One of the chief goals of the Living Home project was to involve students in the learning process. 
Several paradoxes face the environmental designer and the conscientious consumer. The following are examples of the sort of critical thinking Lethbridge College students have been engaged through the design of The Living Home.
Paradox I: Solving a consumption crisis with more consumption.
Does it always make sense to upgrade to more efficient products?
Everything made requires energy to extract the raw materials, to manufacture the product, to transport, to maintain, and to dispose, and everything that is made creates pollution. It takes, for instance, a considerable amount of energy to manufacture the components of a photovoltaic panel. Pollution emitted to the air, water and soil includes an array of heavy metals, particulates, acids, and volatile organic compounds linked to several health issues and the environment.
Does it make sense to install more insulation, better windows, an upgraded furnace?
Yes and no. To consume is to pollute. If you pollute now to reduce more pollution in the future, the decision may be justified. Consuming energy now to reduce energy consumption in the future is an easy decision. Unfortunately, we are often reducing one type of pollution by increasing another type.
Paradox II: Renewable energy is non-renewable.
Are solar panels, wave power and wind turbines free, non-polluting sources of energy. Not really.
It depends on how much energy is created over the life cycle of the technology, and what pollution is avoided. The good news is that these technologies will produce more energy over the expected life than it took to make the technology, so they do work.
In reality, these alternative technologies create only a tiny fraction of the electricity we use, no more than six per cent. In Alberta, it’s roughly one per cent. To manufacture, install and maintain these technologies requires a substantial amount of fossil fuel energy. If we do not invest significantly and immediately in renewable energy technologies, renewable energy will remain non-renewable.
Paradox III: Self-sustainability is not sustainable.
Self-sustainability has a “stick-it- to-the-man” appeal: slather the home in solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal heating, wastewater recycling systems, a half metre of insulation in the walls and ceiling, and so on. Unfortunately, if every home was build this way, it would consume multiple earths before becoming sustainable. In other words, contrary to common perception, this approach to home design is not sustainable, and arguably not even environmentally friendly.
Self-sustainable thinking externalizes much of the impact and costs to the environment without properly accounting for the real costs. Taking advantage of the environment as a sink for our wastes without assessing the ultimate costs has led us to the emerging environmental crisis.
Sustainability, in the more holistic sense of the term, will require efficient and communal infrastructure. In Lethbridge, for example, we have a state-of-the-art water treatment and wastewater treatment system, with piping systems designed for optimum performance. For each person to collect, filter, disinfect, and re-use wastewater would be neither as efficient nor as cost-effective. The appeal of self-sustainability should not blind us to the bigger picture.
Paradox IV: The more you waste, the more you save.
Most green products and systems are expensive; many never pay back their costs. Some “zero-energy” homes invest more than $100,000 to save $1,000 each year in utilities. Furthermore, much of the advertising suggests better returns on investment than are readily achieved.
For example, a tankless (on-demand) water heater is much more efficient than a standard water heater with a tank. But it is only saving you energy (and money) when you are heating water. So, using more hot water improves the rate of payback for the additional costs of this system. In other words, by conserving hot water you will take longer to pay back the additional costs of the water heater.
Paradox V: Being a business person in the home, and philanthropist in the car.
The last paradox is that we tend to make business-minded decisions when building or renovating our homes, and place different values on our automobiles. We look at the cost payback on the high-efficiency dishwasher and find that our rate of return is five per cent annually for 15 years, whereas we could invest in stocks and make more. The next minute, we walk into a car lot and buy a fast convertible that will depreciate half its value in two years.
Is it not possible to use the same value system for the home? What about buying a solar water heater because it reduces our footprint on the planet? Or another system will make a home more comfortable and healthier? Maybe the payback is poor or even non-existent, but it makes the owner feel good (and can replace the white silk scarf with a comfortable cardigan).
