This past update has generated a huge swell of responses. We are seriously considering setting up a posting on the website for anyone who wishes to have their responses posted (in part or in full)… with permission of the commenter of course.

We would like to re-summarize the intent of the update, in a form without the “rant”.

Faced with the dire need to change quick and look at options that will work, we have been critical of some of the aspects of the green movement to date. I preface this with the knowledge that Ann and I have been our own worst critics, and knowing this we are also critics of the green movement we are a part of.

The underlying message in the update is that the monetary incentives will only play a minor role in creating positive change, and that to address the exponential shift in behaviours required, our “business as usual” methods will not work and other methods need to be used.

A simplified way to view our update is to compare it to the carrot and stick method to direct and guide behaviours. You can use a stick to change behaviours. If you offer a carrot to someone who is already satiated on carrots, then the carrot is of little value, and an alternative should be used.

In the above case climate change is the stick; it will force us to react at whatever level we are pushed to, call it survival mode. The well intentioned grants and programs, spawned by the well intentioned advocates, use monetary means as the carrot. The fundamental argument could have been more clear in our update, but we are suggesting that the grants though nice and well intentioned are not what it is going to take. First off - those citizens that are open to the grants are more likely to be in a “satiated” position, where true needs are long since met. So in light of this we have a consumer society that sees the grant as monies they can put into something else… basically nullifying the forward step that the grant initiates. (This is where the comment fits that more efficient technology lends us to be more efficiently unsustainable, as the gains from saving power or saving money are spent in other places.) This is not the fault of the green movement but the habit of our behaviours.

The alternative is emotive value; social recognition, non-monetary rewards. This is why Ann and I have manaage to progress our house and project to where we are… because of the support that comes from other means. We are suggesting that for change to happen quickly, and people to jump on board, the programs or incentives need to heavily satisfy the emotive needs of the citizens.

There needs to be recognition for more than just the Eco-Sense project, but for the Eastwoods, the Browetts, the Cruises, the Nelsons, the Georges, the Mccaughertys, the Penns, the Youngs, and a multitude of other innovators right here in BC doing the right things (few to none of which qualify for any program, but do it for deeper reasons).

Gord and Ann
Less life stuff… more Life Style!

For what its worth – Eco-Sense March Update
Last month we warned you there was no rant but not to despair. Well this month hold onto your seat because Gord is letting it fly. We should all be thankful up front for Ann’s editing of this month’s update. As always here is our opinion for what it’s worth.

Cancellation of the Celebrity Flush.
It was a sad day this month when we realized we had to cancel the Celebrity Flush. A great idea, but before its time. Sadly after several contact attempts we had no response from 75% of the celebrities. Obviously having your name attached to true sustainability is good for business; unless of course you’re scared your business might splash on you.

We had wonderful support from Arthur Black, Denise Savoie, Briony Penn, John Horgan, and Barry Penner, along with the key people like Neville Grigg from Heritage Office Furnishings who spawned the idea and donated the toilet, Pattie Whitehouse who spent many volunteer hours to train us at organizing such an event, and Eric Bonham and Bob McMinn who were at the ready for anything. Even thanks to Mr.Floatie who was unavailable butt tried to get a number two stand-in!

We had some responses back that politely declined. Not naming names but we had one MP actually indignant on being asked thinking the event was a DIRTY joke, and a couple days later when realizing it was not, sent out a more professional decline. Oddly enough we don’t think there is anything dirty about promoting preservation of our natural resources. Is… that… (sniff sniff)… hypocrisy I smell?

Let the rants begin…“Policy Barriers to Sustainable Building” is the “non-rant” version and is available on our website under policy makers.
It was two years ago when we charted into this new territory of leading by example, annihilating the idea that green building equals sustainable building, and raising the mark for sustainable building well beyond what was achieved to date. We once wrote that we seemed to be leading by the rear, wherein we found ourselves on a ferry facing backwards observing where we had been, piled high with all Ann’s belongings from Wise Island. The ferry then promptly changed course placing us in front row seats, offering us a view over the waters in front of us as we headed for our new home.

There is one thing that this ferry ride also parallels to our adventures on Compton hill. BC Ferries never gave us a free ride on that sad day leaving Wise Island behind. This past month we have been doing activities that have allowed us to think and consider things like the past and the future, our sleeping society at, and our environment in collapse. Sanding 24 grit grinder scratches out of arbutus by hand means there isn’t much about the task to anticipate over the next 6 hours, except maybe the next pee break.

