There are many definitions of building green. The use of recyclable or reused materials, engineered lumber, decent insulations including windows and doors, low or no voc finishes, on and on and on are all part of building green.To totally build 100% green would be out of the grasp of most folks including myself and my wife financially as it seems even to go solar is not cost effective for a budgeted build, because most folks are looking for the payback aspect of it. Anything you can do towards green building with the environment in mind helps, but "green" contractors and "green" building products are currently priced out of reach for most and in my opinion defeats the purpose of going green when the majority cant afford to include it in their builds. Make it affordable for the common folk, and more and more people will include it which makes more sense in saving the environment.We are doing what we can on our build, but would sure like to do a lot more.Im sure we are not the only ones!

Second what Sierraeast said. We are trying to do as much as possible to build sustainably...low VOC finishes, soy-based foam insulation, geothermal heating/cooling coupled with passive solar design, local hardwoods, CFL lighting fixtures, high efficiency windows, rain water collection...but it is more expensive. Our main goal is to minimize our energy usage in the hope that we will recoup some of our upfront expenses, though I doubt that I will live long enough to make it pay for itself! We are also somewhat limited by the locally available expertise and products. But as obsessive recyclers and avid gardeners who try to practice sustainable agriculture, we are also aiming to minimize our impact on our environment. So you have to decide what your goal is, and do as much as is feasible for you and your budget. Recently, we toured "EarthCraft" houses in the Charlottesville, VA area, including some designed for low income home-owners. Maybe you can't be 100% Green, but there are many small things that you can do that can be very worthwhile.

Here is a link that might be useful: EarthCraft houses

"Green" yes; "solar" no. Solar doesn't work that well in this climate and is too expensive and requires too much maintenance for us old folks in its current forms. We are paying a great deal of attention to things like siting the house, sizing and placing windows, tinting windows, using the appropriate windows for our climate, etc. Some of those things are free--just a design matter.

We also have chosen to put our money into the building construction rather than fancier finishes. We're looking to limit our maintenance and energy bills in the future. For the same reason we've designed a wheelchair accessible house so we can hopefully stay in our home rather than have to be institutionalized--again, a potential money-saver.

Porcelain tile floors throughout the house; Icynene insulation; fiberglass windows and doors; brick veneer siding. Hydronic infloor radiant heat. Central A/C but with 4 smaller Mr. Slim units as an alternative form of A/C when we don't need the central.

Fluorescent lighting most everywhere that daylighting won't serve. Finishes that are serviceable, durable, low maintenance. That should not require replacement in our lifetimes.

You have to choose what to do. We're spending more than we want on the gamble that things like energy costs will only go up in the future. And we'll recoup then.

Too many "green" features are predicated on sacrifice to the "greater good" rather than economic efficiency and comfort. They display all the good sense of typical government programmes where the cost of waste and profligacy can always be charged to taxpayers.

Gee, worthy, nothing like a sweeping generalization in attempt to spoil the discussion.

The EarthCraft home program was started by Southface Energy Institute in Atlanta, and it began in partnership with the Atlanta Home Builder's Assn.

If you look at the guidelines for new homes and/or renovation, you can see how things are rated in terms of points. Then you can decide whether you want to invest in going all the way and getting certified, or if you just want to incorporate some of the ideas.

See the link below for the guidelines.

Right now, the program is definitely a niche. Folks who can meet the standards are going to be working to a higher level of detail than the average GC (and using subs who can perform at a higher level, too). That costs $$$.

We talked to several builders who'd participated in EarthCraft projects. Frankly, all came at such a premium that we would have had to compromise severely on our scope of work. Instead, we did our best to incorporate features from the program without going to the length of certification. Then we hired a GC who turned out to be a complete hack and crook, but that's a whole 'nother story.

Here is a link that might be useful: New home and renovation builder guidelines

If you are building 960 sq ft then isn't it already "green"?

