Comments on: (687) Small Town Green: Building an Energy Efficient Home http://www.dannylipford.com/diy-home-improvement/attics-and-basements/687-small-town-green-building-an-energy-efficient-home/ Expert Advice on Home Improvement Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:24:59 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Stacy Beard http://www.dannylipford.com/diy-home-improvement/attics-and-basements/687-small-town-green-building-an-energy-efficient-home/comment-page-1/#comment-44615 Stacy Beard Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:17:56 +0000 http://www.dannylipford.com/?p=4316#comment-44615 I watched the show this Saturday morning. As I watched I heard your comments about how this house is supposed to be "green". As I watched the progression of the building of the house whenever exterior pictures were shown it was apparent a large number of trees were removed. If this house is supposed to be so "green", why in the world would you remove mature, oxygen generating trees to replace them with small, new plantings? In addition, you made a big deal out of mentioning that the new plantings were selected from "local" shrubbery so they would be able to withstand the climate. The trees that were in the background at the beginning of the project were very large - thus indicating they must have been able to adjust to the climate for many, many years. I was appauled at the amount of trees that were removed for your "green" house. Although it is positive "green" products were used to produce this house and recycling was done to reclain 70+% of the waste from the construction, it is still appauling that many trees were destroyed to make a new "yard" look "new". In summary, the "green" house built was anything but "green". It was the murder of many, many beautiful trees and thus destroyed a large amount of oxygen. I watched the show this Saturday morning. As I watched I heard your comments about how this house is supposed to be “green”. As I watched the progression of the building of the house whenever exterior pictures were shown it was apparent a large number of trees were removed. If this house is supposed to be so “green”, why in the world would you remove mature, oxygen generating trees to replace them with small, new plantings? In addition, you made a big deal out of mentioning that the new plantings were selected from “local” shrubbery so they would be able to withstand the climate. The trees that were in the background at the beginning of the project were very large – thus indicating they must have been able to adjust to the climate for many, many years.

I was appauled at the amount of trees that were removed for your “green” house. Although it is positive “green” products were used to produce this house and recycling was done to reclain 70+% of the waste from the construction, it is still appauling that many trees were destroyed to make a new “yard” look “new”.

In summary, the “green” house built was anything but “green”. It was the murder of many, many beautiful trees and thus destroyed a large amount of oxygen.

]]>