Where is our liberal doctrine of sin, when we need one? How do we speak of the well intended but vain attempts of privileged and powerful to do right, and be good, without really changing the way we live our lives? Perhaps by examining the folly of works righteousness in its most affluent and exaggerated forms. In an article originally in the Wall Street times we read of some examples of homes built by wealthy and socially aware folk who seek to be environmentally righteous, but somehow fail by their very efforts. Daniel Asks writes:
These houses aren't just ridiculous; they're monuments to sanctimony. If architecture is frozen music, these places are congealed piety, demonstrating with embarrassing concreteness the glaring hypocrisy of upper-class environmentalism. The sad thing is that, by pouring so much money into ostentatious eco-design, the people who built homes like this have purchased status at the cost of doing some real environmental good.
Bear in mind that merely building a gigantic house consumes an enormous amount of energy and other resources, which is why it costs so much to do so. Situating a home all by itself on a large piece of land, far from the pre-existing community infrastructure, does not make it a model of environmentally conscious design. And having a second home--which takes nearly a day of driving to reach--is unlikely to make a dent in global warming.
Leave a comment