Spend a little extra on the windows, doors, insulation and HVAC. Site the home properly. Don't use carpeting. Use low VOC paint or American Clay. Now you are even greener, and will have a more attractive, more comfortable home.

P.S. I know nothing about green building, and not much about building. I just think that you are already doing your part by building small and that you shouldn't sweat it too much. There's so much hype about green building practices and not everything is priced in a way that reflects it's benefit to the consumer or the environment. Personally, I would not go too overboard on "green" features until the market for these products/services matures a little more. But if you want to do the research and sort the wheat from the chaff, more power to you.

Wow, Worthy. Glad you chimed in thull.

Okay, I'm not big on sacrifice to the greater good and I don't believe it's a sufficient motivator for enough people to actually result in "saving the Earth" or whatever. Really savvy save-the-Earthers know that and are trying to make "green" economically appealing. That's why the first inroads are with commercial consumers--they take advantage of tax incentives and have run the numbers to calculate payback periods. Most individuals don't do that and don't run their personal finances like a business. We usually operate more emotionally.

My personal motivation for building green is economic. And that's why I've used the green features I have in my own home. I do not work in any area remotely related to the building industry; nor am I affiliated with any save-the-Earth organizations.

The GC's I know here are using "green" as a marketing tool. "Green" adds to their usual "status-appeal" and whatever other ways they use to sell their services. They present it as a feature offering relatively short-term financial gain (payback in saved energy costs within a few years) and for resale enhancement (betting that in the future, energy conservation will be more of a selling feature than now).

The manufacturers and all the middle men are using green as a profit-maker and a marketing tool. But don't let that piece of knowledge prevent you from benefitting from it personally. Do what you can do now, based on economics, and plan to retrofit later (whatever's easiest to retrofit) when prices come down.

Oh, and just as a side-note, whatever moral interest you have in building green can be pursued, but it will cost you financially. Where's the problem with that? Doesn't it cost you to support any other charitable cause you give to? Or to support your church or synagogue? Similar thing. If it has a conscience-benefitting payoff for you, then consider it money well spent. If not, then you could just divert the extra money into building more square footage; adding some frivolous, cosmetic features; and installing some status-enhancing products that, BTW, are highly profitable for the building industry as well.

There are many motivations out there. Just examine your own carefully and then learn more about what's really green and what's not. Do that if your primary motivation is personal economics (in which case check out future cost savings, how they're calculated, what statistical research they're based, on, etc). And do that if any of your motivation is moral--you check out the charities you give to don't you?

Your personal solution will come out of that. Probably somewhere in between the positions of the "build green" con men and the murky personal motives of the contrarian conspiracy-theory dismissives (who may or may not have some personal financial stake in sticking to known profit-making methods and products, and who might want to declare that in a personal tagline here so that posters are fully informed).

Thank you, everyone, for the info and discussion!
If finances were not an issue, I would have solar panels, greywater catchment, be certified "green" - the whole nine yards. That being said, I am not a dyed-in-the-wool, environmental fanatic. It is just my personal philosophy of being a good steward of our resources, as well as economics and practicality (The ever-practical German in me!), that have me going "green." Economics, being the reality forcing the wheel, prohibit me from having all the lovely bells and whistles. It just irks me that solar and green building are not accessible to more people because of the inflated costs.
Of course, we can all do little things,and I do those - from organic gardening to recycling to flourescent light bulbs, etc. - but I really believe it is becoming a "too little, too late" issue. And it makes no sense to me that more people are not using the sun. It's basicaly free, and passive solar is not that hard to incorporate into a floorplan. I believe that the average person should be able to use less energy and have less negative impact, especially when building from the ground up.
Okay, enough of my soapbox! :)As several suggested, I will simply do all I can do, and try to be content with that.

rosebush: you are doing one of the greenest things, which is building small. The rest, all of us can do some of, and more of as costs go down.

