"I think people get a little defensive sometimes on this board because, let's face it, a very large percentage of the kitchens on this board are quite extravagant, mine included"

yes, they are! and i love looking at them - and all the stuff available to them that i'd never even know existed if they didn't have / get them and i wasn't on this board reading... lol! and so many of them i've been able to use/ reconfigure etc to put into my little future kitchen. shoot - i seldom cook i don't really NEED to redo my kitchen. OTOH if I had a decent kitchen w/ drawers and cabinets (and my stuff wasn't in boxes everywhere) maybe I would cook more (note: cooking these days includes a grilled cheese, scrambled eggs, frying a hamburger etc). and some of it is just because - i figure this WILL be my last home, my last kitchen and when i sit at the table having coffee with my sister I don't want the drawer falling out of the hole when i go to get a spoon out of it (it's still better than what i've had the past 11 yrs). and added to that since i'm disabled now i need things to be as easy to reach, work with and clean as possible. It'll be a cheap redo - and i'm ok with that - i don't have kids at home anymore (they're hard on stuff), I don't have a lot of people in / out or to cook for to need things to survive wear and tear. neat, clean and nice - that's it.
other people have other needs.

"appliances are only good for an average of 7 years (more expensive doesn't fare any better than dirt cheap) and a kitchen needs to be redone after 15 years"

now this i find terrible. my 11 yr old refridge is going with me into the new place - it'll be done with that in consideration to merge it in...same with my micro. I'll set it up with space in case of future replacement (that's a given). the hot plate will rest on a top shelf in the pantry - replaced by a real stove.

"I can't speak too informedly about the 70s, as I understand it, unlike the 70s or 80s, where the enviro-consciousness seemed correlated with high fuel prices which were "merely" causing some financial discomfort - said awareness disappeared when the financial discomfort did - and the more astute (as well as the hysterical, no doubt) were projecting forward environmental consequences of our increasingly larger-than-life lives, the fact is that that has now come to roost."

i remember those times well. from them came lots of the higher mileage vehicles used today. like about anything over 15 mpg. maybe it was somewhat regional... most everyone i knew went to smaller cars. We did and pretty much stayed with them over the yrs. We were very aware of what buying new all the time meant - if at all ever possible we fixed, reconfigured, reused what we had until it disintegrated before our eyes and screamed 'uncle'.

" The truth is that everything in the latter half of xena's post above is spot on - too big, too far, too much dependence on a lack of exertion. "

and i agree. 10 yrs or more ago when i'd drive home to my few acres in the desert and watch as the city moved out here after me... building huge houses with lots of glass on all sides of them and wondering ' what the heck are they thinking? what will they do when the energy crunch hits again?'

building HUGE houses - way out here in the wilderness. i knew when i moved out here that I wouldn't have water coming to me thru a pipe, a store down the road or a gas station. i'd best pick up stuff / get gas a good 10 -15 miles or more before getting here. and i'd be driving on gravel roads... fine with me - i loved it.

city folk move out here because the houses sold cheap - BUT they wanted paved roads, a store w/in a mile of the house, schools within 5 miles, gas stations, video stores, banks - you name it, it's out here now. along with piped water (I still don't have it and don't care to have it). The roads have gone from barely 2 lanes to 4 lanes - and big suv's zoom past me. (sorry bud - I'm not speeding for you...)

the noise level is high now and we hear sirens daily, air is polluted and many of our critters have lost their homes and the crime rate has skyrocketed.

many of the houses sit empty now - many people moved back in closer to town because of the higher gas prices last yr... they've still ruined a beautiful area of the desert and displaced a ton of animals. and i doubt any of those real estate agents ever once told the people buying the houses that we have at least 10 mountain lions roaming loose back here or how vicious a havelina can be...mine didn't tell me.

Food for thought: If you have a 10 person household with an 800 sq foot kitchen, and you compare it with a 2 person household with a 200 square foot kitchen, how does that distribute the carbon footprint?

Just another way of looking at it: sometimes it isnt just about size. :)

By the way, in my experience, the size of the kitchen is inversely related to the amount of cussing and swearing that it generates.

I completely agree that size doesn't matter (where have I heard that before?) That it's complicated, lots of factors to consider. But one theme that's getting a lot of play here is something I pretty passionately DISagree with, namely:

"If you make your home into what you want, who cares if someone else thinks it's snobby or irresponsible? As long as we like it and can afford it, that's all that matters to me."

I'm sure this philosophy comes from the best of intentions, but as Mindstorm and others have said so well, the time for "whatever floats your boat" is past. Look around. Individual choices have global consequences. One person chooses to drive a Hummer, the rest of us pay, in one way or another. We can ignore those consequences, or make a joke of them, but to pretend they don't exist is just that -- pretending. Kind of like pretending there was ever any 'scientific certainty' about global cooling in the 70's. There wasn't. In fact, I bet more people refer to it now -- as a way to mock the idea of global warming -- than ever did back then.

Speaking of global warming, maybe the scientific consensus is wrong. Maybe global warming IS a myth. But how are we being asked to combat it? Conserve fuel, pollute less, consume less. Not exactly the most outlandish, counterintuitive goals in the world. Personally, I'd rather do all those things and find out that global warming was a hoax than continue to smog up the air, cut down rain forests, destroy marine life, endanger our health, and find out that, oh, gee, I guess we really ARE destroying the planet -- forever.

As for letting other people do whatever they want "as long as they can afford it", well, I'm just not that magnanimous anymore. I don't think any of us can afford to be.

Oh, no, if there are livers abounding there I don't ever want to visit.

Cooks will cook. Kitchen size notwithstanding. Will a huge kitchen turn a non-cook into a cook? I've never witnessed it, but it could motivate the "inner cook" I guess. I was always motivated by food. I've seen lots of huge kitchens--used and unused.

If I hear "carbon footprint" once more I'm going to freaking scream. Oh, I think I'll go scream anyway. This thread is giving me the {{gwi:1470427}}.

