tiny house
- Thread starter Jake Bunce
- Start date
HannahP
Well-known member
You are judging people when you proclaim that you don't want to live like them, my friend.
As for me, face it, I am so much smarter than most people that it's okay for me to judge. In fact it is my duty to humanity. Look it up.
Finally, I don't watch The Tonight Show, so what Jay Shafer thinks doesn't really concern me.
Jake Bunce
Well-known member
I can see how some people might feel judged by my example. I can't help that. But more to my point, it's the difference between a proposition and an opposition. A proposition stands on its own merits (e.g. tiny living is environmental, cheap, and simple). I think you know that.
That's Jay Leno. This is Jay Shafer:
http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/
HannahP
Well-known member
Jake Bunce, I owe you an apology.
Here we are in this thread slapping each other on the back for taking a stand, while I'm berating you here for doing the same thing.
As individuals, all we have are our principles, and I can see you are serious about yours. You got me thinking, and my stance that the wealthy are dilettantes when they behave in a certain way was certainly flawed. If anything it is more important for a rich person to have principles than it is for a poor person, because generally, the rich person's actions affect a greater number of people. For better or worse.
"A revolution is not a dinner party!" Thanks for reminding me of that.
My virtual hat is off to you, you crazy yurt-dwelling *******.
Here we are in this thread slapping each other on the back for taking a stand, while I'm berating you here for doing the same thing.
As individuals, all we have are our principles, and I can see you are serious about yours. You got me thinking, and my stance that the wealthy are dilettantes when they behave in a certain way was certainly flawed. If anything it is more important for a rich person to have principles than it is for a poor person, because generally, the rich person's actions affect a greater number of people. For better or worse.
"A revolution is not a dinner party!" Thanks for reminding me of that.
My virtual hat is off to you, you crazy yurt-dwelling *******.
David Copeland
Member
Yes, welcome to Montana!
One of the reasons my wife, three children, and goodles of pets left where I was born and raised (southern California Beach Boys) - and chose to caravan our Moses Ark out of the drought laden, high tax, over regulated state of California - to Montana, known as "The Last Best Place" - with less than a million people and more cattle than you can ever bar-b-q . No sales tax, free pristine Rocky Mountain water, and millions of acres where you can have a loved one buried in a simple pine coffin at no cost!
But don't tell anyone, Jake. After we got here, we pulled up the draw bridge - except for overnight guests and close friends.
Well, except for the Unibomber who had a tiny cabin in Lincoln, Montana - nearly everyone I have met is a draftee from the big cities. And for those who were born and raised here - their families were draftees. That only leaves the Indians - who were here first - and remain.
So by and large, we are not freaks - just folks who read the 1986 US Chamber of Commerce Report - which said within ten years 25% of the American Workforce will be able to live anywhere they want in the USA, with the use of a phone, mail box, and fax machine. When we arrived in 1991 - and took our work with us - little did we know that in 1995 we would be attending a local library meeting on the subject of how computers could talk to other computers anywhere in the world. Scratching my head as we left the meeting, I still could not understand what the heck they were talking about - some called the . . . internet.
****************
As for air conditioning - you definitely do not need it in many parts of Montana. And even if you wanted it - there is new technology to make it happen.
As for property - there are still millions of acres that can be sold to you - for your use in any manner you want - for a few hundred dollars an acre.
As for property taxes, there are solutions to exempt you.
As for communications, and being able to help others through the internet and use a VOIP phone, there are plenty of areas - including satellite.
*****************
It all starts with a thought.
Thought leads to an idea.
Idea leads to a written plan.
Written Plans are broken down into small pieces of actions (tasks)
Tasks and actions lead to acquiring that first thought.
Acquiring leads to another thought . . . and the cycle repeats itself.
******************
So what have you done past the stages of thought and idea? (From what I have seen, I do not see the cost details.
