I subscribe to a wonderful "green" magazine called Natural Home.
It's filled with fantastic info on making your life green. I just can't recommend it enough. Unfortunately the issue only comes out every TWO months, but it's so worth it. Surprisingly, one of my favorite things is the ADS! It's fun looking at all of the natural products available even though I can't afford half of them.
My most recent issue just came the other day and I read it from cover to cover within hours! I was so upset when I read the opinions section because some reader wrote in complaining about the last issue. It featured a green remodel for a larger home - obviously the people had money. I thought it was a wonderful article. Regardless, the woman went on about the home being too big (let's spread misery evenly, right?) and how their efforts weren't good enough because they tore the old house down and built new using green products. Rather than paraphrasing, I'll just put her comments here:
The Not-So-Small Home
Why do you insist on showcasing homes that are too big? In the September/October 2006 issue, the home in "Standing Tall" was described as "not-so-big" at 2,700 square feet. "A Sociable Home" is called "cozy" at 2,700 square-feet. Both households consisted of a couple and one child, and both dwellings were twice the size of most houses built in the 1950's.
"Standing Tall" was brought down to its foundation - so, to build green, they threw away most of the resources used to build the original home? It's hardly "building green" when you destroy an existing home so you can use green products to rebuild another.
Please showcase families who are building small and green, such as the "Natural Home Kitchen of the Year" (Septerber/October 2006).
The environmental movement would make a bigger impact if it approached building with a completely different mindset rather than just swapping out regular building materials with green ones.
-Leslie in Idaho
Ugh, this drove me up the wall. Another opinion even went on to say people should live in homes with 500 sq ft per person and limit offspring to two. Way to push an agenda. *eye roll* So I emailed the magazine a response and they're going to put my comments in their July/August issue!!! Yay! So here is the response I sent them:
RE: The Not-So-Small House
I'm writing in response to an "opinion" I saw in this month's issue from Leslie in Idaho (page 12).
A 2,700 square foot house isn't THAT huge. It's all based on perspective and we need to keep that in mind. My house is close to that size, but I'm surrounded by neighborhoods with 4000 sq ft homes. 4000 sq ft seems excessive in my opinion, but to each his own. :) Not everyone WANTS to live in a small space. Many people don't have a choice, but those who do, have the right to live in whatever size house they choose. Whether they NEED that much space is irrelevant and none of anyone else's business.
What they do IN that space is what really counts.
I'm proud of your magazine for showcasing this home's green efforts. I think people can be environmentally friendly at any level. I love the fact that your magazine highlights green efforts from all walks of life.