"As for letting other people do whatever they want "as long as they can afford it", well, I'm just not that magnanimous anymore. I don't think any of us can afford to be."

How do you propose to stop people from doing whatever they want? Are you talking about merely expressing your negative opinions toward those whom you perceive are wasteful ... like peer pressure? Or are you advocating government intervention? I'm opposed to any legislation that would curtail people's personal liberties to the extent of mandating where they can live and what they can buy. As long as "progressive thinkers" like Al Gore continue to fail to "walk the walk," I doubt that punitive legislation will go anywhere. After all, how can the government take away someone's Hummer while the President is flying 2 planes to NYC to take his wife on a date? Hey, and I wonder what the carbon footprint is for the White House?

I'm in favor of more tax incentives to encourage people to build and live green. I also think that people should be charged for the amount of trash they throw away based on the number of people in their household in order to encourage people to recycle as much as possible.

My post is not directed toward anyone specific, so please just read.

from a post above - "How do you propose to stop people from doing whatever they want? "

I think education is the key in changing people's habits. Many people do things the way they do just because that's the way they've always done it. Forums like this are good for sharing ideas (and learning from them)and I like reading posts like this because they are provocative, interesting, and stimulate discussion. If we can educate without preaching or yelling(whatever your stance is) then we might all learn something. I've learned a bunch reading this.

Now here is my opinion. I do think the time to do something is now. We ("you and me") can all do our part. As an example, it starts with recycling what my contractor called trash but in reality was reusable new air conditioning ducts, and leftover wood siding scrap, etc. He said he wasn't worried about it because it didn't cost that much and was too much work for him to recycle it. Poor excuse in my opinion. After talking to him he realized there was another use for that huge piece of metal that he was going to drive to the dump.
I would like to replace that polar bear that is the poster child of global warming/climate change with a picture of a human being. We will lose far more than wildlife if we don't all do something collectively as a species. We have the knowledge but not all the time in the world- I want to be able to look at my grandchildren in the eye and say that I did my part to preserve the world they live in.

As far as tax incentives for encouraging people to build and live green, I am all for that. However, I think people should be charged for the amount of trash they generate and throw away and not on the number of people who live in the house. Now that would be prejudicial in my opinion. A family of 8 that lives a frugal and simpler way of life may not consume and throw away as much as a household of 4 that are bigger "consumers".

We're all in this together!
:)

jrabbot, actually I did mean that they should be charged based on the amount of trash, but that the number of people in the house could be taken into account. Thus the family of 4 who recycles would get charged less than the family of 4 that doesn't. But I suppose such a sliding scale would lead to a system that's too complicated.

One also has to have a recycling system that works. I know of two condo associations that were paying for recycling only to find out the company was combining it with the general trash.

The whole issue is quite complex. We walk or take transit because it is readily available. We take canvas bags to the store. But...Our house is 1840 and could not be well insulated without practically destroying it. We generate a lot of plastic soda bottles.

What we really need are kitchens big enough to include kitchen gardens.

Wouldn't that be great? No plastic grocery bags, no little plastic containers holding fruit and veggies, compost right there, and zero travel miles from "market" to table. Gym time replaced by garden digging time....

A "huge" kitchen is a relative term to how big your own kitchen is. For most, the definition of "huge" would be "anything bigger than what I have!" LOL! Yes, it's a perjorative word in some people's vocabulary due to a bit of envy. I think most people would admit that fact. It would be rare for most folks in poorly designed small spaces to not think that a larger space means a better space. That's not necessarily so! It's much harder to have a functional workroom in a large space than it is a small space, but it's equally hard to convince someone in an 8x10 kitchen of that fact! Therefore, there's always going to be a bit of wistful envy when someone posts a "huge" kitchen on here for feedback. It's human nature, despite the recent trends towards the "not so big house". Humans are competitive animals, and resource hoarding and guarding is hardwired into us as a survival mechanism. You might as well try to take a bone away from a nippy dog as suggest that bigger isn't always better. It will take a cultural shift towards shame at consumption rather than pride to stamp out that evolutionary survival behavior. We're starting the see some of the beginnings of that popular culture shift in this thread. :)

My second point is that the trend towards open space living can make the actual kitchen size appear to be somewhat misleading. That "kitchen" space is also family hangout space, eating space, entertaining space, and pretty much all of the public space that many homes have. Islands, while technically kitchen space, often cross the line into being located in the family room or breakfast space, and may even take the place of a breakfast room. So, when discussing "large" kitchens, it may be helpful to keep in mind that it isn't so easy to just draw a 10'x15' box around the actual food prep and cooking area and call that "kitchen" space. Calling it the "hearth area" comes closer to the mark to how kitchens have reevolved to the type of one room log cabin living space of frontier days.

Food preparation is no longer considered to be the labor of only women or servants, to be hidden away as something menial and shameful. (Thank goodness!) Food preparation can be one of the best family together times, or some of the most entertaining of entertaing guests. Family and friends tend to gather in the kitchen space, so therefore it's only logical that the kitchen space increases in size to accomodate the changing role of the kitchen.

Now, if you want to start a dustup about "huge" bathroom sizes and the water consumption of those "human carwashes", that's another forum! LOL!

Thank you Live_Wire_Oak! I've been trying to find a way to say what you said in your 2nd & 3rd paragraphs w/o causing more problems on the thread...you said it so well!!

i was not going to respond to this thread, but read some posts again last night and thought about it while drifting off.

what does the OP consider huge? why does anyone think that the size of a kitchen determines the square footage of a house? How would the OP know the needs of the family the kitchen is for? All of these questions could be answered differently depending on who you talk to. there is no standard answer here because we could not get a common answer to the first question if you polled only 20 people randomly. so, really the question from the OP is useless and meaningless.

