I’ve wondered this for a bit: how cost/energy effective is it really to “go green”? For example, my dad told me about a woman who had a sort of well built 1,100 feet into the ground to use the natural heat of the Earth to heat her house/water. This provided her with much lower fees on the fuels normally required, however, it had other monetary problems. First was the obvious cost of drilling a hole 1,100 feet deep, next was the cost of the pumps used to bring the hot water up to her house, skyrocketing her electrical bill. In the end, she wasn’t sure if it was truly cheaper to heat her house in the sustainable way. Similarly, when the New York City government was contemplating whether or not to have an official recycling program, it seemed like a perfect, cost and energy saving plan, but there were many hidden drawbacks. There was of course the cost (both monetary and energy-related) of buying more bags and bins for recycling, and the costs of the water to wash out recyclable bottles and cans. It also requires different trucks, which have all sorts of costs (workers’ pay, fuel, production, etc.). Finally, they needed to build and run places to actually reuse the materials, which have even more costs than the trucks. More related to the energy than to money, I recently read an article published in a university newsletter (Link to PDF) by David Pimentel dealing with ethanol (which is extracted from corn) as a fuel for cars. He concluded, “Ethanol production is wasteful of fossil energy resources and does not increase energy security… about 71% more energy is used to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy contained in a gallon of ethanol” (5). Needless to say we’re improving, as in a more recent article he wrote that only 29% more energy is used (the previous article was written 10 years ago). In relation to that last statistic, I’d like to say that this is just me questioning the apparent perfection of the green movement, not me trying to oppose it. However, continuing on, he also stated (in the older article) that “Increasing ethanol production will increase degradation of vital agricultural land and water resources and will seriously contribute to the pollution of the environment” (5). This comes as a bit of a surprise but as a continuing theme that it may not be quite as green to be green. To tie this post in with my last, my involvement in the green architecture group has made me realize that our school, which has throughout the past few years become environmentally aware/zealous, isn’t all that much of a green building. This adds to the already overflowing list of synonyms for “green”, which includes “environmentally conscious” and “sustainable”, the word “pompous”. Once again, save for the last comment, this isn’t intended to directly oppose sustainability, but rather inquire and challenge those who know more than I do about it. Anyway, that’s just my 3.4 cents (the cost to make 2). –The Rob