The other thing we can all do for the environment that we all live in, is to limit the number of children we have. Especially those of us who live in high-resource consuming countries, whose children consume a high percentage of resources and create threir own little debris and pollution field. Back in the 60s , the "zero population growth" message was touted, but apparently ignored. My own personal contribution to the environmental movement, which will probably prove to have been a greater one than any other I could have made, has been to have no children. It's a simple as that. Everyday I look around and say, "Gee, there are simply too many people on Earth. Why do so few people notice that?" We can all start there. If enough people took that to heart, the rest would fall easily into place. It is, however, a REAL unpopular thing to say. So much so that none of our leaders have the chuzpah to say it. Better to wade around in more minor matters, cleaning up as best we can.

Now, I'm off my soapbox.

Pinktoes,
You've got to be joking!!! :)

No, I understand what PinkToes is saying. I was at a building conference earlier this year and one of the speakers said; "The easiest way to build green is to build on 1/3 the land you planned to, and a house 1/3 smaller." That makes perfect sense.

Now, if you're going to try and live with the 50-mile rule, it's going to be hard, and expensive. If you're going to try and be totally grid-free, totally non-impact, it's going to be difficult and expensive. The local supply lines, technology, and numbers just aren't there yet. On the other hand, you can, using commonly available practices, get 'near' 0 VOCs, use 1/6th the energy of similarly sized homes, and have much less impact.

Don't give up; get educated. Building a house is like anything else in life; there are series of decisions and often tradeoffs that must be made to get what's MOST important to you. So let's start there.

I think it's important for folks to consider making things best in the future for their kids who can in turn make it better for their's and on and on.

Eliminating the populous isn't going to solve it. We need to concentrate our efforts for a better infastructure(s) for future generations.

I guess if your folks had your attitude,pink, you wouldn't be responding to this or any other thread!

Oh dear, what have I started?
Sorry, Pinktoes, but I do not subscribe to that line of reason at all. Who is to say that one of my children, or my grandchildren, or anyone's, could not be the next Jonas Salk, or someone who solves an important medical/social/environmental problem that we are facing today?
I guess the point I would make is that we need to make alternatives accessible to all, so that more people become interested and educated, thereby solving some of the environmental issues. An organic, greener lifestyle is healthier as well, so could feasibly prevent some diseases and subsequent medical costs that are rising out of control. (Bet the subject of medical costs starts some lively discussion too!)
But children are a gift and our future IMHO.

Agreed. Now, Rose, what aspects of green building are you particularly interested in?

Children may be a gift; that is the emotional response most of us have. I wasn't talking about our feelings about children. I was talking about a major, staring-us-in-the-face action that we have a highly effective technology for implementing, and which in itself would resolve a huge part of our environmental problem. Don't question whether you like the strategy; decide rationally whether it would be helpful and you could bear the cost.

No one wants to consider it. We're inclined to shoot the messenger. It doesn't play well with the masses like some other feel-good strategies do, so you won't hear much talk about it in political circles. But if humans behaved rationally rather than emotionally we would not continue to overpopulate the Earth. A couple might have one child or two. Statistically, that would eventually lead to a population decline. Like I said, that fact makes for very unpopular conversation. But a species that is unable to accept even that small responsibility for self-regulation is certainly not likely to solve the earth's problems related to overpopulation--over-taxing of resources, fouling of the environment, providing a haven for infectious disease, etc. That is not so much a faith with me personally as it is a statement of fact. Wrong? No one likes it, we react against it, but is it incorrect?

Mother Nature, however, is not so sentimental. She has population-limiting means such as infectious diseases which have previously effectively managed the population. And possibly will again; we may simply be in a temporary imbalance now. Your children will probably need a continual supply of Jonas Salks. But for every Dr. Salk, there will be many, many others born who will only become sick, not find medical cures for a population that has generated part of its own disease problems.. Or is my math wrong?

