This gets us way beyond feel-good tokenism and lasts for multiple generations.
Ann Kovalic said it well in her essay Passive-Aggressive Haus ( a great read!)
“There’s no good reason,” I used to say, “why we don’t build more Passive Houses in this country.” I assumed it was just Canadian denial of our climate; we like to wear thin jackets and complain about the weather. Are we this way with our permanent shelters too?
There are indeed no good reasons. But there are reasons.
Adopting the Passive House building technology and standard may be one of the easiest and least costly ways to greatly reduce carbon emissions around the world. The reduction of emissions would result from a reduction in energy demand as opposed to the conversion to a different energy source. This is significant because a reduction in total global energy demand, as opposed to only a conversion to a renewable energy source, is necessary to reduce emissions to acceptable levels.
Furthermore, unlike many other methods to address climate change and reduce emissions, this technology is not years away. It exists now and is being used in all regions in the U.S. (as well as in Canada, Europe Japan and China) and with all major building types.
Also, the adoption of this technology doesn’t require a shift in the public’s beliefs about climate change or appreciation of it as a danger. This makes it possible to sidestep politically contentious arguments about the environment when discussing the technology.
No comments:
Post a Comment