Counterpoint, I don’t mind people owning a second home on the basis of climate change. There are so many other bigger fish to fry in that realm rather than wasting resources limiting a small group of people with the means of affording a second home. I would much rather people with the means of owning a second home having to pledge to improve the carbon footprint of the second home through things like adding solar panels, smart landscaping, etc. That way when the house is eventually let go its more sustainable and environmentally friendly then when it started.
Poverty almost certainly costs more than all this ecologically, socially, and financially. The suffering and stress of the unhoused spills over into the lives of others who interact with or observe them, increasing our collective societal stress levels, increasing hospital visits, pushing people to earlier deaths (especially, of course, among the ultra-poor), and leading to expenses involving their unplanned funerals and messier aftermaths as opposed to cleanly laid-out wills, lost/absent documentation, etc.
Poverty drives people to violence and crime when they feel unheard and ignored. What if that house could help people find some peace in their lives? Instead maybe they become the very ones who rob and wreck it out of desperation. Societies need to help all people to keep the peace.
All those things cost carbon. All those vacation homes require a huge amount of infrastructure. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Notice how the first R is reduce? “Luxury” condos in urban areas now houses locals.
And as for the endless stretches of “cabins” that are just suburbs by a different name? Strip out the hazardous waste, strip anything easily reusable and let it return to nature. Re-foresting happens very quickly. Perhaps encourage some native, climate appropriate plants.
That is the bummer, it’s all going to cost carbon and it’s all going to happen regardless if we ban people owning a second house. As long as the population keeps increasing, the demand for more new houses will naturally increase regardless of what we do to curb demand for second houses.
So I see it as a necessary evil. One in which I am of the opinion that that if we are going to screw with the environment and increase our footprint on nature then lets make it worth it.
For example, lets demolish more woodland but instead of single family housing, lets build a 30 story condominium with the first 2 levels being a shopping center, the next 3 being rentable office space, 20 levels for condominiums, and the last 5 being for entertainment, restaurants, and leisure. Hell create sub basement levels for parking. Is the construction bigger than building a house in the woods? sure. But in the long run by building vertically the overall footprint is much less than building a sub division, strip mall, individual restaurants, and a business zone.
I would much rather devote efforts into making that a reality than policing people from getting a second house. Hell, really try to market it to that demographic just so that we can combat the NIMBY attitude people have to vertical urban development and we will probably have more net good to the climate compared to anything else we do in urban development.
Yes! I get on Google maps and look at Hong Kong sometimes. Bit of an extreme example but it doesn’t seem terrible. Tall buildings interspersed with nature. You get the best of both worlds. I could live like that. I’m not gonna say single family should be outright banned, but this endless suburbia we’ve got going on is terrible for everyone, the environment especially.
Seriously get on Google Earth and go for a walk about Hong Kong. They don’t do everything perfectly, but it is impressive. We could be living so much better.
Counterpoint, I don’t mind people owning a second home on the basis of climate change. There are so many other bigger fish to fry in that realm rather than wasting resources limiting a small group of people with the means of affording a second home. I would much rather people with the means of owning a second home having to pledge to improve the carbon footprint of the second home through things like adding solar panels, smart landscaping, etc. That way when the house is eventually let go its more sustainable and environmentally friendly then when it started.
Poverty almost certainly costs more than all this ecologically, socially, and financially. The suffering and stress of the unhoused spills over into the lives of others who interact with or observe them, increasing our collective societal stress levels, increasing hospital visits, pushing people to earlier deaths (especially, of course, among the ultra-poor), and leading to expenses involving their unplanned funerals and messier aftermaths as opposed to cleanly laid-out wills, lost/absent documentation, etc.
Poverty drives people to violence and crime when they feel unheard and ignored. What if that house could help people find some peace in their lives? Instead maybe they become the very ones who rob and wreck it out of desperation. Societies need to help all people to keep the peace.
A lot of these issues can be or begin to be solved by giving them small apartments like in Finland. Homelessness ultimately costs society more than the actual cost to home them, ironically. We’ll see, I suppose: https://www.nprillinois.org/illinois/2025-03-19/housing-experts-worry-about-federal-plans-to-cut-homelessness-programs
All those things cost carbon. All those vacation homes require a huge amount of infrastructure. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Notice how the first R is reduce? “Luxury” condos in urban areas now houses locals.
And as for the endless stretches of “cabins” that are just suburbs by a different name? Strip out the hazardous waste, strip anything easily reusable and let it return to nature. Re-foresting happens very quickly. Perhaps encourage some native, climate appropriate plants.
It’s inconvenient AF. But it’s where we’re at.
That is the bummer, it’s all going to cost carbon and it’s all going to happen regardless if we ban people owning a second house. As long as the population keeps increasing, the demand for more new houses will naturally increase regardless of what we do to curb demand for second houses.
So I see it as a necessary evil. One in which I am of the opinion that that if we are going to screw with the environment and increase our footprint on nature then lets make it worth it.
For example, lets demolish more woodland but instead of single family housing, lets build a 30 story condominium with the first 2 levels being a shopping center, the next 3 being rentable office space, 20 levels for condominiums, and the last 5 being for entertainment, restaurants, and leisure. Hell create sub basement levels for parking. Is the construction bigger than building a house in the woods? sure. But in the long run by building vertically the overall footprint is much less than building a sub division, strip mall, individual restaurants, and a business zone.
I would much rather devote efforts into making that a reality than policing people from getting a second house. Hell, really try to market it to that demographic just so that we can combat the NIMBY attitude people have to vertical urban development and we will probably have more net good to the climate compared to anything else we do in urban development.
Yes! I get on Google maps and look at Hong Kong sometimes. Bit of an extreme example but it doesn’t seem terrible. Tall buildings interspersed with nature. You get the best of both worlds. I could live like that. I’m not gonna say single family should be outright banned, but this endless suburbia we’ve got going on is terrible for everyone, the environment especially.
Seriously get on Google Earth and go for a walk about Hong Kong. They don’t do everything perfectly, but it is impressive. We could be living so much better.