What we're talking about here is so emotional a subject that it can hardly even be discussed. That we have a responsibility to the world and to our own offspring to consciously limit our reproduction is not a statement about our attachment to children, or about the value of each child. Part of our love for children, for whom I have always been an advocate, includes the very adult responsibility of assessing the safety and quality of the environment we bring them into. Not just having them for our own motives. I have fostered 48 children during my life, because I love children and felt that was the best contribution I could personally make in this life. Doesn't mean I think we need to continue over-reproducing. Those were children already here, and in need of care. There are plenty of them around. Some of them still call me "mama".

And before you start firing shots at me, consider how many people rationally assess their skills as parents, as well as the more global concerns, and CORRECTLY determine that they have an enormous amount to offer a child. I gotta say, I see a lot of people who are making incorrect assessments.

And, on a tender note about loving our children, I don't see the gift to a child of leaving them, after we're gone, with a wave goodbye and wishing the too-many of them all good luck with cleaning up our mess. That is not love for a child; that is wanting someone to love and to love us back, in the unconditional way that children and parents often, at least for awhile, love each other. Puppies are like that too.

But, on a lighter note, and back to the environment, I think George Carlin got it right when he said that Mother Earth has survived all kinds of things. Humans are unlikely to bring her down. That is precisely the point he captured, and all we doting parents need to keep in mind, when he said, "Mother Earth is not going anywhere--WE ARE!"

I intend to be provocative here. Very provocative. To hopefully address an intelligent group of people and stir them into broadening their definition of our problem. Are we building the wrong way? Consuming the wrong products or in excess? Or is there, just possibly, another side to that coin? That being, there are too many consumers.

Thanks, Jasonmi7. I appreciate your input.
Well, obviously, I can't afford to live off the grid. But thanks for the reminder that a smaller house is actually green. And there are many things I can do in smaller ways that will help to preserve the environment.
My goal is to have little impact on the land and wildlife, first and foremost, during the building process. The property has a bamboo stand at one end and an old pine stand at the other, with some very large, old oaks in between. There is a tiny creek (My great-aunt called this a "branch") that runs along the property line. This little remnant of land has been in my family for 65 years.
The conventional contractor had a grading plan that sent me into hyperventilation - taking down several huge, old trees and grading everything to sow grass seed! I could just picture the devastation. . .So, on to the green builder, who seemded to share my vision.
My second goal is to be as energy efficient as possible, using passive solar - there is a nearly perfect siting - for heating. I plan on using rainbarrels for my garden. There is a dilapidated (translate "falling down") old barn with some very nice, aged tongue-in-groove wood that would be perfect to incorporate as faux wainscoting for a room or two. Not sure there would be enough for flooring, or that I could afford to have it milled properly for that type of use. But I will recycle as much of it as possible. Have even contacted a barn salvager to this end.
I will have to do further research on materials used for insulation, windows, siding, etc. I will certainly use low VOC paint and whatever else I can do according to my limited budget.

Maybe you can consider some of these items;
http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/image.cfm?imageName=images/0805/low-cost.gif&fileName=080501a.xml
and then work with a conventional builder to achieve them?

And, (this is like the second time I've done this) here is a link to a thread which references sites that have excellent videos;
http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/build/msg10141814709.html

I particularly liked the codecollegenetwork link and the building envelope videos.

You have to be sure your builder is capable of thinking about how everything in the home integrates one with the other and is willing to plan properly with all trades. The problem I see is that so many vendors get settled on one supplier or a OSFM (one size fits many) mindset. If you can find a builder that will think about your concerns without becoming defensive, you might be on the right track.