Should we get a free ride on anything we have accomplished? Do we deserve compensation? There have been multiple occasions this month where we wished, hoped, or needed a break in some form for our efforts. Our spirits sagging over the crap we hear on the news discussing such basic concepts of which we should be well beyond by now. Our society is being told we must make changes – loosely understood as “change our light bulbs NOW!”

Part of this crap is the incentives and programs to nudge people to change. They have no guts! Important, but what about showing HOW to change. What about recognition of accomplishments? Have these incentives and programs stimulated affordable, achievable or any real change in the past two years?

Solar Hot water programs
Have these incentives made it easier to install solar hot water systems? Have they challenged the building code to allow (NON CSA) solar thermal tubes to provide combination heating for both your hot water and your home? Our opinion is these grants are to support the purchase of the solar industry’s simple, old fashioned and least efficient technology… basically the grant is not for the public but for the few companies that push the old technology. New solar hot water technologies are glamorized in the news but shunned by industry as it competes against the older technologies market share and reinforces the status quo. As innovative home owners with new ideas, we feel shunned even more.

We are 100% unlikely to qualify for any grant on the solar thermal technology or allowances we have championed (we appreciated this honesty from a friend).

CMHC’s new EQuilibrium (EQ) Program
Even the CMHC has blinders on to innovation. They have introduced the EQuilibrium Sustainable Housing Demonstration Initiative. In their own words

“EQuilibrium is a national housing demonstration initiative, led by CMHC, which brings the private and public sectors together to develop homes, and eventually communities, which address occupant health and comfort, energy efficiency and renewable energy production, resource conservation, reduced environmental impact and affordability”.

There are some very key points that the CMHC is not aware of when truly sustainable options are attempted. Our discussions with the Home Protection Office (which governs mandatory licensing for builders) have demonstrated that potential sustainable builders/developers in the province would be VERY unlikely to gain a license as all four home warranty insurers are unlikely to insure a builder for such homes. Secondly, derived from the above point, we can not become a licensed builder/developer. This removes our eligibility to apply to this CMHC program. Truly sustainable homes utilizing local sustainable materials (earthen buildings) can not qualify as a builder/developer and therefore cannot apply for the CMHC program.

The EQ program is flawed at its core as true innovation demonstrating sustainability is exempt. If the intent is to educate the policy makers and industry on viable, healthy, and sustainable alternatives, then the CMHC EQ program fails, and in failing demonstrates a bias against innovation. Our responses to this issue as usual go un-answered by CMHC. This is yet another example of the green building movement supporting the use of more money, more manufactured stuff, and more complex systems where the environment does not benefit.

More Grants
Grants for low flush toilets, energy efficient clothes dryers, efficient washing machines and dishwashers… what about for not using these. Imagine being at the forefront of using less and being told “No… We only reward those who consume, and seeing as you are not a consumer, bugger off, you’re not a contributor to the economy!” We are no longer considered citizens…We are consumers!

Economic Growth is UNSUSTAINABLE
Actually what these grants are perpetuating is precisely what the public thinks is being addressed - using less. VERY WRONG! These grants suggest that we should replace (functioning) appliances with more efficient appliances. Have you wondered what energy goes into making the appliances, shipping them, storing them, and marketing them? Have we ever questioned why the incentives don’t support using what we have more efficiently? The incentives actually promote consumerism/consumption, they avoid behavioral change. It is behavioral change we need to address. Without behavioral change we will continue updating our (functioning) stuff with the BETTER, GREENER, NEWER stuff, and these luxuries come at an expense. Again we ask the question… who is suggesting and promoting these programs? Industry of course!

Those that are profiting from the sale of all this new stuff are the ones that give the grants.

The GREEN Movement
The above demonstrates in principle the true green movement of today. Continue having all your stuff, just ensure it uses less power, less water. GREEN WASHING… have it all but with an energy star tag and you’ll feel better; better yet so will the economy. Our “Greenest” building project in Victoria is marketing many of the units to “out of country” buyers because the novelty of green sells; the reality of people flying in for a week or two, a couple times a year, is of no concern…they can just buy carbon credits you know. What a joke!

To summarize the grants and green washing spin:
“Growing more efficient simply makes us more efficiently unsustainable” Quote from William Rees, UBC Ecologist.
Check out this short video http://www.knowledgenetwork.ca/leadingedge/2008/ “The Myth of Consumerism”

And then this
The BC assessment office comes to value our home for tax purposes and they say “sorry your house is going to be valued substantially more than base market because it is novel”. Let me get this right, we have a house that has been constructed at a cost substantially less than a conventional house even with all the systems in place, supported with documentation and this means… nothing? It is worth more because you can’t and will never be able to have a soak in a bath? It is worth more because you’ll never be able to plug in a clothes dryer, that you have limits on the power you can use and therefore limits on your lifestyle? It is worth more because you only have buckets to dump in? Come on with all the BS? (Ahh Ann made good edits here!)

