Maybe their house is powered by carbon neutral power generation, too. It's not always zero sum.
Airtight, properly insulated and ventilated structures are a way to reduce energy consumption. They are also very comfortable and healthy IAQ-wise.
A 5,000 sq. ft. (500 sq. m) structure can use as little as 2000W (2 kW, i.e. a hair dryer) to keep the inside properly conditioned:
A modern building with modern and super expensive insulation use less heating power. Ironically the second comment of your video says "Actually the major key to success is an unlimited budget."
What a discovery. That's not the case of 99,99% of buildings on this planet though.
However, the article you are commenting just says that before buying tens of thousands dollars of insulating material that you'll have to install somehow, the first thing you can do is wearing a pull over and a pair of socks.
Nobody says that you have to choose between insulating your home or your body. Just do both if you can.
However most people in the world already live in an existing building. Insulating an existing building is not what I would call cheap, especially if you are still paying a mortgage.
Most existing houses get a significant remodel once in a while as well. If you are doing that you should bring the changed areas to better code. Much siding only lasts for 25 years, so just put insulation under it while doing the regular replacement can make a big difference as well for not much more since you have to pay for a lot of labor.
Which is already being addressed:
> Key to the PGH approach is balancing expenditures and gains. Where other programs use specific energy-use targets or other criteria, and the building code establishes a baseline (“the worst house you can legally build”), a PGH goes above code until it stops making financial sense. On some new homes, that may be not far above code, and on other projects performance may rival that of a Passive House, but in most cases it will be somewhere in between those two standards.
* https://www.prettygoodhouse.org/economics
Being able to live at 22C, 40-60% RH, and filtered air exchange via ERV, isn't as difficult as going to the moon. An increase of 5-10% in building cost for better air sealing, a little more insulation (and reducing thermal bridging), and some mechanicals isn't crazy.
Yes but you forgot the part where the vast majority of the world population don't live in a brand new building.
Insulating my not so old house (1998) to be up to the modern norms would cost me something like 50/60k€.
I grew up in a house built in ~1898. I know about old houses. There was still some piping in it for gas lighting (before electricity was "invented").
Heated buildings are a pretty awesome way to adapt to cold natural conditions.
If I had gas heating or fossil electricity I would probably have a different view of it. I mean right now it's mostly just economics: either I spend on insulation, or renewable energy, or I don't spend and lower the thermostat.
Funny, I find it weird to dress (so) differently indoors to out in winter. Why should it take more preparation to leave my house in winter than in summer? That seems like a defect.
I am actively working on plans for a new home construction that will meet PassivHaus standards and use FAR FAR FAR less energy than the place I currently live, and be able to use primarily locally sourced renewable (rooftop solar) for the majority of its energy requirements. This is both much better for the environment, and much better for my quality of life, and doesn't require me to wear thermals and pajamas with fur slippers to bed under two duvets in order to not freeze to death while I'm sleeping. I don't understand the mindset of someone who would bust their ass working in order to live like a pauper pre-industrial revolution. I work so I can afford to have luxuries like indoor plumbing, effective heating and cooling, and comfort-based climate controls.
The environment is a major concern for me, and I applaud folks for thinking of ways for humanity to use less energy, but going without what I consider to be basic modern amenities is not the way. We can use modern technology to drastically (like several orders of magnitude) reduce our energy usage without resorting to a drop in quality of life.
And I remember the time when we had poor insulation, mostly in windows - it was misery to stay indoors in a sweater, still feeling a bit cold, but in warm sneakers, and feet sweating. Triple-glass packet windows were a blessing!
Have you considered that maybe your sweater could be comfortable?
When you go outside, you're going to want a sweater on anyway. Why is it better to have to change your clothes when you go inside and outside?
Not necessarily. Underwear I'll grant, it'd be uncomfortable not to, but otherwise I don't see why one has to wear clothes.
Also, do blankets count as clothes? You (or I, at least :-)) can easily be comfortable "wearing" just a blanket and underwear at a temp of around 10 °C.
I'm sure people here are having so much disagreement because they live in very different climates.
I stayed some days in Italy in winter, and their indoor heating was just minimal, it was like +17 C (62 F). I did find it miserable. You can't take a shower quietly, because it's cold in the bathroom too, and you must dress up very very quickly. How do people in such places go to the toilet when they wake up at night? Do they sleep dressed? Or dress up, or just endure the cold for couple of minutes?
I'll find it ok to put on a sweater for the most cold week or two in a year, but not for months.
Similarly, a cold climate is where it gets hot inside in the summer. And then there is coastal California, which has elements of both.
This is an important distinction to make. By omitting it your original comment seems to be purposely touting a lack of concern for personal emissions reduction.