In the meantime . . . enjoy the vision of a nice little getaway in the Rocky Mountains:
craigiri
Well-known member
Amazing enough, for most people living in a more urban environment is more environmental. That doesn't mean we all have to do it, but it's the technology what is gonna save the world....
Mayor Bloomberg is starting an effort to create micro apartments in NYC:
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-10/...ts-affordable-housing-units-michael-bloomberg
As a quickie comparison, a basic idea of how much in resources we each use can be gained by looking at per capita energy use.
http://energy.gov/maps/2009-energy-consumption-person
You might notice some surprises there! A person in Montana uses almost double the resources as someone in Ma. or RI. Energy use is almost perfectly indicative of "environmental impact"....at least in the big picture.
Europe tends to be about equal with the lowest US States.
Make no mistake about it - it would be a revolution if the offending states brought their energy use down to those of the leaders! We'd have cleaner air and water, less disease, etc.
Mayor Bloomberg is starting an effort to create micro apartments in NYC:
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-10/...ts-affordable-housing-units-michael-bloomberg
As a quickie comparison, a basic idea of how much in resources we each use can be gained by looking at per capita energy use.
http://energy.gov/maps/2009-energy-consumption-person
You might notice some surprises there! A person in Montana uses almost double the resources as someone in Ma. or RI. Energy use is almost perfectly indicative of "environmental impact"....at least in the big picture.
Europe tends to be about equal with the lowest US States.
Make no mistake about it - it would be a revolution if the offending states brought their energy use down to those of the leaders! We'd have cleaner air and water, less disease, etc.
Jake Bunce
Well-known member
Yeah that's pretty much what it amounts to. Gotta move away from people to do something like this. The thing is I don't desire to move away. I want to live small and connected.
I've got all of the numbers worked out. Cost, electricity, everything.
David Copeland
Member
Care to share?
David Copeland
Member
Not sure where you go that data from.
But for many of us . . .
1) We pay nothing for water. We have less than a million people in this state, and many have their own water well that taps into the vast underground rivers of Rocky Mountain prestine water.
2) The cost of our electricity in California was nearly 29 cents a kilowatt, compared to Montana power at 6 cents a kilowatt - not to mention other aleternative solar and wind.
3) Montana is home to vast resources in coal, gas, and oil.
So if you saying we are using double the resources, what resources are you referring to?
craigiri
Well-known member
I am referring to the actual footprint per capita (BTU's. KCAL, Joules, etc.) on the earth.
It's a overall figure, but very indicative of whether a population is living, in theory, "closer to the earth".
Everything comes down to energy. That is, one uses more energy if they drive further to the store, consume more products which take energy to make, heat their home, etc.
It's the easiest way to make a true summation of environmental footprints. Of course, there is more to it....but in the end, the amount of oil, gas, coal, nuclear and other power we have to dig for a generate is KEY.
The USA, on a per capita basis, uses MUCH more energy than most countries on the planet (Canada is an exception and maybe Saudi Arabia). That is the core problem....because energy use makes the air dirty, cuts down more forests, digs up more mountains and causes more foreign wars.
So, in that sense, it relates to the same basic worldview that Jake is expressing. The national infatuation with McMansions and large SUV's in the 90's and early 2000's was exactly the opposite direction we should have been heading.
It's a overall figure, but very indicative of whether a population is living, in theory, "closer to the earth".
Everything comes down to energy. That is, one uses more energy if they drive further to the store, consume more products which take energy to make, heat their home, etc.
It's the easiest way to make a true summation of environmental footprints. Of course, there is more to it....but in the end, the amount of oil, gas, coal, nuclear and other power we have to dig for a generate is KEY.
The USA, on a per capita basis, uses MUCH more energy than most countries on the planet (Canada is an exception and maybe Saudi Arabia). That is the core problem....because energy use makes the air dirty, cuts down more forests, digs up more mountains and causes more foreign wars.