Pinktoes,
It's all a matter of perception: I do not see the statement that children are a gift as a "feeling" or emotional response, but a truth.
It is also for my children and grandchildren that I'm doing as much as I can to leave as little "mess" as possible for future generations. If we could educate more people to do the same, it would surely help the situation, don't you agree?
Your statement: "Mother Nature, however, is not so sentimental. She has population-limiting means such as infectious diseases which have previously effectively managed the population." will always be true to some extent, and it confirms my opinion that we do not need "zero-population growth." The statistics can always be skewed to favor one side or the other in this argument.
Education, acting on our convictions, and making environmentally-friendly options accessible to all will contribute to the solution IMHO. You have acted on your convictions, and I am acting on mine. Our discussion and, more important, our examples will hopefully educate others; at the very least, it creates dialogue and promotes thought on the subject.
I've enjoyed our discussion. Thanks to everyone for sharing suggestions and ideas. It's all a learning experience, isn't it?

rosebush: Because building envelopes need to be constructed differently for different climates, be sure to consult with someone who knows about that. To prepare to work with our builder we got the appropriate Builder's Guide for our climate from www.eeba.org. (Lstiburek authored all of them, if I'm not mistaken. He's sort of the go-to guy. Also get his book on Water Management, dealing with keeping water out of your structure. I think we got ours from eeba also).

In 2006 Building Green, Inc. put out the 2nd edition of their book Green Building Products: The GreenSpec Guide to Residential Building Materials (ed. by Wilson & Piepkorn). It has been most helpful. As are all of John Bower's books, which are hard to find now since he's retired. But I think I got both of these latter two from amazon.com

Before we talked with builders we educated ourselves so that when we asked them questions we'd be in a position to evaluate the quality of, and to compare their responses. A lot of builders are just jumping on the marketing bandwagon and talking products rather than building systems.

Same thing when we hired an architect. I went looking for an expert in building science, rather than a designer known for pretty buildings. She also has several engineers on staff and has years of experience obtaining LEEDs certifications for commercial buildings; now that they've rolled out their residential program she'll be getting recognized for her ongoing involvement in building green homes, too.

There's a world of help out there. But you really have to learn more than you probably want to know about it. I have taken the attitude that I'm building a collaborative team here and I'm the team leader. I have to learn enough to understand, and question, every approach and every product that is under consideration. And to bring my own suggestions to the table. Just like you'd do as an intelligent consumer of anything else. Best of luck; sounds like you're off to a great start!

I've incorporated "green" features for years without even knowing it: tight homes, no VOC paints or floor finishings; wood, tile and ceramic flooring; above-Code insulation, windows and doors; high efficiency furnaces and appliances.

As far as I can tell, buyers couldn't have cared less.

And, I evidently could have helped Mother Earth more if I hadn't been born. "Shame on you Mom!"

Worthy: Maybe not you in particular. Just numerically fewer of us in toto. But, then, somebody's gotta make the sacrifice!

BTW, our builder, who has been very involved with green building and won awards for his work, says his impression is that most people are more interested in fancy doorknobs.

People do perk their ears up, however, when they find out they can save some dough and live more comfortably, too. Ahh...the human animal. Gotta love us!

Rosebush, if interested, i can give you the # of a builder i worked for who only does passive solar. An example is the window wall panels we constructed that utilized styrofoam beads that filled the cavity when you didn't want sun or on chilly nights, then are pumped out when you want the use of the sun.E-mail me and i will give you his contact #'s as i know he would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have concerning passive.

rosebush, and anyone else who is still reading here:

Just a final comment. Yes, educating everyone to be better environmental stewards HAS to be done. So that, however large the population, we all do the best job possible with the means available. And continue to enhance our technologies.

But how anyone can look at the world's groaning population and believe that intentionally increasing it, at least beyond simple mathematical replacement, is a good idea, is totally beyond comprehension.

Further, let's look at your statement, rosebush, which references my earlier one:

"Your statement: "Mother Nature, however, is not so sentimental. She has population-limiting means such as infectious diseases which have previously effectively managed the population." will always be true to some extent, and it confirms my opinion that we do not need "zero-population growth."

