Philosophy 2300
Environmental Ethics
Professor Dr. Jane Drexler
Is The Building of Traditional Style Houses Environmentally Unethical?
By Michael Rybin
The International Energy Agency estimated that “existing buildings are responsible for over 40% of the world’s total primary energy consumption, and account for 24% of world CO2 emissions (IEA). Buildings are “using more energy than either transportation or industry sectors” (Asertti). U.S. Census Bureau reports that 67.4% of all occupied housing units are being occupied by the unit’s owner (Census citation forthcoming).
“It is increasingly said that civilization, Western civilization at least, stands in need of a new ethic (and derivatively of a new economics) setting out people’s relations to the natural environment, in Leopold’s words “an ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it” (Leopold) (additional citation forthcoming). The large number of homebuilders and homeowners make a demographic powerhouse of potential environmental and economic change for a new environmental ethic. How? Green building or net-zero energy architecture. Even though some people argue that net-zero energy homes are too expensive, building traditional houses is unethical because they waste water and electricity, have high utility costs and negatively impact the environment; compared to net-zero energy homes that are environmentally beneficial and economically profitable.
Building a traditional house is unethical because these houses waste water and electricity, have high utility costs, and negatively affect the environment. Traditional houses require the owner to purchase drinking water for all functions including toilets and watering grass and plants in the yard. Older appliances like faucets, toilets, and washing machines were not designed to conserve water and use much more water than newer models. Older light fixtures are limited to on-off functions. Porch or garage lights and sometimes indoor-lights are usually left on for safety all night long and sometimes into the daytime hours. Electric wall heaters and space furnaces and air conditioners are required to heat and cool these homes. The total expenses for these utilities amount to hundreds of dollars per month or thousands of dollars annually.
In addition, low price and inferior quality of man-made building products and materials continue to be used because of old practices and customs. The consumption and cost for water and electricity continue to increase in-part because most homebuilders continue to construct new houses with these cheap and inefficient materials and appliances. This requires civil municipalities to build more coal and nuclear electric plants, water purification processing plants, and dams. Consequently, these plants pollute our air and water, which destroys global ecosystems, increases the building’s carbon footprint, and amplifies global warming.
From an environmental philosophers viewpoint, and my own opinion, “A farmer who clears the woods off a 75% slope, turns his cows into the clearing, and dumps its rainfall, rocks, and soil into the community creek, is still (if otherwise decent) a respected member of society” (Leopold 245). “Under what we shall call an environmental ethic such traditionally permissible conduct would be accounted morally wrong, and the farmer [or in this case, the traditional house developer] subject to proper moral criticism” (Sylvan 205).
Now we understand that building developers need to make a profit, and families need to be able to purchase an affordable home. Nevertheless, as Michael Pollan said about the American industrial animal farm, “before you swear off meat entirely, let me describe a very different sort of animal farm. It is typical of nothing.” In this case, before you swear off m question and say that the building of traditional style houses could never be environmentally unethical, let me describe a home that is “typical of nothing” and very non-traditional.
What is “Net-zero energy architecture”? A home or buildings designed to produce more energy than they consume. First, they are designed to reduce energy consumption by 80% or more. Second, they produce energy onsite from renewable or naturally replenished resources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, and geothermal heat.
The Architects’ that design net-zero energy homes and buildings, orient, and place walls, doors, windows, roofs, porches, awnings, and trees to shade from the hot south west summer sun and maximize solar input during winter, while optimizing natural light year-around. This is also known as passive solar design. The exterior envelope (walls, floors, and roofs) include advanced construction techniques and is deeply insulated. Construction materials are recycled, non-toxic, reusable, renewable, or recyclable. Other non-traditional materials include bamboo, straw, insulated concrete forms, recycled bricks and rock, and recycled glass. These homes use motion sensitive and time schedule lights indoors and outdoors. Furthermore, they use low flow water devices, xeriscape landscaping including drip irrigation. These homes gather and store roof water for toilets and watering the yard. Net-zero architected homes utilize onsite solar panels to generate electricity and heat water. They also generate energy from water, wind, or geothermal sources.
