who wants to be an eco building contractor?

[Ann Vole]

There is only one thing that drives all of our energy use and resulting pollution... consumer products and services. To be able to stop buying products and services, there is only one way to do it and that is a self-sustainable home. The problem is there are nobody making such a home and nobody who really knows how to do it. I hope to change that by making a university of sorts to train people to be home builders. Of course I have to achieve that status first myself but I may be able to bring together others with the same goals. It has been estimated that 70% of all energy use is connected somehow to getting food on your table and much of that is vehicle fuel so a big part of the house design needs to include greenhouse and food preparation aspects. The question is, how many people want to become contractors and build or modify houses to make them energy self-sufficient? Are you willing to spend the money for training and the money to get contractor insurance and certification and business name and license? It is the only real way to save the world and you can make good money at it (I have been told).

[Johnny Electriglide]

Hi, Ann! I don't know about Canada, but eco-building contractors are around the USA. Self building, of course, is the cheapest way to go. I had Terraform Construction in 1994-5, Earthship/Stawbale independent terrain formed houses with "variable owner involvement". I went broke with no customers in Grand Junction, CO. I found that the people likely to build an eco-house either want it ready made or want to do it ALL themselves. Each home being unique, building a model, without funding available for non-standard construction, was not possible. It is still a tough way to make a living, and by the time people, in general, wake up to it, it may well be too late. I built my own, and am now too old and disabled to do it again. The "million solar roofs" was BS. There are still no tax incentives to modify homes to super insulation/thermal mass, and solar heat additions, and few areas offer worthwhile incentives to invest in solar PV/wind electric systems. The grid inter-tie systems cost much more than the independent ones, because of some of the special equipment needed for proper current and flow. The solar roofs, to be most efficient, have to have the panels mounted south at the latitude angle, and, if glass or shiny material, tracking is a must.
The middle class of America are have a tough enough time making ends meet with the wage suppression of gross legal and illegal immigration. The Lower class don't have the brains or the money, and the rich don't care except about making more money and getting more power over other people, except for a few celebrities doing feel good half measures.

[H2-PV]

Originally Posted by Ann Vole

There is only one thing that drives all of our energy use and resulting pollution... consumer products and services. To be able to stop buying products and services, there is only one way to do it and that is a self-sustainable home.

This is an incorrect assessment. The resulting pollution follows from poor choices, and energy use is a survival requirement.

In the 21st century we need peer pressure to motivate others to learn deeper and wider so that they don't stop at early superficial reasoning that leads to more wrong choices. That's why it is a civic duty to motivate you to dig deeper into the subjects and not leave you comfortably wrong.

There are two prime motivators: "carrot" and "the stick", pain & pleasure, fear & reward. I can't pay you all (carrot, pleasure, reward) to take the time required to educate yourselves better, therefore the peer-pressure of calling you wrong in public is the first graduated degree of discomfort prying you loose from tenets that fail more wholistic analysis.

Originally Posted by Ann Vole

The problem is there are nobody making such a home and nobody who really knows how to do it. I hope to change that by making a university of sorts to train people to be home builders.

It's true that most people make the largest investment of their lives, home buying, without ever taking one single course on the subject. When there are 500 alternatives in home heating systems, people make decisions from a very few that they are slightly familiar with. They may be basing their decisions on a book or articles in a few magazines, cat with neighbors, or even asking around and looking over the internet. It's doubtful that people are even aware that more than 500 home heating systems are in use on Planet Earth, let alone trying to make appraisals of the whole range of them.

Even your proposed university would only showcase several, which might not be optimal for reasons that you do not know at this time.

Originally Posted by Ann Vole

Of course I have to achieve that status first myself but I may be able to bring together others with the same goals. It has been estimated that 70% of all energy use is connected somehow to getting food on your table and much of that is vehicle fuel so a big part of the house design needs to include greenhouse and food preparation aspects.

Another unsupportable conclusion presented to justify a pre-chosen solution.

Agriculture and transportation combined together are large energy users, and ultimately human consumption is the reason both exist, but Agriculture includes tree farms (national forests are part of Dept of Agriculture) and transportation to and fro work is required to put food on the table but only indirectly. 10% of people's income goes to buy food, which includes all the energy consumption involved in growing it and transporting it.

We return back to poor choices.

Agriculture subsides the weapons-grade nitrate petrochemical industry. Without farmers buying tons of nitrates the costs of landmines and bullets goes stratospheric.

The Haber-Bosch Process for making ammonia for nitrates was first invented to replace Chilean bird guano nitrate imports to Germany. It was soon turned to munitions purposes in WWI. After WWI nations began building nitrate works for arms and farms, and a nitrate industry became a measure of the "development" status of nations.

Originally Posted by Ann Vole

The question is, how many people want to become contractors and build or modify houses to make them energy self-sufficient? Are you willing to spend the money for training and the money to get contractor insurance and certification and business name and license? It is the only real way to save the world and you can make good money at it (I have been told).

The 20th century lifestyles have failed, publicly, conspicuously, undeniably.

In 1970, first ever Earth Day there was one acknowledged "dead zone" in the oceans. By 1990 there were 75, by 2002 there were 150, by 2007 there are 200 of them. It is a failure. It cannot be salvaged. The longer one delays, the more expensive it gets to replace it with 21st century lifestyles.

The first course in a proposed university would be to re-examine how to shrink human detrimental impacts. Bandaids do not work on hemmorhages of this magnitude.

Proper design from the basement level up to the rooftops is required.

Contractors are the builders that the public interacts with. Architects and engineers tell the contractors what to build and how to connect the parts.

If the architects and engineers are specifying obsolete technology and methods, the contractor can't do meaningful changes that make a difference. The local building codes and authorities are very conservative and do not like new ideas or methods or materials. The approvals process can take years to get approved by international specifications bodies whose rules are adopted on the local levels.

You have focused on the superficial instead of on the fundamental. Again, peer-pressure requires that you not be comfortable doing 10% of the self-education. Yes it takes work to research deeper, and time, and costs money for books because library holdings are inadequate. But you opened the door. Now you can't object to the criticism which walks through that opened door.

[XR3Hybrid]

Originally Posted by H2-PV

This is an incorrect assessment. The resulting pollution follows from poor choices, and energy use is a survival requirement.
.

In 1970, first ever Earth Day there was one acknowledged "dead zone" in the oceans. By 1990 there were 75, by 2002 there were 150, by 2007 there are 200 of them. It is a failure. It cannot be salvaged. The longer one delays, the more expensive it gets to replace it with 21st century lifestyles.

Are there any maps of these dead zones.

Has anyone looked in to repairing them?