So, in that sense, it relates to the same basic worldview that Jake is expressing. The national infatuation with McMansions and large SUV's in the 90's and early 2000's was exactly the opposite direction we should have been heading.
I don't get this fuzz about everyone has to do their part. Funny how your personal emissions are just a fraction of the total emissions, the big emissions are really from industries, especially heavy industries, like steel mills or aluminium production. In fact, the earth metals used in your computer is pretty nasty stuff. It is always delightful how politicians especially seems to focus on the individual, rather than the big money where the cost / benefit could be much much greater..
Also, as long as there is oil, we won't stop consuming it. Right now, the only viable alternative to fossil fuels are nuclear power, and that is a limited resource as well... Funny thing how politicians keeps saying we need to lower our carbon footprint, while the oil production is going strong as ever, and the search activity is crazy.
If you really want a clean conscience, Jake, move to Norway. All of our inland electricity is produced by waterfalls, except 2 or 3 LNG power plants that never really works cause the politicians wants to use some insanely idiotic carbon cleaning system. Add this to the fact that we are a net exporter of energy, you can safely assume that all the power you use are renewable. That just leaves your other consumption, and your driving habits as well. I am sure you have your reasons for wanting to do this, Jake, and I bet one of the biggest one is the personal challenge it poses...
Also, as long as there is oil, we won't stop consuming it. Right now, the only viable alternative to fossil fuels are nuclear power, and that is a limited resource as well... Funny thing how politicians keeps saying we need to lower our carbon footprint, while the oil production is going strong as ever, and the search activity is crazy.
If you really want a clean conscience, Jake, move to Norway. All of our inland electricity is produced by waterfalls, except 2 or 3 LNG power plants that never really works cause the politicians wants to use some insanely idiotic carbon cleaning system. Add this to the fact that we are a net exporter of energy, you can safely assume that all the power you use are renewable. That just leaves your other consumption, and your driving habits as well. I am sure you have your reasons for wanting to do this, Jake, and I bet one of the biggest one is the personal challenge it poses...
craigiri
Well-known member
You are correct - but, then again, where do you think that steel and aluminum goes? It goes to making cars and bridges and ships so that people can consume and drive more!
It's a complex subject, but I summarize it as this....yes, even if you live in a cave and eat rabbits you kill with a slingshot - if you are an American you automatically use vast amounts of energy because the government creates a military, infrastructure and many other things based on head count!
So if Jake or everyone here decided to stop consuming 90% of their current quota, it would make zero difference in the total picture. IMHO, the only thing that can save the world at this point is technology. That is, the engineer who makes a car engine 2% more efficient has moved the needle vastly more than a million people deciding to downsize.
But that does not mean there are not rewards for downsizing or living simply.
BTW, when I was young I moved to the boonies and lived on a large farm with hundreds of people in a voluntary poverty situation. We lived on one dollar per day per person...which is an indication of the tiny amount of energy and material we consumed. If nothing else, it taught me a lot of lessons......and gave me a new perspective on things!
Cal
Well-known member
I would go crazy in this house. Enough room to prop my feet up against the wall and still easily crack my head against the opposite wall. Besides where would you put the TV, computer, refrigerator, xbox, and other essentials? Screw green. I'll take a regular sized house. Really if you want something like that....go buy a damn mini RV. Really.
melbo
Well-known member
Jake, we have a great Off Grid section (you know my forum url) which has excellent advice on many of these ultra efficient things you're looking for. There are a few members who post in that section that live completely off wind/solar and know how to count every watt... You are welcome to stop by.
BGL
Well-known member
Small rooms discipline the mind ~ Leonardo Di Vinci
I'd say more cutting edge, being 100% net zero energy is the forefront of change to today. Elon Musk with Tesla all electric cars, Solar World solar power systems for homes and SpaceX. Google crew push the Google facilities for solar power and sustainable power sources, this ranks right up there. The small homes are key as it reduces the energy required at the source.
Similar threads
- Question
