Comments for The First LEED Platinum Carbon-Neutral Building at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 11 out of 11 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Wed, 22 May 2013 12:39:24 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/1132#comment-9267 I don't think that the cost of this building is of any consequence,as probably the majority of the materials were donated or sold at substancial discounts and that the Dollar figures cited are more likely the amounts going on tax forms or grant applications. The real benefit is following a line of thought to a conclusion. I would be quite certain that everyone involved could easily come up with many other and much cheaper ways to get to the same end, if mass production was the intended target. - Brian Thorsteinson Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:15:37 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/1132#comment-7575 Help me out I need some information about Green Building :([b][/b] - Jennie Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:50:19 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/1132#comment-7433 Earthships have been around for ages, they're green buildings too, just like traditional buildings are green - because the poisonous ingredients just didn't exist much, if at all, until the last 100 years. And people had more understanding in the past that using a resource means it will disappear if it's not replaced. Fieldmedic - what is up with that, mouthing off about topics you clearly haven't read up on at all. You must know you've done no research in the area you opinionate on, so why make such statements. ========= Take this peak-oil concern in general - people in a panic over nothing really when you actually look at it sanely. Most people in the world today still live the way they always have for a very very long time; I'm not saying we should embrace the bad things about the past, I'm saying there's a disturbing amount of vocal people who clearly have no understanding of history or the way things happened, not so long ago everywhere. It'd help if people took stock in their own minds so they know exactly precisely why they don't want to live without electricty and machines and electronics. Only being aware of what motivates you means that the technologcal future will be an error-free one. What is it exactly that sucks about being human, that we really want all these distractions and things that (on the surface anyway) make life more bearable. That's the way out - getting in a panic about 30% of the worlds humans being setback 60 years technologcally is not the way to ensure no more mistakes are made. - zupakomputer Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:30:17 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/1132#comment-7159 Industry isn't typically held accountable for all of the costs of doing business. Not just pollution, but degraded forests, cropland, fisheries, and exploited workers. Green is more expensive today because we're investing in sustainability, while conventional products are still writing that cost off to future generations. The ecological and economic consequences of current policy and regulation is a place where we need to focus attention. - Craig Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:18:34 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/1132#comment-7153 Definetly in the right direction but still not there. I am confused as to how this can be the greenest building ever when it uses metal roofs and all wood. Even though this wood is sustainable it could still be used for better things and other materials could be used in its place that are far more green. For the ones who say it is less green than buildings from about 0-19th c. CE, those buildings where also made with a lot of wood and used a lot more wood to heat it whereas this actually creates energy(15% more energy). So in the long run that 15% will give back more than the carbon used to make this building. - Dustin Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:14:58 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/1132#comment-7142 "currently it takes 4 million to create a building that produces more energy than it uses" that is nonsense: I use 550 kwH a month and I could put on solar on my roof which would produce more energy than I use. To meet just my energy needs, a 3KW system would cost me about $120 a month/$15,000, or to produce more than I need: a 4 KW system would cost me around $18,000. Not $4 million. This is fancy architecture, the solar system would not be $4 million! - Susan K Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:21:30 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/1132#comment-7138 I'll start plowing my fields by hand. I'm also boycoting medicine, knowing what it takes to make it ;) how green do you want to be? I hope you're proficient at hunting easily sustainable, overpopulated deer with a non compound bow made of equally as renewable bows and arrows with stone tips, because the amount of carbon used to create metal ones is far greater. or fish would be better because they don't have to be cooked either, furthering how green you can be. Green is great people, but let's keep moving forward. currently it takes 4 million to create a building that produces more energy than it uses, but it's still a promotional stage for the green movement. Fieldmedic. - Fieldmedic Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:01:24 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/1132#comment-7124 How about getting other people's point instead of demeaning their comments? We would like to see greener buildings, but perhaps not at such great expense. Green doesn't have to mean expensive, and the fact that so many of these green buildings are expensive discourages others from believing that they can afford to be greener. You still have to spend more for green products - that's the problem. We need programs to both encourage green development and reward people for using them. It isn't negativity to say one of the ways we could be greener is perhaps to go back to older technology and ways of doing things, as well as incorporating newer ideas. - donna Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:03:36 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/1132#comment-7117 how about applauding those making changes for better instead of belittling their accomplishments. negatively will get you nowhere. by the way if you lived in Tinkers Bubble you wouldn't be leaving comments on ecogeek, now would you. - Melissa Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:01:02 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/1132#comment-7098 Mmmm, yeah "greenest" would be stuff like those turf-roof huts in 'tinker's bubble' in England, thatched cottages built with sustainable local materials, real simple drystone-type houses that don't have any electricity. That kinda thang. Don't get me wrong, green buildings are better any day than non-green buildings - but who the hell can afford $4million. Most of that amount of money was only generated from activities that are nowhere near green. - zupakomputer Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:39:51 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/1132#comment-7067 ok... I am all for building green, but do we really have to say that this is "the greenest building that has ever existed"? Seems to me that many of the early inhabitants of our continent built extremely efficient buildings well over a century ago... maybe we could say that this is one of the greenest buildings built by technologically advanced (yet creatively challenged) people living in the current century? Ok... I'm sorry. That may have been a bit overboard, but let's face it, we really do have a tremendous handicap being so dependent upon the wonders of 'modern technology', built upon fossil fuel driven corporate interests that worry more about their profits rather than their responsibilities to our heirs. - TheFuture.YouHelpBuild Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:44:24 +0100