QUICK! Call Greenpeace!

[MARV]

I wonder what they would say about this whole hullabaloo:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331551,00.html

*SIGH* The joys of home ownership.....

[shovelbum]

Seems to me that just having built a home there defies the whole purpose of conservation. Something tells me the owners are more interested in saving $$$ than they are in saving the environment. [V]

"Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal." ~Robert Heinlein

[MARV]

Shovelbum! She lives!

[shovelbum]

lol.[:D]

Yes, it's true. Don't tell my professors; they don't realize I've escaped yet. [:0]

"Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal." ~Robert Heinlein

[WolverineSyr]

It's an intersting question - what is more ecologically sound? I'll side with the trees.

Even an environmentally friendly home is putting out too much CO2. The trees can deal with CO2, not just for that house, but all the inefficient ones to some extent. All in all though - they both have a benefit, it's just that one creates pollution at a much lower level than other homes & the redwoods cause no pollution & process some of the emissions.

All in all though, since the article is from Fox news I question the intention of it and how much hyperbole is thrown in.

[DonGately]

Here's a more detailed article from the local paper:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8063034