So, what you said was that because Mother Nature will always use infectious diseases to limit the population, we don't need to limit it ourselves? And this is being loving to our children? Let's just keep having children, in excess, knowing that Mother Nature will kill off the excess of them. Do you really understand what you said? Even if that's correct, and Mother Nature kills off the excess population, WE are choosing to use that method of birth control? Consciously bringing into the world too many children, secure in the knowledge that Mother Nature will simply kill off the excess??? And that some of that excess may be YOUR OWN children? OMG. Save the children from the "love" of these parents.

That kind of confused thinking, and unbelievable CRUELTY, leaves me totally speechless.

Rosebud to answer your original question, we are "building green" on a tight budget. Our new house is smallish  though not as small as yours. The extra space will hopefully hold my slowly growing home-based business which will eventually eliminate my daily commute (which uses mucho gas right now). Some of what we are incorporating are things we can do ourselves  for example we added a 1" layer of foam board over our exterior sheathing. The foam is pretty easy to work with, affordable, and will help keep our AC bills down in the summer (weÂre just south of you in SC). We have already noticed a big difference in temperatures and comfort.

Other things we spent more on with the future in mind and by cutting out a "want" from the finish list. The metal roof we splurged on will not only last longer than shingles (less petroleum product in the landfill) it will also help reduce AC usage. As an extra bonus, it is ready for the peel and stick solar cells that we plan to add in a few years. The laminate counters work just the same as a fancier solid surface and allowed us to do the installation; saving even more money.

One good way to be Âgreen and save money at the same time is look into used items. We LOVE our local habitat store. Not only does it save things from the landfill, we get the things we need for so much less than retail - and it's often not even used! Both of our toilets, a vanity, pedestal sink, stair rails, sofas (still with the tags on) a slab of marble for the baking area, and a box of 16 rolls of flashing ($10!!) came from there. My clawfoot tub was found in the "construction materials" section of the classified ads.

I do recommend you look into a closed crawlspace if you are not on slab. There have been several studies on the subject done in NC and not only will it save energy, itÂs healthier too.

Something to keep in mind is not everything that is good and will save energy is called Âgreen itÂs often just good building practice, the trick is getting a good builder to do it. IÂd love to see ERLA chime in here.

I know not everyone can, but two of the reasons we chose to do our own build were to save money so we could afford a better structure and to ensure quality control. Most of what we chose was a result of much research so keep looking - youÂre off to a good start asking here :)

Ohmygoodness, Pinktoes, let me clarify:
I am not saying to let "Mother Nature," as you call it, kill off our children. Just that there will always be checks and balances. Remember, I also said that one of our children could be the next Jonas Salk, or the solution to some medical/social/environmental problem as well. There will always be death, catastrophes, natural disasters, things beyond our control. Our job is to do the best we can with what we have been given (stewardship), conserve, and educate to do better for future generations.
Again, numbers and statistics can be skewed to show whatever point of view. I do not agree with the figures or the philosophy of zero population growth. So we are coming from completely different perspectives.
Again, it is a matter of perception.

Pinktoes,
After reading your posts, I want to thank you for not reproducing!!! ;)

rosebush: You do not agree with the philosophy of zero population growth--fine. You do not agree with the figures? You do not agree that if we have fewer children there will be a decline in the number of people on the earth? There can be no dispute with their figures. Math is really a simple thing.

And when any one of us continues to contribute to overpopulation, then we also contribute to overcrowding and the increase of infectious disease. Medical science knows that. With that, comes an increase in deaths due to that disease. So, follow the logical progression here: when you contribute to overpopulation, you contribute to an increase in infectious disease. Somebody's children will die from that. Whether or not it is yours is all a matter of luck. For you, for them. But just because they're not yours that die, doesn't make the death any less painful.

Just because you don't LIKE the facts, doesn't change them. Logic is a real unsentimental thing. And so is cause and effect. Nature will continue to occasionally reduce the population, and if we continue to overpopulate then she will simply respond with infections that are more difficult for medical technology to control. That IS a fact. Why would you knowingly contribute to the problem?

