers give up?

Seriously, will anyone ever figure out how to combine truly sustainable materials with commercially viable and modern construction techniques?   Yes.  Modcell has (and I am sure some others have too).  But price is always the kicker.  Earthen materials usually involve higher man hours and thus higher cost (as I have discussed in this blog before).  Straw bale gets around this better than say, cob.

Prefab, modular walls cut down on construction time onsite, which is usually another drawback to earthen homes.  But with Modcell, an average wall panel weighs well over a ton, requiring special equipment to assemble.  (No problem for Modcell, because they make more money putting everything together with their Flying Factory equipment on site.)  So how much does it all cost?

According to a Footprint blog, as quoted by Jetson Green’s write-up of Modcell’s BaleHaus at Bath, a 926 sq. ft. house would cost $214,000.  Once you add the expense of the land this creates a price tag that hardly seems affordable.  I can’t quite figure out why Modcell’s cost ends up this high, but apparently it does.  Ultimately, I still have to ask, “Why would anyone pay to build a Modcell house when it costs more than conventional building?”

If I am a granola I can build my own house with straw and hemp and mud, and spend much less.  If I am a yuppie I can hire a “green” contractor to get the job done for me without spending a whole lot more money, and the end product will be more personalized and unique.  While I still hold out hope that the Granola Ethic can be commercialized for general consumption, we haven’t arrived yet.  I commend Modcell for the grand experiment they are embracing.  Maybe they will pave the path toward eventual success in creating a new species of home, one everybody on earth can embrace without dooming future generations.

You may be thinking, “Who gives a diddly ding dang do.”  But let me tell all you Flanders swearing neigh-sayers, this is pretty ding dang diddly cool.  Let’s not forget that 76% of all electricity produced by U.S. power plants goes to the building sector.  Passive House started up as PassivHaus in the UK, but that was too stinking European sounding for God-Bless-’Em-Americans, so we changed it to Passive House Institute US, but it is the same thing.  Passive House is a certification that literally beats the insulation off of rating systems like LEED.  The graphic shows it pretty well (although LEED is not pictured because it is a bit like comparing apples to oranges).  But the point is that Passive House is the stiffest energy efficiency standard the world has seen by far.

The idea is pretty much how it sounds.  To qualify a house needs to be almost completely passive in its heating/cooling.  The basic philosophy is to capture all possible energy from external sources like sunshine and geo-thermal as well as retaining energy from humans, electronics,etc. and use all that energy as efficiently as possible.  When this is done well, very little other energy is needed.  Dividing your energy needs into the four categories:  household stuff, ventilation, heating/cooling and hot water,  the chart shows how much of each of these you can use and still be considered passive.  The other very cool and very practical element of Passive is that it requires you to be smart, and for the most part low-tech, rather than rely on very expensive gizmos to be efficient.

The passive building philosophy has been around for ever and often requires nothing more than a brain and basic building materials that include dirt, stone, and cellulose.  When building a passive House chances are your most expensive device will be the heat exchanger (which does its best to transfer all heat energy in escaping air back into fresh air entering the home – usually accomplishing somewhere around 70-80% exchange).  After that the next most expensive gizmo might be your hot water heater.  Passive means you absorb solar energy directly from the sun rather than spending $30,000 for solar panels to do it for you.  This means you can’t build a stupid design and slap some expensive gear on it and call it good.  Instead the home has to actually be a smarter and healthier way to exist with and within nature — in other words, sustainable.  Yahoo!  No more LEED debacles.

Passive House may not catch on that fast for just that reason.  There is very little room for commercial greed and muggery.  Building passive also requires a level head for design and a certain kind of Dutch pragmatism.  There, I said it.  Americans just aren’t passive.  We hate the very idea, especially when we find out it used to be spelled, PassivHaus.  I mean,  what is that?  Dammit man.  Tear me out a house from the raw nature around me and beat back any damn thing that tries to encroach on my private castle.  There ain’t nothing passive about it, and if I want a nature retreat, I will buy a Hummer to get there (or a helicopter).  But ding dang, if more of us level-headed ones can start spreading the passive house philosophy sustainability in home building gets much more realistic.

For more practical info. on Passive House Certification and passive building philosophy you can check out Treehugger and the Passive House Institute US.

I think Buildblog puts it best in their recent post, “Pre-fab houses don’t work.”  They go on to list 10 reasons why pre-fabbers have gotten it wrong at a time when I believe that most things were in their advantage to get it right.  Like so many other huge changes that are taking place across the U.S. in the way that we think and live, this time of economic malaise could have been an opportunity for radical visionaries to rebuild American housing.  Instead we came up with a stupider and more convoluted way to build the same old, stupid and convoluted environs.  God bless America.

Pre-fab was born to be cheap and easy.  It was meant for rednecks and common schlebs.  Along comes the “green” revolution, and the discovery is made that pre-fab is a kissing cousin to efficiency as well.  Hallaluia.  Twixt the two together, and it’s a match made in heaven.  This newest reboot of pre-fab should have become a doubly (production and energy costs) cheap-ass home for cost-conscious redneck and granola alike.

Instead the Frankenstein fabbers, ablaze with style and form, created factory pre-fabbed studios and villas.  With fancy, green materials and high-tech jobbers, glamourous pre-fabs were built in pods, cores, units and cells.  Some can be put up and taken down in a few days (before you spend the next few months “finishing” them).  I simply can’t understand the point behind a $300 a sq. ft. pre-fabbed house, and I’ve tried, honest. (Other than possible eliminating those nasty construction jobs that only immigrants want, at a time when it is most convenient to blame all the stinking immigrants for our woes.  Oh damn, I said it!)

I realize that we have grown fond of comfortable predictability in things like Star Bucks coffee and McDonald’s hamburgers.  But, ultimately, people want originality and individuality in a home.  Pre-fab and original, while not mutually exclusive, will never be playmates.  They have gotten over their differences in the past with the help of one thing, cheap-ass Americans that want to live on their own land and call their own shots.  Pre-fab futurists should look to these people to find their way.  What do penny pinching individualists want in tomorrow’s home?  What are they willing to give up to keep the life they want to live?

Make it efficient.  Make it smart.  Make it fly the finger in the face of the establishment.  But for God’s sake, most importantly, make it cheap.