My house is 4300 sq ft. how big "should" my kitchen be? Does it shock anyone to know that its a comfortable 12'x21'(this includes the breakfast area with table)? to me, its not huge by any means, but it works for me and for the needs of my family which will only be myself and DH after next year. should i feel quilty though because I finally got a kitchen that i like being in after 21 years that it has all of the bells and whistles?

your analogy of wealthy homeowner>rich man, homemaker wife could fit us, but it goes totally wrong about eating out. WE DON'T. We might go out to dinner about 8 to 10 times a year. I cook every day.

homeowner with social conscious>nah, not me. we have worked our a**es off for everything we have.

it sound like the OP has a problem with anyone having more that they do and could never be satisfied with what they have? i don't know. Obviously they must be renovating or building a new home to be on this forum in the first place. Is the OP already not happy with what they are getting?

A kitchen, at least in my life, is for more than cooking. When the kids are over, we all end up in the kitchen, whether I am cooking or not, same for other family and friends. It's the main room for casual socializing, as well as group cooking projects, like the salsa my SIL and I make in late summer, as well as the lobster and crab feasts.

When the kids were younger, they always sat at the kitchen table for homework, etc. We didn't allow them to have a TV in their rooms, so the second TV in the kitchen allowed someone to watch another show.

We have a neighbor who says "she doesn't cook", so when she and her husband built their house, she had it designed without a kitchen! She didn't see the need for one. The builder and the architect finally convinced her to put in a small kitchen. I think they told her she'd never sell the house without one.

I completely agree, Momj47. Kitchens are about more than cooking. My current kitchen has no place for anyone but the cook. A lot of my time is in spent alone cooking, doing laundry and ironing. There is not even room for my dog. Everyone else is in another room. I am completely isolated. I HATE IT!!! Yes, I cook nearly every meal we eat. We rarely eat out. So, my new kitchen is much larger because it has a place to sit and talk, and eat or whatever one wants to do. Family time is as important as food. We need both for a happy life.

live wire oak, You are right - open kitchen/living space is the reason why we took down those walls to begin with! I actually have had no idea what the square footage of my "kitchen" is supposed to be or how to measure it!

Wow, more food for thought! Hard to believe such a clumsy original post (no offence, swampwiz), has generated such a thoughtful and lively discussion.

Erikanh, I realized after I posted that my choice of the word "let" (as in "letting people do whatever they want") was pretty lame. How can I, as an individual, tell people what they can and can't do? I wouldn't even want to try. On the other hand, when somebody makes an undeniably environment-damaging choice (and BTW I think few kitchens, of any size, fall into this category), should I just shrug my shoulders and say "to each his own?" I no longer think so. And that was my point. As to what I'm proposing exactly, well that's a good question. I'm open. I think your idea of a trash tax is great, for example. You may be right that punitive legislation would never fly, but shouldn't we stop letting the government reward people for choices that cause harm (e.g. those tax incentives on low-mileage/high emissions SUVs)? I realize that legislating behavior can be a slippery slope, but we already do it in countless ways -- from seat belt laws to drug prohibitions. Surely you are not against ALL impingements on people's personal liberties, are you? Because I think the "laissez faire" slope can be just as slippery...

As for peer pressure, if by that you mean expressing the fact that certain personal choices have a negative impact on the planet, then yes, I'm for it, with the stipulation that encouragement almost always works better than criticism. But there's a place for criticism, too. I think it's GREAT that people cried foul when they heard about Al Gore's gigantic electricity bill. (I also think it's kind of bogus that some people use it as a reason to trash any efforts at cleaning up our collective act.) I think it's great that buying an Escalade now generates more scorn than admiration in many parts of the country. What I think is REALLY great is the fact that people are FINALLY thinking about this stuff, as evidenced by this thread.

Live_Wire_Oak said all this much better than I could. And I agree with his/her point that the kitchen is not the best starting point for this discussion -- many big kitchens are replacing several rooms, and allowing for a more "hearth-centered" existence --more family and friends oriented, more food conscious, more handmade/homemade emphasizing etc. I believe all of those trends more than make up for whatever negative impact (if any) the extra square footage might have. (Rubyfig's idea is great in that regard!) Those people who are going bigger simply because it allows them to put more expensive "stuff" in there, or because "bigger is always better" are missing the boat, and more and more people are becoming aware of that, as LWO said.

Jrabbot, I agree with everything you said as well. Education is the key. I believe many of the biggest polluters/wasters (individuals, not companies), honestly don't understand what the issues are and what's at stake. There again this kind of discussion, even if uncomfortable at times, can't be a bad thing.

All to say: let's celebrate collective solutions. Let's loosen the vice grip of the "you do your thing, I'll do mine" mantra on our culture. Not abandon it altogether. Just temper it with some reality about the situation we now find ourselves in. After all, as Jrabbot and others said, we're all in it together.

I wanted to go on the record saying that I AM against "all impingements on people's personal liberties." I am against both seat belt laws and drug prohibitions. I don't believe in the right of an individual or a group to control my actions and behaviors.

I believe that you have the right to roll your eyes about my lifestyle but I don't believe you have the "right" to correct that life style. Who makes the judgement? I have a friend who, when I paid 600.00 dollars a toilet to get the lowest water consumption possible in the market, was offended because he felt I should have gone with a "humanure" system. That's right, a bucket. Then drag that bucket outside several times a day. My father thinks I'm crazy because I spent that amount of money on toilets when I could get a cheap used one that has the strong flush from before water use was an issue. Which one should I allow to control my actions? Which one should have that power? Each person needs to decide their own way. Will I pay extra for low flow toilets? Yes. Will I *** in a bucket for the next 20 years? No.

The point when you give up your individual freedoms and rights is the point where you assume some mythical "they" will know best. When you stop making your own decisions and turn that responsibility over to others. People do not pass laws to govern their own behavior. They can make their own choices quite well without laws. It's because they desire other individuals to have to live in the way that they believe is right.

I believe that all laws that inhibit personal freedom are a reflection of someone else having decided who I need to be and how I need to live... Something I'm quite capable of doing on my own.