Whether or not facts fit in with our own personal wishes, or beliefs, doesn't change them. There are too many people in the world already. Have you not noticed that? Now, what can YOU do to improve that situation?

It's a rhetorical question and doesn't require an answer. But if you can't follow the logic, no one can help you. If you don't have the brainpower that's one thing. But if you choose to let your personal preferences override your thinking, then that you can change. Or, you can simply say, "You know, I follow the logic, but I like having children so much that I don't care if it contributes to the world's problems. And I don't care if some of them suffer and die should they get caught up in a problem that we could have prevented. I'll take my chances and let my children take theirs. Just so I get what I want." It's a popular answer; look around you; look at the responses on the forum. Like I said, it's REAL unpopular. Or, for those here who have appreciated my sense of humor, which sometimes fails me, pitch in here with some of your own humor. Because as Billy Wilder said, "If you tell them the truth, you'd better make 'em laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you". (Billy Wilder was a humorist and playwright.)

Rosebush - oops, I just realized I called you rosebud! I did mean you though :)

teach2007: You're very welcome. I have, however, been busy picking up the pieces of those who have been over-zealous in their reproducing. My colleagues, dedicated eugenicists, used to chide me and tell me that I had a responsibility to reproduce to keep up the IQ levels in the world population. I think, however, that I have served the world better in using my mensa-stuff in service to the greater good, reaching larger numbers than I could have through sheer reproduction. And, also, in taking in my 48 children who had been essentially dumped or rescued from abuse by parents who misjudged their suitability for the job. That was heart work, not head work. I do fairly well at both.

BTW, what are they teaching in the government schools these days? You are a teacher, aren't you? That, too, was a rhetorical question. LOL. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think.

Once again, gotta go contribute according to the talents I have. People, just do what you are able to do, and willing to do. Most of the world's problems are actually solved by a relatively small number of people. And what we can't solve, Nature takes care of. She has a wonderful system. Like a mother cat (and cats are possibly nature's best mothers, having the highest early-infancy survival rates of all species), who eats her young kittens when she perceives a danger so great that she cannot protect them, Mother Nature kills off an excessive population when and where it threatens the survival/thriving of the overall population. It is quite an intelligent system and it will resolve the problems we humans are not bright enough, or caring enough, as a group, to deal with.

I'll leave this alone for now. But if just one person here picked up on this as a new tool for their green-living armamentarium, then my work was worthwhile.

From Jackie Gleason:

" son, there's no way you come from my loins, remind me when we get home to slap yor mama".

Chiroptera_mama,
Thank you! Glad to hear from someone who is building green on a budget too.
That's a great tip about the foam board, and I have considered a metal roof as well. Will have to follow that up. . .
I love the Habitat store here, too, and plan on using salvaged materials as much as I can. Also found a footed tub - no claw feet, darnit, but footed at least, and it was free. :)
I will definitely be doing much more research, and appreciate all the help from this forum.
Good luck with your project!

Bungeei,
GREAT links!
Thank you!

Love it! Here's another from Steven Pearl:

"I cannot believe that out of 100,000 sperm, you were the quickest."

And this one, how apropos now--who can believe it's this old--from Lenny Bruce:

"At our school we had our own coroner. We used to write essays like 'What I'm going to be if I grow up'."

Pink toes, my grandpa would dig the steven pearl. He was always saying i was slower than a one legged sea turtle stuck in the sand!

I collect aphorisms. One of my hobbies. Quickly, these from my collection:

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad." (from Aldous Huxley)

"Sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality." (from C. G. Jung)

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." (from Douglas Adams)

"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." (Peter Ustinov)

"Everyone prefers belief to the exercise of judgment." (Seneca)

Just one more:

"Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases (which) we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution, but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and the education of the billions who are it victims."

