I have some thoughts about Earthships, most of which are good thoughts.
But, I also have some questions. Here is an excerpt from Earthship Village Ecologies:
“The building is built from 45% recycled materials... thus starting the construction of the building with a negative carbon footprint. Discarded materials take the place of new materials that require energy to produce. Also, once used, discarded materials, would have taken energy to dispose of. There is no energy required to reuse existing materials. This further contributes to a negative carbon foot print at the birth of the building.”
So, the premise of the Earthship is to not only create a home that is completely self-sufficient and “off the grid” but to change a cultural mindset with regard to how we live and interact with the environment around us. The principles behind Earthships are at least in part trying to get us to actually consider our environment on a daily basis – to not leech off of it, but cohabitate in it. That’s awesome. It’s a philosophy that I am definitely drawn to if there is a practical way of doing that AND living a normal life within society. It seems as if Earthships are at least one method of doing just that.
But, let’s take this model as far as we can. Let’s create a scenario where Earthships have successfully changed the mindset of America and ALL new homes being built are being built with discarded materials under the Earthship model. If Earthship succeeds, then construction companies would seldom go to lumber yards for materials opting, instead, to go to the dump. Lumber manufacturing companies would go out of business (not all, but a lot, I’m sure) all the way down to the very lumber jacks that harvest the wood for lumber. All of the energy we spend on creating the materials we use for building most homes today would be gone. Done away with.
What happens then? Where do all of those people who are out of work go? Would Earthship builders be able to find discarded materials to build homes with if no one is making those materials to discard anymore? I realize that car manufacturers would still be creating cars and likely using rubber to make tires and tires would still be discarded so Earthships would still have foundations and most of their walls. But, would the supply meet the demand? And if not what would happen?
I think that some savvy, business-minded person would see that there is a demand without a good supply and a new industry would blossom. But, at that point, would the Earthship ideal be dead? Because now tire manufacturers are needing to make more tires because discarded tires aren’t meeting the needs and so increasing the carbon footprint that Earthship is attempting to get rid of.
I do realize that my hypothetical scenario is somewhat unrealistic because the idea that the mindset of America would be changed in such a way is almost foolish. Too many Americans are too set in their ways and are too drawn to shiny, sexy things. (Which, in my opinion Earthships are not – organic? Yes. Sexy? No.) But, posing the question does make me wonder whether Earthship is actually the answer?
My conclusion is that it is a step in the right direction and that we should walk down this right path until it becomes wrong. But, Future be warned…Eartships might help decrease the carbon footprint and dependency on international energy corporations in the relatively near future, but in the long run will likely create another problem set in and of itself.
These are just my thoughts. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the topic.
Clark, good stuff!
ReplyDeleteI agree. I played a similar scenario out fairly recently. What happens when all of the tires are used up?! And, as you pointed out, what would happen with all of those workers? What would happen economically?
My resolve came about through the following logic.
First, let us address the economic side of Earthships as it takes the most amount of reasoning.
When I thought about the impact of such a technology and its affects, my mind went to the impact of ANY technology. I realized that ANY "disruptive" technology, especially helpful technologies, will inevitably put someone out of business. Those who stand on the outdated product or service will eventually lose out. The new technology will rise. The newly unemployed will either have to update their skills or train in an entirely different field.
Here's the catch: this is true whether or not the technology is helpful or hurtful ecologically.
Any technology more efficient, shinier, cheaper, etc, will disrupt the previous technology. This was true as hunting gave way to agriculture. (Who needs that goat hunter? We have them in the pen.) It was true as agriculture gave way to industrialism. (Who wants to fight through The Dust Bowl when they could just get work and, thus, cash, building skyscrapers?) It was true when the World Wide Web gave way to Web 2.0 and then again to Web You.0. (Who needs an HTML person when we need a Flash Developer, and then an App Developer?)
Here's the point. If individuals and business industries will shift regardless of the impact on ecology, why not make ecological benefit at the center of the decision?
Second, what should be done as the materials dwindle? What will we do when all the tires have been pulled from the dump?
Simply put, we will have to find other material!
Here's the philosophy behind Earthships; know the systems that make up a sustainable home. This means, for examples, that the home owner/builder knows about water catchment (instead of land-destroying infrastructure bearing chlorinated water) and wind-mill power (instead of gas-spewing power plants.) The goal is to have someone that is empowered with the skills MORE than merely using a specific material (tires.)
People who understand the principles will be helpful and useful in discovering new materials long after the tire supply is used up. Along with that, it would mean that the new materials discovered would, hopefully, be in alignment of the philosophy of making better ecological choices.
Phew! Those were my conclusions to this line of thought. Good stuff, though, Clark!
AND, we will know a lot more once we actually build one of our own.
Grant - thanks for your thoughts, man. I kind of figured you might have some perspective to put out there on this. And even as I was hitting the "Publish" button, I felt like there was more to be said about the economic aspect that this may have.
DeleteBut, first of all, I have mixed feelings about your thoughts here: "If individuals and business industries will shift regardless of the impact on ecology, why not make ecological benefit at the center of the decision?"
On one hand, I agree with you and I want to say, "That makes sense."
On the other hand, I want to point out that there are more variables involved (especially when talking about the economics of a decision) than whether or not something is ecologically beneficial.
When I first started going down this thought-path, the conclusion my brain was drawing even before I finished formulating the reasoning behind it was that this could, potentially, worsen an already recessed economy (again - IF the extreme end of the spectrum were to occur and all or the majority of homes were built using the Earthship model). Because, how far reaching would the problems be?
I mean, as far as a technological shift, or a forward evolution in American sociology is concerned, this isn't just a minor shift. This isn't the same thing as going from a walkman to an iPod. This is going from being dependent on "the grid" to being independent of it. That affects more than just tire production or the lumber mill. That affects international relationships and war efforts; not to mention the cost of gas in my car, etc.
I can only imagine how deep the pockets are of the people who are supporting the lobbyists who would fight politically (and maybe physically?) with anyone that wants to offset the current balance.
Now, once again, I want to reiterate that I realize that the hypothetical situation I've brought up is the extreme case and not realistic. It is the "what if..." And I only ponder it to ask myself whether it is truly sustainable, and if so truly attainable.