There is a poem by Martin Niemoller that I have always felt was very moving. He began as an anti-communist and supported hitler in the beginning. As time passed he fought the system and eventually ended up in a concentration camp. It's often used as a statement about apathy, but it might also be a statement on what might be the opposite of apathy; aggression and judgement. It goes:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didnt speak up because I wasnt a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didnt speak up because I wasnt a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didnt speak up because I wasnt a Jew; And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Well, I'm speaking up for those people who don't believe in global warming (my father) and those that feel we should abandon indoor plumbing all together (my friend). I don't want you to force either of them to live by your standards. I want them to be free to follow their own beliefs.

WOW. Add this to the ever ongoing "form vs. function" debates and "which is better, induction or gas?"

Let's live and let live.

Erika I had to chuckle a little when I read your legislation comment. It's so true that you can't legislate people into doing things because often whatever legislation is adopted is based on anything BUT common sense! I live on the water so we have plenty of rules...you can't even put a stepping stone in your yard without permission, hot tubs are considered swimming pools... but the best one yet was when I was doing my kitchen and a plumber came out to give us an estimate. He, like myself, has lived here his whole life, we have plenty of friends who are watermen who make their living working the waterways in our area and are keenly aware of the effects of toxins and over fishing, crabbing, oystering the area. He said that one day he was mowing his property near the water and was stopped by a county official who told him he wasn't allowed to mow within 100 feet of the water. He said he hadn't removed any natural vegetation down by the waters edge and wanted to know how they suggested he maintain that part of his yard. Their priceless answer?! USE ROUND-UP!!! Yup you heard correctly, they told him that mowing using a new lawn mower that wasn't leaking anything was less preferable to putting a chemical that would surely make it's way into the water and have devastating effects on underwater plant life, not to mention the ripple effect it would have on anything else living in the water!!! He and I just shook our heads and laughed!

Kat :)

You can also have the logic like this:

big kitchen = big house = big mortgage = less disposable income = less $$ to eat out = more likely to cook in. :-)

As for cooking, I think most people would like to cook in an efficient, practical and beautiful kitchen. And when kitchen gets too large, it can lose some of the efficiency. My friend's kitchen is HUGE. She has in that kitchen: 1 42" SZ fridge, 1 60" La Cornu, 2 baking ovens, 1 convectional MW, 2 farmhouse sinks, 2 island or rather, continents since each is a/b the size of a king bed (1 island has sink, the other is for baking, rolling dough & sitting at), 1 full size dish washer, 2 dish drawers. In the adjacent walk in food pantry she has, 1 full size SZ fridge, 1 full size freezer, another sink, washer & dryer (for dish towels & kitchen linen only. The clothes laundry room is upstair). In the walk in butler pantry she has wine storage (takes up whole wall) dish storage (another wall) wine fridge. When I asked her how she cleaned her islands, she said, "on a stool, w/ a mop". That kitchen has a 'nook' that can sit 12 people. :-) She said it's more work to cook in that kitchen because she got tired just walking from one place to another. :-D I can totally sympathize.

viva, thanks for your thougtful post. In answer to your questions, I lean toward Libertarianism, so on most issues I stand on the side of less government intervention. The motto for my state of New Hampshire is "Live Free or Die" which reflects a more hands-off approach by government here: e.g., no seat belt or helmet laws, no sales or income tax, etc.

As far as being critical of other people's choices, I still prefer to err on the side of reserving judgment. It's so easy to be judgmental of people that you know nothing about. For example, here in northern New England, SUVs are a necessity for many people if they want to be able to get out of their driveways and up a hill during our long winters. The person with the huge house may also have a big extended family.

I endured racial bigotry as a child and it's made me very sensitive to prejudice of all kinds. And unlike another poster upthread, I don't think it's ok to be prejudiced against white people or rich people.

I totally agree that we shouldn't use people like Al Gore as an excuse not to endeavor to conserve our natural resources. I only point to people like him and President Obama because I've noticed a lot of hypocrisy and snobbery among eco-advocates.

I'm in favor of education as opposed to propaganda. And I think people should worry more about doing their own part in making this world a better place than what their neighbor is doing. This includes loving your fellow man, not just the planet and animals.

P.S. I'm not aware of any tax incentives for people purchasing SUVs, can you enlighten me?

Noob post here, so feel free to dismiss as noob material, but thought I should comment after reading this yesterday and getting quite the chuckle out of it.

First, the OP misconstrued a conclusion he/she made with a logical conclusion, a big fallacy for many people today. There was no logic involved and thus there really was no way to accurately argue the premise...it was an irrational thought process and you can argue with that.

The socially conscience discussion has been good. Although I tend to disagree whole-heartedly with any kind of "mandate" which tells me how to live, I do think we should be good stewards for what we have been given. I think the thing that drives me crazy about all the "green" talk is the fact that we in the US and Europe are completely fooling ourselves to think we are doing anything to curb global climate change (or whatever it is called these days) when China and India are far more damaging to the global environment than anything the US or Europe has ever done. I am not saying we should sit back and do nothing, don't get me wrong. But until these countries do something to curb their impact, anything we do will be like spitting into a forest fire. That is of course, if you buy the whole global climate change thing to begin with...a whole other discussion.

Al Gore and his money making carbon-credit business...not worth my time to delve into that...

Anyway, back to the thread...subjective reasoning is not synonymous with objective reasoning. Just because you like Vanilla Ice Cream does not mean it is the best flavor, and just because you think a "huge" kitchen might mean a person has wealth and lots of expendable income and therefore does not need to have such kitchen because they eat out all the time is just a personal (subjective) thought. It does not make it a logical (objective) thought.

A similarly false premise would go somethig like this: kids from rich niehgborhoods have successful parents as role models and will therefore be successful teenagers and adults...

The problem is introducing a subjective premise in the objective argument. It is not a logical argument, it is a personal argument. Thus the reason so many people take offense/feel compelled to respond to the OP.

