In construction, there is green building, and then there is sustainability.
Apparently, America’s builders are doing a great job of building green, but their clients are not doing such a good job of being sustainable.
Houses weren't as energy-efficient 40 years ago as they are today, but they were smaller and had fewer energy-sippiing appliances, too. Staff photo / Harold Bubil
In Builder magazine (builderonline.com), John McManus reports that homes are much more energy-efficient than they used to be, but that benefit is being offset by the fact houses are bigger than they’ve ever been. And, they have more appliances.
McManus reports on findings by the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Pew Research Center.
New houses, now averaging over 2,600 square feet, are 60 percent larger than in 1973, according to Pew. The “energy intensity” of houses has not changed much in recent decades, despite the fact that in 1993, 53 percent of home-energy use went into heating, and that number dropped to 41 percent in 2009, reports Pew analyst Drew DeSilver. The problem is that we are using more appliances, especially electronics. You know how those smartphone chargers are “energy vampires,” right?
(McManus’ report does not reflect the energy benefit of computer electronics – telecommuting means fewer cars on the road and less paper mail – for some workers.)
This brings up the issue of cause and effect. Do buyers purchase bigger homes because builders are marketing them? Or are builders building bigger because that’s what the buyers want?
Let them point the fingers at each other. But my guess is there are an awful lot of new homes in this country, especially this market, that are bigger than they need to be. Thirteen hundred square feet per person is plenty.
