I will postulate that the primary objection to supporting “Green Revolution” idea is the government; or more specifically, your political position. The sheer stupidity in rooting your support for anything based on a political party’s mandate is, well, bordering Neolithic.
It’s a material world and I’m a material, um, guy. So let’s analyze all these green-freak environmentalistic ideas from a different angle – you’re wallet. Times are tough so why not? Realistically, is your selected representative doing anything for YOU? So screw ‘em!
Green energy technologies are good for your pocketbook. It’s that simple. The classic example that seems to pass thru the heads of so many quicker than the Pale Riders right hand; the Compact Fluorescent Bulb or CFL as we Architects like to pompously call them.”
“But they are five times more expensive!”, you scream at me.
“Yes, they are.”, I calmly retort. “And they last 10 times longer on average (US government says 35x longer), thus saving you, um…”, calculator pause, “twice the money!”, I slyly add.
“Not to mention the 75% savings on energy across that 10 YEARS!”
Yes, they contain traces amounts of Mercury. But for non-greenies/conservatives that should be a plus as you now have the potential to poison more people, yeah! And for you tree-huggers/liberals you have saved yet another sq. inch of our 7.9 x 1017 square inches here on Mother Earth, sleep well tonite.
But in the end you have both saved money. Real money. If you changed out EVERY lightbulb in your house your saving 75% of your MONEY… not energy. Makes more sense that way. LED’s will save you even more money as they become widely available.
We architects refer to this notion as Life-Cycle-Costing.
The rest of the world just calls it common sense but, sadly, the rest of the world seems to be losing theirs.
LaurelHouse Studio
Demand More Better
Filed under: Alternative Energy, Sustainable Architecture, architecture, CFL's, Clint Eastwood, energy efficiency
SocialVibe