Way off topic for a kitchen forum..hahaha

I don't know about incentives to buy SUVs, but there are incentives pending to junk them (along with trucks & minivans getting 18 mpg or less). See the linked article.

Here's an excerpt:
... Here's how the plan works: Car owners could get a voucher worth $3,500 if they traded in a vehicle getting 18 miles per gallon or less for one getting at least 22 mpg. The voucher would grow to $4,500 if the new car's mileage was 10 mpg higher than the old vehicle. The mpg figures are listed on the car's window sticker.

Owners of sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks or minivans getting 18 mpg or less could receive a voucher for $3,500 if their new truck or SUV got at least 2 mpg higher than their old vehicle. The voucher would increase to $4,500 if the mileage of the new truck or SUV was at least 5 mpg higher than the older vehicle.
. . .

Dealers would apply the vouchers to the purchase or lease of a qualifying vehicle and ensure that the older vehicles are crushed or shredded. The new vehicle must have a manufacturer's suggested retail price of less than $45,000. ...

Just a comment to noname-- Actually China and India are catching up to the U.S. amount of damage as they strive to further industrialize and catch up to our standard of living. The problem? They have MUCH higher populations, and therefore, if they ever were to reach our standard of living (the amount of energy we use per capita), the earth simply couldn't support it. So in fact, people in the U.S. have a much higher impact per person than people in China or India. And because they have such huge populations, do we tell them they're not "allowed" to strive to be like us? Interesting conundrum...

kmgard,

Precisely my point about those rising industrial nations. Do we, the upright (haha) improved first world countries tell other countries that they can not develop their nations "since the world can not afford it" (that was not quoted to you, but in a generalized 'PC people' of the world type of way). Or, do we let them industrialize, improve their nations, and pollute the h*** out of the world with all the emmissions those 2.5 billion people will create. It is an interesting conundrum, and one of the reasons why we in the US don't participate in the Kyoto treaty, because it applies different standards to the US vs nearly every other nation.

Having said that, I could go on and on about how our own gov't is living by one set of rules and making us live by a different set of rules, but I won't, not the subject at hand.

Kitchens, gotta stay on kitchens....;)

No one has mentioned sunspot cycles yet?

I kid, I kid. Sort of,....

Kidding is good, segbrown! Best to keep our sense of humor in all this.

Erikanh, I'm grateful for your posts as well. I can learn a lot from a careful, articulate thinker like you, and not just about kitchens! I lean toward the libertarian view on many issues, and my natural tendency is to err on the side of reserving judgment, avoiding conflict, getting along. Maybe it's not obvious, but I am trying to feel my way through this thicket of: what is our obligation to future generations? How much might all of this magnanimity and tolerance cost us in the long run? Is it just too high a price to pay? I don't know. (BTW, the tax incentive to buy SUV's was basically a loophole that allowed you to claim your vehicle as a business expense if it weighed more than 3 tons. At the same time, carbon emissions allowances were relaxed for SUV's because they were placed in in the truck category, unlike cars. FWIW I live in the rural NE also, so I know all about the need for 4-wheel drive and high clearance. Most people I know choose to drive subarus and VW wagons anyway. When I lived in L.A., that is where I saw the greatest concentration of the biggest SUV's anywhere. Of course that was before "peer pressure" set in -- now it's much "cooler" to drive a hybrid. )

Morgne, I'm actually with you on the seat belt laws and drug prohibitions. Maybe I should have used more pointed examples, starting with speed limits, litter laws, zoning restrictions that prevent someone from putting a Nascar track next to your house -- are you against all of those laws too? Then I might move into darker territory, like actual crimes with actual victims, and wonder if you thought anyone had a right to "correct those lifestyles", e.g. the person who says, "How dare anyone impinge on my personal choice to beat my wife?" etc. You say that people can make their own choices quite well without laws." I don't doubt that you can --you are clearly a person who considers the consequences of his/her choices, and acts accordingly (as with the low-flow toilet). But are you really so confident about everybody else? Enough that you are willing to risk our kids' and grandkids' and great grandkids future on it? Couldn't one just as easily apply Neimoller's words to the destruction of the planet, lamenting the disastrous complacency (and apparent apathy) behind the "live and let live" mantra? Isn't that what the person in the quotation regrets so deeply -- having lived and let live (the Nazis), instead of standing up?

I'm not saying I have the answer. I just think it's a really, really, important question. And I really, really appreciate all the above divergent perspectives on it.

I think all of this is really another way of saying you have a right to do something as long as it doesn't infringe on someone elses rights. So, with the example of wife beating, it wouldn't be acceptable b/c the person doing the beating is infringing on the rights of his wife.

I just found this quote from the National Platform of the Libertarian Party/Statement of Principles:
"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."
Whether this can be extended to include the planet as a whole (or, taking it even further, the multi-verse), I don't have an answer...it's definitely food for thought.

Who determines what's "best" (as others have pointed out) or who is even qualified to know what's best?

For several decades we've had the attitude that "science will fix everything" and so we've trusted the scientists to know and do what's best and to rescue us from things like famine, pollution, etc. But they don't know everything and they're just as human as we are and subjected to peer pressure to spout whatever is politically correct right now (or risk losing funding, standing in the scientific community, ridicule, etc.) Look at Galileo and others. At one time, everyone was absolutely certain the Earth was the center of the universe and that everything revolved around it, or when everyone was convinced the Earth was flat...this included respected scientists... They even thought they all had proof to support these beliefs. It wasn't until additional data they didn't have before started showing how things were NOT fitting together as well as everyone thought that people started questioning...but it took a long time for most people (including scientists) to believe what the data was telling them. Whether we like to admit it or not, many scientists have their "pet theories" that they stick to no matter what. Again, it's human to not want to be wrong & it's difficult to admit it!

Hmmm...this has gotten way off track from "huge kitchens", but it's very stimulating! I love these kinds of discussions...I just never thought I'd have one here!

