Bigger or better?

Posted 8/21/12

Over the past decade or so, I have heard many variations on the theme that the American way of life is one of plenitude and that asking Americans to change how they live is somehow un-American. These …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Bigger or better?

Posted

Over the past decade or so, I have heard many variations on the theme that the American way of life is one of plenitude and that asking Americans to change how they live is somehow un-American. These arguments peaked in 2001 as Congress debated renewed CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards for fuel efficiency, and the Bush Administration unveiled an energy policy that stressed expanded fossil fuel supply and cut Department of Energy funding for energy efficiency research by 29%. Supporters of the plan equated energy conservation with rationing, fuel efficiency with a sacrifice of our standard of living. They promised we could have it all if we would just go bigger and open up more areas to oil and gas production.

The idea that “bigger is better” seems to be central to American life, along with its corollary “more is better,” two ideas embedded in our economy and cultural identity. He who dies with the most toys wins. I’ve always thought that was rather confused and self-defeating, because the more we equate well-being with unlimited consumption, the less we are able to pursue genuine well-being.

When we apply principles of sustainability to our decisions, we go beyond “bigger is better” to ask questions. Better for whom? How much is enough? What suits my needs? Sustainability chooses quality over quantity. The small-house movement exemplifies this thinking by emphasizing quality of design, materials, finished details, textures and the home’s relationship with nature, all of which elevate the idea of quality of experience over square footage. Energy efficiency is an important component; high-performance systems that conserve energy make the home less expensive to operate and healthier and more comfortable to live in. We can’t all build new homes to meet this ideal, but we can apply the notion of high performance—the most effective energy systems, building technologies and everyday practices—to make our existing homes as efficient and comfortable as possible.

As the price of photovoltaic (PV) technology comes down, we are going to see a number of exciting initiatives that will promote mass installations of affordable solar PV for our homes and businesses. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the principles of conservation and good design. We should focus first on energy efficiency, get comprehensive home energy assessments and implement retrofits that will reduce the size of the electricity load and prepare the way for renewable energy systems right-sized to meet our needs. If we don’t embrace and internalize the principle of energy conservation, we will squander resources, as we make this vital transition to renewable power, just as we have squandered fossil fuel resources over the past 100 years.

It’s kind of like buying a coat. You could argue that it makes sense to buy a coat that’s three sizes too big because you get more fabric that way. But I don’t want the biggest coat I can buy; I want a nice coat that keeps me warm and fits me. It’s not about austerity. It’s about demanding better.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here