SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Downsizing the McMansion: Study gauges a sustainable size for future homes:
What might homes of the future look like if countries were really committed to meeting global calls for sustainability, such as the recommendations advanced by the Paris Agreement and the U.N.'s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development?
Much wider adoption of smart design features and renewable energy for low- to zero-carbon homes is one place to start -- the U.N. estimates households consume 29% of global energy and consequently contribute to 21% of resultant CO2 emissions, which will only rise as global population increases.
However, a new scholarly paper authored at New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) assesses another big factor in the needed transformation of our living spaces toward sustainability -- the size of our homes.
The paper published in the journal Housing, Theory & Society makes the case for transitioning away from the large, single-family homes that typify suburban sprawl, offering new conceptions for what constitutes a more sustainable and sufficient average home size in high-income countries going forward.
The article surveys more than 75 years of housing history and provides estimates for the optimal spatial dimensions that would align with an "environmentally tenable and globally equitable amount of per-person living area" today. It also spotlights five emerging cases of housing innovation around the world that could serve as models for effectively adopting more space-efficient homes of the future.
"There is no question that if we are serious about embracing our expressed commitments to sustainability, we will in the future need to live more densely and wisely," said Maurie Cohen, the paper's author and professor at NJIT's Department of Humanities. "This will require a complete reversal in our understanding of what it means to enjoy a 'good life' and we will need to start with the centerpiece of the 'American Dream,' namely the location and scale of our homes.
"The notion of 'bigger is better' will need to be supplanted by the question of 'how much is enough?' Fortunately, we are beginning to see examples of this process unfolding in some countries around the world, including the United States."
Maurie J. Cohen. New Conceptions of Sufficient Home Size in High-Income Countries: Are We Approaching a Sustainable Consumption Transition? Housing, Theory and Society, 2020; 1 DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2020.1722218
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday March 11 2020, @02:34AM (2 children)
Your math is defective. $300 billion (wealth of top 3) divided by 150 million (half the US population) is $2000. The average wealth of the bottom 50% in the US is well over $2000, the price of a poor quality used car.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Wednesday March 11 2020, @03:03AM
I agree the numbers don't add up, but also keep in mind there's a lot of people who have a net worth that is negative. In other words, they could sell off everything they own and wouldn't be able to pay off their debts (mostly student loans and credit cards, but also mortgages, car loans, etc.). Some of these people at least seem to be well off.
Actually owning a $2000 used car free and clear would be an improvement for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2020, @03:55AM
AC you replied to here.
Fair enough.
A little research shows that the 20 (admittedly more than three) richest people have ~1.044 trillion (source: https://wealthygorilla.com/richest-people-america/ [wealthygorilla.com] ), while the poorest 50% of Americans have ~1.67 Trillion in wealth (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org] ).
And by the way, the *median* wealth of that bottom 50% is ~$11,000 (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org] ).
So okay it's not the richest 3 people, but the richest 30 people that control more wealth than the bottom 50% of Americans.
While it's certainly true (well, except for the bunch in that group of 30 that *inherited* their wealth) that hard work and determination helped those folks become so wealthy, a whole raft of other factors had *more* impact on their success.
If not, many of those bottom 50% would be billionaires too, given how hard they have to work and how determined they have to be *just to keep their heads above water*.
I can't speak for anyone else, but it seems to me that the current situation actually *hurts* growth and slows the economy. If there were a more even distribution of wealth (I'm not talking about putting the rich up against the wall, rather stuff like living wages and incentivizing growth, reinvestment and expenditure over accumulation).
More money in the hands a broader set of people would spur growth. What's more, a strong safety net would incentivize people to take entrepreneurial risks. It's a lot easier to start a business when you know that if you fail, your children won't be eating out of garbage bins.
Increased entrepreneurial competition and placing disincentives on rent-seeking would help a lot too.
Additionally, incentives for saving and investment should go to *everyone*, not disproportionately to the very wealthy.
From a medium (a decade or two) to long (40-100 years) term perspective, such changes are *necessary* to keep our *consumer* economy viable. A few more decades of the upward flow of wealth will so greatly depress consumer spending (how many pairs of shoes, sofas, TVs, boats, houses, jets, etc. can one person really own and maintain?) that the economy will likely collapse, or more likely, just decline until we're a third-world shithole with a few incredibly wealthy people at the top and a whole lot of impoverished people.