Well said, Buehl. It's all pretty crazy complicated.

I just want to apologize for going so far to the dark side on a kitchens forum (I'm refering to my wife-beating reference). Yikes! I guess I don't run into this much diversity of opinion in my everyday 3D existence, so I kind of got carried away. Hope I didn't upset or offend anyone.

Well, yeah, if someone is beating his wife, there is a clear victim. Seatbelts and motorcycle helmet rules do infringe on personal rights, so they are more controversial, but still there is a lot of evidence behind their utility. And they don't cost very much at all.

The sticking point with the global warming stuff is that there isn't clearcut evidence that human emissions are causing it. Yes, the climate is changing. That's obvious. But the climate always changes. I made the sunspot crack because lack of solar activity in the past has heralded a mini ice age, and there was less activity this past year than in decades before, blah blah blah... Some researchers say the earth has actually cooled slightly since 1998.

But many of the proposed changes are so, so expensive for being essentially experimental. We know for certain that stopping wife-beating will result in fewer injuries to women.

Well, that's probably as controversial as I need to get. I'm not trying to debunk global warming or get into some big debate about it ... and I am definitely not claiming to even believe one side over the other. I'm just presenting the more laissez-faire side of it. Many are *honestly* not sure about it and don't believe that spending billions of dollars is the way to go.

I think peer pressure toward excessive consumption is okay, although we don't know that it is always properly placed. That's what bugs me about demonizing Hummer drivers. (And why Al Gore gets the flak he does.) Article from last week:

'You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint -- the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.

'So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.

'Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.

'Its authors point out an array of factors that are often unknown to the public. ...'

Viva99,

I wanted to reply to your exact examples. 1) Speed Limits: I absolutely believe these are a crock. Setting aside the issue that speeding tickets are a punishment that hurt only the poor (anyone with money can speed as much as they like and simply pay a fine) there have been many, many studies that deny any additional saftey being provided by speed limits.

(here is one: http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm)

2) Litter Laws: I'd say that the amount of people who deliberately toss trash on the street is tiny.. but those who are doing it are not stopping because there is a law. They might check over there shoulder for a cop but that's about it. There are other ways to handle this (my state charges more at the dump for an uncovered load than a covered one. No law enacted but a heck of an incentive to keep things from flying out of the back of the truck). If I were to support a law it would not include a fine for the same reason I don't like the speeding fines. Perhaps jail time or mandatory community service? That at least would be equal despite wealth/standing.

3)zoning restrictions: I actually do support types of zoning restrictions and am a loyal hater of nascar. Actually, I had a "newspaper distributor" next door to my house for three years. Every morning at 2:00 - 4:00 huge trucks with lift gates would come along... Lemme just say it was awefull. However a zoning restriction should cover the items of one person forcing themselves on someone else (their noise or lights upon their neighbors). If my neighbor wants to run a strip club in his house with the blinds down, well, hopefully he'll spot me a pint.

I am NOT confident that others can do as well as I can without laws. In fact, I'm okay with saying I'm doing better than everyone else in that regard.

The gentleman who wrote the poem, Niemoller, doesn't regret having not stood up to the Nazi's. He regrets BEING a nazi. He was a pastor who supported the rise of Hitler because he was anti-communist. Then when Hitler placed the government ahead of the church he changed his mind. His poem was a statement (I think) on the dangers of judgement. He made his judgement and supported hitler because he felt he could make others judgements for them. Then he laments that he had not understood that to begin making a judgement is to guarantee you will be judged by others.

I fear the result of judgement by others more than I fear nascar. And that's saying something!

>> Who determines what's "best" (as others have pointed out) or who is even qualified to know what's best?

buehl, this is exactly what I've been trying to say, but you expressed it so much more concisely. I enjoy these types of discussions too, and even though I believe swampwiz is a troll (see his recent comments on ptyre's thread), it's so interesting to read everyone's viewpoints.

viva, I don't think you said anything at all offensive. The distinction about laws being important to protect innocent people is significant.

noname, you're obviously not a noob at all! Very thought-provoking comments.

segbrown, thanks for linking that article about public transporation ... interesting read. Your point about lack of evidence reminds me of a blog I was reading some time ago extolling the green quality of concrete countertops. The article failed to mention, however, that most concrete countertops are made with portland cement which is made by mining limestone in large, often environmentally-destructive quarries and burning it into dust using enormous quantities of coal, a major contributor of greenhouse gases. Creating portland cement also releases dangerous quantities of mercury, arsenic, lead and other hazardous pollutants into the atmosphere. You can achieve enviro-friendly concrete countertops by salvaging cement from demolition projects, but I'd hazard to guess only a tiny percentage of countertops are made that way.

Hey, look! I managed to turn the discussion back to kitchens! =)

Way to bring it back to kitchens, Erikanh! I thought we'd gone past the point of no return!

It's definitely interesting to note that what seems "greenest" in one light can sometimes become a lot browner when seen from other angles, like your concrete counters example. I guess that's why it's so tempting for people to throw up their hands and give up trying to do the right thing. I am for the moment resisting that temptation, because I think over all I'm getting a pretty good sense of what's pretty indisputably beneficial -- things like buying local seasonal foods, insulating my house, minimizing my trash output, not wasting water, driving less, buying a higher-mileage car, etc. As to the finer points of CO2 emissions and methane gas and anthropogenic global warming (or not), I will let the experts hash that out. And as I said earlier, I don't mind reducing my carbon footprint (to use an expression that makes some here scream!) because it entails things I'd be doing anyway, just to keep the air, rivers, etc. clean and thriving. If the global warming camp were to start recommending that I stop exercising, paint my house black... things that made absolutely NO INTUITIVE SENSE to me, then I would spend a lot more time and energy questioning those recommendations.

