Initially, I was inclined to let this argument pass as it seemed almost ludicrous. However, recent discussions revealed a widespread lack of basic scientific knowledge, possibly explaining the emergence of such unsound arguments.
The AIA president suggested that keeping old homes is beneficial in the short or middle terms. However, herein lies a significant misunderstanding. Unlike delaying a new car purchase, if the replacement of a home is unavoidable, it should be expedited. The urgency stems from the fact that carbon dioxide has a lifespan of 300 to 1,000 years in the atmosphere. So, the harmful effect is not a one-shot deal; it will last for hundreds of years and compound over time. With each additional year of delay, not only will more greenhouse gases be emitted, but the old house will also deteriorate further, wasting more energy. This, in turn, accelerates the continuous accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, perpetuating and exacerbating the long-term environmental damage.
With all due respect, this reminds me of studies that claim, “wine is good for you!” and then another study follows that says, “wine is bad for you!” The truth is probably somewhere in the middle as I think it is for old vs, new homes. I can guarantee that restoring our 1936 home was easier on the environment than destroying and putting it into landfill. And the historic home on 3rd Ave, that had been left in disrepair for years had no hope of restoration. So again, the truth is somewhere in the middle and it’s better for all to not be polarizing, but equally respectful of history and the future.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(1) comment
With all due respect, this reminds me of studies that claim, “wine is good for you!” and then another study follows that says, “wine is bad for you!” The truth is probably somewhere in the middle as I think it is for old vs, new homes. I can guarantee that restoring our 1936 home was easier on the environment than destroying and putting it into landfill. And the historic home on 3rd Ave, that had been left in disrepair for years had no hope of restoration. So again, the truth is somewhere in the middle and it’s better for all to not be polarizing, but equally respectful of history and the future.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.