Dr. Martin Luther King Jnr.

rosebud-

I think "green" buiding can take many forms, solar panels and other high ticket items notwithstanding, there are lots of other green options. Not only can we choose VOC paints and energy efficient windows, but we can limit SF, limit the goodies (such as multiple body jets in a shower, installing A/C in an environment where it isn't needed, making children share a bathroom, etc.), choose light fixtures that work with CFL bulbs, limit the use of vinyl (go ahead, shoot me now), using locally milled or quarried materials, etc. There are many things that can be done without spending an extra $$ on solar panels. Yes, in our build we have done many things right, but we did not spend the extra $$ on solar or wind cuz we chose to spend our money in other areas and we were on a tight budget, and when you're looking at a 50+ year payback for solar panels, well, that's a no brainer for me.

Nova had a great show on solar and wind power in Germany last night and they made a big deal out of how the German government has made renewable energy affordable to average citizens and how Germany gets 30% of their electricity from renewable sources compared to 1% for the US (worthy, no mention of Canada, sorry). Then they went on to say why the American people would never support such measure here and that we depend on the market to make our changes for us. Oy. The truth hurts.

sandyponder

Where does the German govt. get the money to do that? I've always wondered why the U.S. govt. doesn't use more of ITS money to provide such wonderful programs for us.

Sandyponder,
Thanks for your post. I so agree with you about using local materials and making things simple ("limit the goodies").
And I just happened to catch NOVA on PBS last night - it was amazing! How about the acres of panels in the desert, and the NJ company putting solar panels on the rooftops of commercial buildings?
But Germany does seem to have us beat by a mile, and their system was most impressive.

The panels you mentioned are 50 miles south of where we currently live with another set up 30 miles to the east of those. There is also a wind turbine"farm" in the tehachapi mtns. 60 miles south east of us.IN the coso mtns. just north of us is a geo thermal plant that supplies electricity to the naval base here.Private industry, the state, and federal are all utilizing these resources. It's frustrating that it cant be brought down to a fair price for us folks residential. You might want to look into a solar set up that basically runs your meter backwards during peak solar times, then at night or cloudy days the meter spins forward. You are either credited or pay the difference on your bill by the pwer co. That would have to be offered by them in your area of course. A co worker of my wifes had a system installed for around 15k for their 1400 s.f. house.It's a whole house system.

You might be lucky enough to live in a state that offers tax credits for energy saving measures,such as solar hot water heaters, windows, or a metal roof. I figure that in another 20 years, our state might jump on that bandwagon. Meanwhile, check out this link to Energystar.gov. However, I believe that some of these tax credits are aimed at the builder, rather than the homeowner.

All the federal tax credits now go to the builder. But you can negotiate consideration with him for that. Check your state govt. and utilities for anything going directly to you.

FWIW, for lighting, I'd try to use dedicated fluorescent as much as possible. HD has a relatively-economical selection of surface-mount fixtures that are 4-pin fluorescent. We used these in closets, our tiny hallways, and in at least one room for general lighting. For recessed lighting, we went w/ standard ICAT cans, mainly because the dedicated fluorescent cans were way too expensive to justify. These have CFLs in them. Undercab lights are GE premium linkable fluorescent from HD, which are a great value and look as good as the more-expensive ones from Juno et al.

Pinktoes,
I think my state offers a tax credit - I've read so much lately, it's all starting to run together! LOL
Thull,
Thanks for the info on lighting. I'll check out some of the fixtures at HD next time I go. Good to know about the recessed cans & linkable flourescents.

rosebush-

First, apologies for calling you "rosebud" in my last post. Jeez, I need to pay more attention.

WRT lighting, I know some people like cans, I don't, and the only ones we have are in our shower room. We used fixtures that are open, i.e. pendants, wall sconces or chandeliers so there would be no worries about using CF bulbs in an enclosed light fixture. They now make CF bulbs in the smaller chandelier bulb size (not cheap, but they last 8k hours).

THS has a thread on Renewable Energy for the Home (or something like that), it didn't get much traffic last time I checked but there is some good info on there in the archived messages.

sandyponder