One last point -- the reason I brought up crimes that had clear victims (and I'm not going to mention those horrible crimes by name again) is because I don't consider damage to the environment to be a victimless crime. Obviously there is an absence of malice, and obviously the process of victimization is more nebulous, but I don't see it in the same category as clearly victimless crimes like seatbelt negligence and drug use. Just my HO.

Viva, You've made excellent posts. I agree with all of them except that personally I am not ambiguous in my position at all about individual rights in a, by now, quite crowded society.

And to the person(s) who thinks that all this talk about conservation, footprint awareness etc. is impinging on their personal freedoms or is discriminatory etc., I have to tell you that your personal choices are impacting my ability to take in a lungful of air. This is all Cheney-speak: that conservation is just "personal virtue" - meanwhile, while you can thrash all you like, but the reality is that we are facing an environmental crisis. Someone thinks that the earth is cooling? Meanwhile the island of Greenland is becoming the new granary of the world. Sea Level changes and the melting of the polar ice caps is documented and is threatening coasts.

To the others still on the fence about global warming and human involvement, I urge you to read any one or more of the writings of or attend lectures by Dr. James Hansen, a NASA climatologist who has been collecting, observing and monitoring trends since the 70s or prior. Here's a link to several of Doc Hansen's most recent writings from his Columbia University site.

Scepticism of our role aside, that fact is that at the end of the day, it matters little whether we did the trick or something else did the deed. The fact is that the earth is warming much too fast - btw, it is in the dynamics that the real nugget behind the problem lies, not in the actual temperature, because it is also detectable fact that the earth has been "warmer" in the past. However, not in the history of the world (the *detectable* history of the world) has the earth warmed so quickly so rapidly - rapid rate changes in any system indicate that you may be close to its instability. It is also fact that current human lifestyle is only stressing the trend towards warming and, actually, segbrown, scientific publications show that it is the dominant driving factor.

Buehl is correct that there are often political coersions for scientists to speak a certain way. And if you consider the political and sociological climate we just were in, it is all the more impressive, is it not then, the solidarity of opinion about climate change?

Anyhow, while I am singularly unimpressed with the psychology behind scientific thought and all that, I will say that if you all are unimpressed with the seriousness of the problem, you're spending much more effort on your kitchens than on basic general knowledge. At the risk of giving more offense, I'd urge you all to read the news, if nothing else, with a bit more regularity. Maybe you'll pass up on a smidge of info on kitchen minutiae, but I'll wager we'll all be the better for it. Seriously ... and, this is not just a flip comment - there are some serious inducements being now offered up for people to use sustainable products in their remodels and you may find something financially lucrative in making choices that help a problem that you may not believe in but that will nonetheless help us out.

Cheers.

Why was Greenland named Greenland in the first place? I don't think it was because it was so cold. Climate change is an evolutionary reality of our planet. If we claim to believe in evolution and science we should be willing to recognize the implications of our beliefs. Our human time on this planet is brief and we are so shortsighted in thinking that our experiences define the earth.

Actually, the earth provides its own telemetry - and the scientific theories being propounded are based on data tapping this telemetry dating back eons before the existence of man. As I said, if you read about this subject for yourself instead of just taking the path of least resistance/effort, you'll be able to see for yourself the basis of the [rational] arguments used both for and against.

There are a couple theories about the name. One is that it was called "Greenland" to encourage settlers to emigrate from Iceland. The other is that it is a form of Groundland. Yet another is that the southern part of it may have been more temporate in a period of climatic mildness in the medieval period.

I agree with buehl too, but she didn't say that scientists feel coercion from politicians like Cheney, she said they feel pressured to support what is politically correct. Alarm over madmade global warming is the politically correct stance.

I'm often amused by self-proclaimed "progressive" thinkers who assume that those who disagree with them are ill-informed and uneducated. If you question the validity of manmade global warming you're ignorant and too wrapped up in your kitchen to even watch the news.

And yet, there are a large number of well-respected climatists around the world who disagree with Hansen and his ilk. I assume they are well-informed on the subject and that they even watch the news.

Last year, NASA's top administrator, Michael Griffin said on NPR that he doubted global warming is "a problem we must wrestle with," and that it is arrogant to believe that today's climate is the best we could have and that "we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change." James Hansen was quick to condemn his boss's remarks, but other scientists around the world came to Griffin's defense.

William Kininmonth, a former head of the Australian National Climate Centre: "I certainly support Griffin's comments. Not only is it speculative to claim that humans can in any way influence the course of climate but it is arrogant to suggest that today's climate is getting worse than it has been in the past. For example, who would prefer to return to pre-industrial conditions as they were during the Little Ice Age?"

Kansas geologist, Lee Gerhard: "Griffin's statement focuses on the hubris that affects much of public policy. It is great to know that someone out there besides geologists understand that humans do not dominate earth's dynamic systems."

Dr. Patrick Michaels, UVA: "NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's statement about whether or not it is in fact a "problem" is supported by a scientific literature that his employee, James Hansen, appears to ignore. It is ironic that today President Bush appears to have given in to Hansen's hysteria rather than to the calm reason of NASA Administrator Griffin."

Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl: "I have always believed that the people who actually work with hard sciences and technology simply shouldn't buy a cheap and soft pseudoscientific propaganda such as the 'fight against climate change."

On a personal note, I may not be sure what to believe concerning man's contribution to climate change, but I do believe we are all stewards of the planet and we owe it to future generations to try our hardest to leave it in the best condition possible for them. How we achieve that goal as a society is open to debate, but I come down on the side of personal responsibility, education and minimal government intervention.

And not a day later, both he and his handlers were issuing clarifications about it.
Griffin is a fine man; he is a technical man who was handed a politician's job. He is patently not a politician and his political ineptitude-based fumbles were legion during his reign. Some, like this one, made the news. Others only made news with those who work in the space community.

Suffice it to say that as a NASA administrator the comment he tried to make is absolutely correct (i.e. to this day NASA is getting money to launch satellites to STUDY, observe, document etc. climate change: Jason, GRACE, Aquarius etc. and it would be unseemly for the administrator to be seen taking a firm position on a subject they are being funded to do basic studies on). The way he delivered it suggested to anyone listening just what you (and I at the time) interpret from the comments.

