what if we all act poorer? Set aside 30% of our income for savings and 10% for charity, and do what we can to not spend the remaining 60%? Live in smaller houses with much less stuff to fill them, use communal resources more effectively - fewer lawns, more parks, herb gardens and eating less exotic fruit, less travel, fewer vacations...

of course we'd mess up the tax and spend economy we've got going ... and probably sink China's polluting industries ... deflation would hit hard, employment would take a temporary nose dive until we figured out how to make things that last rather than just 'make things.' After all, if labor were more affordable compared to construction materials, we'd use more expensive materials and more labor intensive processing - back to carved stone and wood and so on. Back to buildings that last 400 years and no more Gehry.

We could even make those buildings LEED platinum or better.

Or, we could all just do the best we can, individually. As always, the discussion about global warming is much like the discussion about the economy in that we all pay our own bills. Therefore, we all do what we think is best for ourselves. The nations of the world are made up of individual people who do the best they can.

Won't work. Tragedy of the commons. As long as people either don't care about inheritance (cash or infrastructure) or are faced with ruinous taxes (on property like real estate, on savings, on investment income, on inheritance) or its alter ego, ruinous inflation, we will see any instincts toward wise savings go unrewarded, even punished.

What we need is a system that rewards savings and, since this is a necessary corrallary, punishes debt. A regressive system, some people would call it.

Ahhh systems. So the problem is systemic. Naaahhh. The problem isn't systemic, the problem is the system itself. Do you know how to beat a system? You throw a wrench into the machine. The best way I know to do that is live as independently as possible. Individual people doing what's in their own self-interest carries surprisingly good results.

Self-interest is where service, humility, respect for others, and love actually come from. When I treat others well, I do well. So then, the system or the need for reform within any system becomes trivial.

You're not up on your game theory, are you?

Altruism won't invade a population that doesn't reciprocate.

The only way to make it work is for altruists to become a closed subculture.

Similarly, savings can't get going in a system driven by inflation. The only good thing about that is that inflationary systems eventually crash completely. But to call that good news is a stretch.

No more Gehry? You must be in cohoots with James Kunstler ;)

Carved stone and wood? You must be a preservationist. Or a New Urbanist.

Unfortunately most of the LEED classifications tend to favor new materials, although the LEED Existing Construction class is starting to gain more widespread use.

The unfortunate thing about timber construction these days is that a lot of of the wood frame/wood siding homes from 1800-1930 were built from old growth hardwood, which was very damaging to ecologies such as the redwood forests in California and the longleaf pine forests of mid-South Carolina, Georgia, and northern Florida. This was high-quality, very dense wood that has lasted 100 years, and if properly maintained will most likely last 100 more.

Unfortunately the over-harvesting of this wood not only lead to the destruction of these ecosystems, but it also severly depleted our supply of quality wood for construction purposes. Most of the wood available today is of a lesser quality and more porous, so it has a shorter lifespan and is more susceptible to rot.

I agree that we do need to employ more classical, craft-based building technologies. It is imperative that we return to constructing buildings for longevity and not to keep up with the latest architectural fad. We need to be using materials that are reparable rather than materials that must be replaced (i.e., vinyl windows - it is almost impossible to repair a vinyl window and they only have a lifespan of about 15-20 years. If you own a historic home with original wood windows, repair your wood windows, please repair them, don't replace them with vinyl!!)

I agree with you on basically every point. My ideal construction style, if you could call it that, would look toward paleolithic Orkney; stone walls largely buried under ground; industrial-grade beams, probably steel these days, holding up a slate roof or a green roof, depending on climate and cost. High quality windows.

Or, for a more 'up to date' construction model - insulating foam forms with poured concrete, and high quality, reparable facades. Those buildings are well-nigh indestructable.

to BenK:

good reply. google LATOC for some like minded thinking.

Why does everyone miss the population problem. More people means more consumption. No matter how "green" we try to be, more people is bad for the ecology of the planet.

So, if you really want to save the planet, stop having children.

just rich going after old helpless robots, why do they bother to teach algebra if they can just teach vectors? Because they don't know anything anymore.

HEAR ! HEAR! I can truly agree with this example... Imagine.....a country living within its' means. Just like before WW!!

People consume vastly different kinds and quantities of resources. We aren't anywhere near close to stretching the resources of the planet, if we were to live more or less minimally as people. As for exponential growth, malthus, all that - we see now that the extrapolation along an exponential curve was a fatal flaw; look at Europe and tell me where the exponential growth is leading.

We should debate based on real demographics rather than jump on the 'no more children' campaign of extremists.