Comments about ‘'Green' homes are actually hurting the environment’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Nov. 30 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
SLC gal
Salt Lake City, UT

Sorry, I cant not laugh at the irony!!

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

This is poppy-cock.

How can using 2x6 exterior frames in lieu of 2x4s
or Triple paned windows
adding 2 extra inches of fiberglass insulation to
TRIPLE home energy efficiency possible cause "more" toxic chemicals?

This author obviously has a bone to pic, axe to grind, or hidden agenda.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

tree hugger,

2X6 board are LARGER than 2X4 boards, requiring MORE wood and greater deforrestation.

But that irony aside, obviously you missed the part about "the very materials that provide us with such energy efficiency are pumped full of harmful flame retardant chemicals."

Now, we don't know the full story, because the DN has not published it - this is little more than a link to another website, so there obviously is more

South Jordan, UT

I am constantly amazed at the green movement's well meaning but seriously flawed idea appraoch to saving the world. I haven't seen much from it that wasn't a marketing ploy to get people to spend more money in order to feel like they were actually helping the environment. At least these "harmful chemicals" are actual saving them money instead of making them spend it to feel like they are "saving the world."

Salt Lake City, UT

The headline is needlessly imprecise and thus misleading. Green homes are not harmful; certain building materials used in green homes contain components that are harmful. I understand the constraints of space, but the headline seems calculated to put the whole idea of green construction in a bad light rather than warning about the risks in the choice of particular insulation products.

Lindon, UT

The headline is not misleading at all. All too often, the Green movement focuses almost solely on energy savings, meaning using fewer fossil fuels to produce electricity, heat homes, propel cars, etc. In their simple minds, we should be doing everything possible to protect the environment, without a single thought for our own health.

This very simplistic approach is almost entirely used for marketing these green products, or concepts. This study, and article, like many others I'm sure we will begin to see, are illustrating just how shallow this approach has become. Little research is done before embracing quick solutions to the so-called 'climate change' problems we face.

As I've heard recently, it's hard to take seriously the word of scientists on long-term climate change, when they struggle to even predict what the weather will be in the next few days.

Salt Lake, UT

What type of conclusions did you expect? This is UTAH! Repubs dont care about environment - only that regulations to make refieries cost more to meet EPA regulations (ie: protect the public) The concern is only about profit. A better insulated building will use less electricity/gas to heat/cool - less use means less money for our coal and gas fired electrical system - Rs are ONLY concerned about their wallet.

Salt Lake, UT

hurting the environment! gimme a break - HOW? - not that it is some chemical similarity to a chemical that was banned due to thin shells on birds - a chemical with a long-complemented name - Exactly how does this (not new) insulation get into the environment - if yoy tear down the new house and put it in a landfill? The insulation usually STAYS in the location in was installed. What is the mechanism for this alleged harm? - the harm will be done to oil and coal interests becouse a well insulated building will use LESS. Lower consumption equals lower profit for oil/gas interests.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments