O.K. folks, I wasn’t going to do this, but I suppose I’m about to “let my slip show”.

Let me state my personal opinion and position on green, particularly the governments co-opting of the environmental movement.

Let me start by clarifying that I have always been an advocate of sustainable, sensible and healthy utilization of resources.  As Jason McLennan proposed in “The Philosophy of Sustainable Design”, if we use resources, particularly forest resources, in this manner it’s like living on the interest of an investment. The principle will always remain intact.

The control of environmental pollutants needs to be regulated for the good of the public health. If the source of the pollution is a monopoly such as a utility provider, legislation would be required to make it happen.

On other levels, however, I tend to be an advocate of the free market system as opposed to government regulation. My first case in point regards toilets. Is there anywhere in our constitution that allows Congress the power to regulate how much water we use to flush a turd? Will the next step be to regulate the number of squares of tissue we can use to wipe? Are our leaders that power hungry?

I have a better idea.

This regulation was inspired by areas that do indeed have serious water problems, where populations have gathered to build subdivisions in the desert or other semiarid landscapes. If a resource is scarce and in great demand, pay accordingly. With a high enough water bill, people will become creative on their own to find ways to reduce usage. Blanket legislation such as that requiring 1.6 gallon commodes is beyond the federal governments rightful powers. I often flush my toilet twice, so there.  

The global warming issue has had my attention for some time. I have tried to inform myself from a variety of sources, and to THINK critically as I synthesize information.

Whenever the federal government takes on an issue, I’m suspicious. Politics have become overly ingrained in environmental issues. I won’t  throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I won’t swallow whole much of what I see as propaganda. At heart I am a scientist, and I understand its methodology. Theories have become facts with no basis. Now it’s not “global warming”, it’s “climate change”. There is ample evidence that global climate change has been happening since the beginnings of planet Earth. (Read Jared Diamonds’ “COLLAPSE”)

I’ve often said the only difference between our two political parties is the things they try to convince the public they need to be afraid of, in order to convince us to give them the power to “protect” us from whatever it is. I am afraid that is what is behind the carbon dioxide tax. What a lucrative source of income to be able to tax this common compound. Pity they can’t tax the worlds oceans for producing most of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

I’m afraid we’re on a dangerous slide here. If universal rating systems for homes become legislated, Washington will wind up telling how our homes must be built. If this can’t be done in a cost effective manner (and when has anything run by Washington been cost effective), then they can take over the housing industry along with the banks and auto makers.

Begins to sound a lot like the former Soviet Union.

I am strictly for localized control of a free market. What works well and is in demand in California should be decided by those who live there. Designing and building to a local vernacular is a key component to energy efficiency, sustainability, and durability. The cost of materials and utilities should and will drive demand for homes with lower resource consumption. Architects, designers and builders should be on the front lines of innovations in these areas. However I think it can and should be done in a manner that allows for basic freedoms to remain intact rather than some ones fear mongering political agenda being crammed down the entire country’s collective throat.