The primary reason building traditional houses is unethical is because there is a much better alternative. Net-zero energy architecture is environmentally beneficial and economically profitable. A key benefit is zero utilities costs annually, saving the homeowner thousands of dollars every year. Reduced demand of electricity from coal and nuclear plants reduces pollution. Consequently, this positively affects the environment and global ecosystems, lowers the building’s carbon footprint, and reduces global warming.
So how much does it cost retrofit an existing home or construct a new net-zero energy home? Here are the results from several methods for measuring the cost.
To reduce a home’s energy consumption by at least 70%, cost from “$3,000 to $35,000 per house”, or ranges from 5 to 35% (Linda Wigington).
The Williamson solar retrofit cost was $43,000 after $18,500 in rebates and tax incentives with a return-on-investment in just over seven years (PBS Williamson citation forthcoming).
Clarum Homes built several near-zero energy 2,000 square foot homes as prototypes for the U.S. Department of Energy in Borrego Springs, California. Using varied building techniques for each home, the construction cost ranged from $57,242 to $100,301, not including the heating and air conditioning units (Clarum citation forthcoming).
Architects Katrin Klingenberg and Nicolas Smith built a Passive House for $94 per square foot, which “topped the highest averages for new construction in the region, although not by much” (The First).
Ecofutures Inc. uses the House Energy Rating System (HERS) with results from negative 3 to 19 at an estimated cost of 5-8% more than traditional homes (Ecofutures).
Around the world in Czech Republic, the “W” house should “reach the low-energy house level with usually accepted costs for standard housing. The simple pay-back time is about 13 years” (Czech Citation forthcoming).
In Goteborg Sweden “Building costs were estimated to be normal” (Sweden Citation forthcoming).
For the Kongsberg, Norway house “the extra costs are estimated to be 2% higher than for a standard house, taking into account reduced cost for heating system. With the reduced energy cost the payback time will be 3-4 years” (Norway Citation forthcoming).
Objectively, the methods of measuring the cost of net-zero energy architecture vary. However, a net-zero energy home cost about 10-20% more than a traditional house, depending on the architect, builder, location, and if it is a retrofit of an older house.
As you can see, although some people argue that net-zero energy architecture is too expensive, building traditional houses is unethical for two main reasons. First, traditional houses waste water and electricity, have high utility costs and negatively impact the environment. More importantly, net-zero energy architecture is environmentally beneficial and economically profitable.
Environmental philosopher, Iris Marion Young would say, and I agree, exercise your rights in the “Participatory Theory of Justice” and the right of “self-determination”. (Citation forthcoming) You can choose to reduce the cost of your average annual utility expenses to zero and make a positive difference in reducing the global warming and improving global ecosystems — all without increasing taxes. So, hire an experienced architect and contractor that will guarantee the retrofit results will be net-zero energy.
Cited Works ~ DRAFT / INCOMPLETE
Asertti, Energy Free Home Foundation. The Energy Free Home Challenge. Energy Free Home Foundation, 2009. PDF.
(Census citation
(Clarum citation
(Czech Citation
Ecofutures Zero Energy New and Remodeled Homes, 2005 and Beyond as of September 2009. Ecofutures, Inc. | Building for Comfort, Health, & Performance | Colorado’s Leading Green & Zero Energy Home Builder, 2005. PDF.
Francisco: Sierra Club; New York: Ballantine, 1974. Print. p. 238
—, —. A Sand County Almanac: with Essays on Conservation from Round River. San Francisco: Sierra Club; New York: Ballantine, 1974. Print. P. 245
IEA, International Energy Agency. OECD/IEA. International Energy Agency, 2009. PDF.
Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac: with Essays on Conservation from Round River. San
Linda Wigington. “One Year Later: Moving Existing Homes Toward Carbon Neutrality”,
July 2007 Affordable Comfort, Inc. (ACE)
(Norway Citation
(PBS Williamson citation)
(Sweden Citation)
(Sylvan 205 citation)
“The First U.S. Passive House Shows That Energy Efficiency Can Be Affordable | GreenBuildingAdvisor.com.” GreenBuildingAdvisor.com | Designing, Building and Remodeling Green Homes. Web. 07 Dec. 2010. <http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/homes/first-us-passive-house-shows-energy-efficiency-can-be-affordable>.
(Iris Marrion Young citation)
Net Zero Energy Architecture 