Yesterday I was leafing through an issue of Martha Stewart Living that I had brought home from the office before it went to the recycle bin. I happened upon an article about a family who had built an environmentally friendly home and I was interested to see what materials were used. As I started reading the article I realized that this home in the Catskill mountains was just their winter vacation home. After renting a home on winter weekends for several years they had decided to build their own because they wanted to teach their children about nature and the environment.
Think about that statement. If this couple really wanted to teach their children to be respectful of nature and the environment maybe they should have continued to rent that existing home or perhaps bought an existing home instead of destroying another plot of land to build their own. I wonder how many trees were lost in clearing the land and getting all the equipment to the building site? How many animals were displaced or killed? I wonder how much energy is wasted every week while that house sits empty awaiting their occasional visit to ski? I wonder how much gas is used for the family to make the journey to their vacation site on winter weekends?
I think it is great that people consider the materials they use when building or remodeling but I don't think a secondary home is worthy of being the feature in an article about conservation. It should be a feature about blatant consumerism. I am tired of hearing people, especially the rich and famous, espouse how they are contributing in the environmental effort as they jet off around the world and return home to their huge estates. Who are they to speak out publicly? Perhaps we should pursue an environmental study of the tremendous amount of energy they consume and put that in the news. Then let them answer to the general public. Anyone who has more than one home should consider themselves lucky, not environmentalist.
Perhaps Martha Stewart Living and other similar publications should stick to decorating, not environmentalism. What I would like to see featured in these magazines are primary homes smartly designed with less than 2000 square feet of living space that utilize the best environmentally friendly products that are fairly affordable for the average citizen. That would be a magazine worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Oh my goodness, what an asinine article. Unfortunately, so many people think like this. They destroy that which they claim to want to 'teach' their children. Yeah, that'll learn 'em. Maybe they'll put solar panels in their second home too, just to make themselves feel extra smug. It's ridiculous.
i agree - that article is an illustration of ignorance and the pretentious importance our society places on consumerism. maybe they should convert their second home to a shelter for the homeless in the off-season. at least then it would be put to good use.
YOU GUYS CAN'T COME TO VISIT AT MY VACATION HOME
Just kidding!!!
I can't even keep up with one home let alone another one if I could even afford such a luxury.
Maybe they should take away the tax deduction for 2nd home mortgages.
Freezing in MI
People who think they are environmentalists should all have to take a trip to the Boundary Waters. Lilsis
To set the record straight, I am not against people having a small vacation home. And if they are going to have one it is good that they use energy efficient materials to help cut down on the waste. But they should not kid themselves about the facts of the matter to make themselves feel better about it.
Post a Comment