So our more affordable sustainable home that could not be legally built by a builder is worth more? If it’s so good why couldn’t we become builders and build more?

When we look at who is coming up with these shortsighted grants, initiatives, and programs we see individuals with biased interests, individuals who do not walk the talk. We see industry ensuring secured profits squeezing the carrying capacity of the earth even more; we see policy makers completely blind to the bias of their programs and inevitably supporting more of the same. We need a new way of thinking to get us out of this mess…continuing on with the status quo while thinking we are doing something good is catastrophic.

We are a society of mesmerized consumer zombies that need to wake up, question the obvious and act.

And what of our accomplishments?
I look at the past couple of months’ recent accomplishments that will have large impacts on heating and energy efficiency. Mike Isbrucker and Byron Merriam, (www.wegosolar.com), have devised controls for our heating system which run the solar thermal hydronics (pumps, controllers and valves) that are simple and efficient. On first comparisons with another similar designed AC powered system, ours uses 50 times less power… not 50% but 50 times. Where does something like this fit in? A hydronic system that is truly solar powered for a home our size, off a 2kw PV array. Amazing and important! Not easily allowed in code, not supported by grants, no interest from CMHC… who is missing the point?

So do we feel like we have been used? (…another Ann edit here) Not really as we are doing this for our family and other non monetary rewards. We certainly haven’t had a free ride and have wished that industries, governments, and lending institutions had the guts to be involved with us; something for our efforts. We have been turned down from the beginning with the CMHC’s Net Zero Emission Healthy Housing program and now the EQ program, ignored by the solar industry and unable to be serviced by Van City (repeatedly). We have not qualified for grants on the basis of facts like we are not a developer, that we are not trained installers, that we are not a non-profit, that we are the “Homeowner”, and the list goes on. What they are saying is “you have to make us money somehow to qualify for a grant” or “You have to be something other than what you are to qualify. Sustainable leadership coupled with innovation and environmental stewardship just doesn’t cut it! Sorry! Now go away!”

We no longer accept the argument that they are there to make a difference. They truly don’t walk the talk! Co-opting green facades for profit…for that we hold them accountable!

Whew!
So besides blowing a coronary this month with all those who talk and are full of hot air, what else is there to say? I guess we could say we’ve learned the biggest lesson of our lives doing what we are doing. Would we do it again? Any of it? YUP!

We have to admit something. We have been greatly rewarded by this whole experience and have been offered much more than we ever expected. It took the cancellation of the celebrity flush and a trailer full of petrified goat feces, a neighbor speaking poorly of us in the community, and inclusion into the Royal BC Museum to demonstrate what we had. Here are the highlights:

A wonderful privilege to visit the McMinn farm, to scoop goat buck poo, being met by Libby best described as a smile in fleece and gumboots, and her husband Scott leaving his marking of papers to come say hi.

Having Pattie humour us with exchanges over puns on the crapped out Celebrity Flush, with evenings rolling in laughter. Also having Pattie write a fabulous “info packed” article for the March 20th Monday Magazine.

Having Ann’s Dad Howie invited to take cuttings from the fruit trees on the Caleb Pike grounds to graft them and ensure the heritage fruit continues in the community… and watching Ted Hill (from the Gazette) eye’s open and pen scribble upon stumbling on the wonderful story.

Having Eric Bonham interpret our feeling of hitting bottom and taking the time to write us two very inspiring emails coupled with a three hour visit.

Having Karel Roessingh refer to us as Highland Heroes in his monthly newsletter.

Having Guy Dauncey imbed pictures and references to our house in his monthly newsletters despite the stress we must cause him.

Having our parents show how proud they are of their goofy offspring’s accomplishments, despite our imperfections and endless ranting.

Having Janet Williams always ready to lend a hand, a hug, a smile, a rant, and loads of plastering fiber. Not to mention her beautiful rock lizard sculpted into our couch.

We feel a sense of belonging to several communities - things that grants can’t buy, that policy makers can’t deny and lending institutions can’t make judgment on. If it weren’t for all the support there would be no Eco-Sense, and in that… there is an easy message. Only when we value community, local food, clean water, and a healthy natural world greater than money will we change our habits for the non monetary rewards. Cash kickbacks only propagate more of the same behaviours that got us into this mess.

What’s Its worth?

Gord and Ann

PS
It seemed last months update scored high on the spam list for Shaw customers. Despite our discussion on solar, 15 “Hot”s was more than the filter could handle. Feel free to see the February update on our log if it didn’t make it through.