Isaacs 1

Jake Isaacs
Eng-112
Connie Douglas
Nov/5/2014

The Good and the Bad

In the age of technology and the dawn of advancements, people are bringing
innovation to nearly everything including the houses we live in. Humans have come a long way
to live as comfortably as we do now, from caves to cabins to houses that operate completely on
its own making it extremely self-sufficient. With the advancements in technology today, houses
are being built that are referred to as net-zero energy homes which cost nothing to run and take
little maintenance to keep up. Net-zero homes produce electricity using renewable resources,
discard waste in an environment-friendly manner, and most important of all are made up of
materials that are non-volatile and eco-friendly. The concept of creating these homes is known as
Eco-Architecture, it is the new generation of infrastructure and home building and will be the
solution to many problems not only individuals have but also problems we all share.

There are many viewpoints on whether or not Eco-Architecture makes a big

enough impact to truly make a difference. People who are opposed to the idea would argue that it
makes a small impact and costs a lot while people who are educated and knowledgeable on the
topic would tell you its cost is actually not as high as most would believe and will save you a
ton while making a huge difference in pollution and the way our community thinks about
conservation and efficiency. An article written by Roman Espejo on how Eco-Architecture
would be beneficial states that In the United States buildings account for forty percent of total

Isaacs 2

energy use, sixty eight percent of total electricity consumption and Sixty percent of total nonindustrial waste generation. In retrospect to how many people inhabit the United States and how
much goes on, these are large percentages of use by just buildings alone. Furthermore to give
these buildings electricity yearly produces around 2,200 Megatons of CO2 into the
atmosphere(Espejo,2013) had these buildings been built with the idea to be self-sufficient there
would be that much less pollution that we as society would be breathing. In a different article
writer Jane Powell describes how Eco-Architecture is blown out of proportion and in the scale of
things wouldnt be feasible. In the article she describes that re-building our old societys
infrastructure into something new would be more expensive than beneficial and in contrast
would be a waste of time. It also states, Even a new green building made with sustainable
materials still uses up resources and energy, and it will be forty years or more before the energy
it saves by being operated under green principles balances out the energy that was used to build
it(Powell,2013). Although it would take forty years to reach that point in forty years that
building would have paid off the old one and now cost nothing to operate or maintain. Another
point of view on the subject would suggest that yes Eco-Architecture would be somewhat
beneficial and yes it would take a while to even make that difference, but also the process itself
is very difficult, time consuming, and tedious. When becoming green certified, buildings must
meet a very specific criteria as well as use certain materials and in a certain manner. When
building a house that is green a lot more things are revised very differently than a normal
home; such as, location, elevation, materials, and installation. Materials that are green approved
themselves are difficult to come by in the article it states Another reason to avoid the terms
"green" and "sustainable" is that they have attracted the attention of the Federal Trade
Commission as well as the consumer protection arms of state governments, increasing the

Isaacs 3

chances that those agencies will clamp down on companies that advertise their products as green
without proof(Burney,2013). Green buildings can contain a number of specially engineered
qualities such as, Self-sustainable waste-management systems that create zero pollution while
recycling water and waste. Buildings that are considered green may also contain things such as,
Energy monitoring systems to create a more efficient use of energy as well as solar panels with
battery cells to store energy in-case of cloudy days or power outages. Green homes may also
contain butterfly roofs which collect, contain, and cleanse rain water for use which in terms cuts
down the water bill.

As some would agree yes Eco-Architecture is beneficial and would impact our
environment in a positive manner, others would say its a waste of time, money, and supplies and
is not nearly as beneficial as people were led on to believe. I believe there are valid points on
both sides but in reality any improvement is an improvement, whether it be small or large a step
forward is a step forward. So for whether or not Eco-Architecture is one hundred percent
beneficial is all based on how the person wants it done, how much they want to pay and who
they get to do the job.

Isaacs 4

Works Cited

Burney, Teresa. "Eco-Architecture Is Economically Risky." Eco-Architecture. Ed. Roman

Espejo. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Green
Building's Five Deadly Sins." Big Builder Magazine (3 Oct. 2008). Opposing Viewpoints
in Context. Web. 2 Nov. 2014

Powell, Jane. "Eco-Architecture Does Not Benefit the Environment." Eco-Architecture. Ed.
Roman Espejo. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from
"Smart Growth, Green Building, and Other Oxymorons." American Bungalow 100.62
(May-Aug. 2009). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). "Eco-Architecture

Benefits the Environment." Eco-Architecture. Ed. Roman Espejo. Detroit: Greenhaven
Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Green Building in North America:
Opportunities and Challenges." Vol. 16. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 2 Nov.
2014.