Anyhow, there are not "a large number of well-respected climatists around the world" who disagree with Hansen - there are a large number of them who work with or who's work corroborates his. There was, instead, heavy-weights (political) putting a muzzle on Hansen during the previous administration - perhaps that is the "well-respected climatists" of which you speak.
And lastly, erikanh, I think your characterization of *my* dismissal of opposing points of view is accurate in your case. There are some here who've made cogent opposing arguments but I still think they're missing some key facts. But I'd say you've summed up my opinion of you pretty well. ;-)

"I will say that if you all are unimpressed with the seriousness of the problem, you're spending much more effort on your kitchens than on basic general knowledge. At the risk of giving more offense, I'd urge you all to read the news, if nothing else, with a bit more regularity. Maybe you'll pass up on a smidge of info on kitchen minutiae, but I'll wager we'll all be the better for it. "

You said "you all" twice, but now you're saying "you all" meant just me ... ok, sure. Very prudent of you to backpedal on calling everyone in the thread who disagrees with you ignorant.

Unlike yourself, Griffin never retracted his statements, he merely apologized for stirring up controversy, as anyone in the scientific community is wont to do if they dare question the accepted politically correct stance.

I provided quotes from two climatists -- Michaels and Kininmoth -- and I could post more but I won't bother since it's obvious you'd dismiss those too. My purpose in providing all of those quotes from various scientists was to point out that there are well-informed, highly educated intellectuals who (horrors!!) disagree with you. Maybe they don't count because they don't come from Cambridge. Oh wait, Motl is a Harvard man ... oops.

It seems that progressive thinking doesn't always include keeping an open mind. =)

I can't believe that I am posting this on a KITCHEN forum, but some misinformation about Al Gore's house going around. Since he bought the Tennessee home it's been in the process of numerous upgrades. It's not strictly a private home - both Al and Tipper work out of their home and employ people who work there as well.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_that_al_gores_mansion.html

ok, i get the whole don't-tell-me-what-to-do-with-my-life thing but some are against seat belt laws? maybe they were put in place because hospitals were overrun with crash victims whose faces were flying through windshields, along with their infants and children. maybe the seat belt laws were put into place to cut rising medical costs caused by people too stupid to buckle up. so maybe health care is out of control anyway, but just think where it would be if there were people flying out of cars every 23 seconds ...or however often an accident occurs. and maybe, they were put in place to protect the lives of children too young to make the decision themselves. i know, i know, you made them so you can kill them. but shouldn't we give them the opportunity to grow up and build the 2000 square foot kitchens of their dreams? please, let's be reasonable!

The OP said, to put it another way: "they could do the job in a smaller kitchen," those folks with huge kitchens.
This may be the core focus the OP was interested in, when he asked if they "really use" their large kitchen.
Too great a distance and you've got a space that is hard to work in. Too many steps.

Ancillary question 1:
About eco footprint:
The more high-quality your refrigeration capacity is, the longer your produce keeps; organics spoil sooner in cheap fridges.
The more refrigeration capacity you have at home, the less strain you put on the refrigerated distribution retail system.

Ancillary question 2:
"Huge kitchen --> wealthy homeowner --> eat out, or eat "delivered food"
Disgusting. Oh, please.
Please, people, let's remember that the wealthiest don't go exposing themselves to restaurant situations as a general rule.
Food prepared by strangers presents risks, unknowable, un-evaluat-able.
Also, crowd situations present risks, social interaction risks of all kinds, and the wealthier one is deemed to be, the bigger these social risks become.
Whether one eats out or not has little to do with one's wealth.

---
OTOH, people who just LIKE to go to restaurants or have food delivered certainly are limited by their available cash or credit.
People who like to spend are not savers and are not wealthy.
They may have enough to spend, today, but this is temporary affluence, equivalent psychologically to a day laborer blowing it all the same night.
So a "desire and means to eat out often, or get expensive take-out" can be said to have a ($, in cash or credit) Limiting Factor.
This $ limiting factor is not correlated to the number of steps between the sink, fridge and cooktop.
And also not correlated to the quality of the appliances.
----

I've avoided this thread, giving it the briefest of perusal, but one statement I came across rings true:

Swampwiz is a troll.

Judging by his (is he a he?) inactivity on this thead, it could appear he started the thread and sat back to watch his version of entertainment ensue. He wields an insult pretty well too.

Lol. Seatbelts were created in the early 1900's. They were not intended to protect you in the case of a crash they were intended to keep you in the vehicle as you drove on the bumpy nonroads they had then.

Even now there is no Federal seat belt law. The state "laws" have only been being put in place for the last 40 years and not all states have them (new hampshire has none - Those guys are my kind of people).

But I'll go you one better. Let's save the lives of all our children and stop using automobiles all together. 63% of people killed in auto accidents are not wearing seatbelts... but 37% ARE. Let's reduce driving speeds to 30 mph for long distance driving and restrict inner city driving to scooters, bicycles and other alternative forms or transportation. Then there would be a significant savings in life and injuries, people generally speaking would not need car insurance at all (because most would not own them), and the states/fed would spend comparitively no money on the issue at all.

I mean let's be reasonable. There's no where you need to be that is worth risking my life as a pedestrian that you need to get there at 60 mph instead of 30 mph.

Just a quick clarification. New Hampshire is the only state with neither a primary nor secondary seat belt law. (Primary means they can pull you over for no seat belt, secondary means they can cite you but only if they've pulled you over for some other reason.)

However, New Hampshire state law requires that children under age 6 or under 55" tall be restrained in a federally approved car seat or booster seat that is appropriate for the child's age and weight. The law in New Hampshire further requires that all children under age 18 must wear a properly fastened seat belt.

Fascinating. Time to say Amen

still here