According to the article, James and Kathleen Seligman decided to build a green second home in Three Rivers, California. The 969 sf, two-bedroom house has double-paned windows, energy-efficient appliances, clay-based wall coverings and no paint, and non-toxic cotton insulation. Additionally, the house was designed to accomodate solar panels (not sure if they were actually installed), sustainably harvested wood was used, and construction debris was recycled, as opposed to going to the landfill. Note however, they decided to go with the granite counters for stylistic purposes, rather than opt for some of the other sustainable counters on the market. But for the most part, this is a fairly impressive green home.

James and Kathleen also have their first home in Three Rivers, so this home will be lived in occassionally and rented out to tourists the rest of the time. Which brings us back to our initial inquiry. How green can a second home be? I think, imho, to determine whether a second home can be green, one must look to the first home. In this situation, the second home is an investment and many of the green features serve to lower operating costs, but as it relates to James and Kathleen, have they lessened their incremental impact on the environment at all? Not that I know of. Sure, it's better to build a green second home than a non-green second home, but in reality, the question of greenness cannot be separated from the occupants or the people. What changes do we see in the people? That's what going green is all about. Incremental change on a going forward basis.

So to answer the queston posed by the title to this post, one must look a little deeper. What is happening to the people? Any home can be a green home, but the question of whether something is or is not green also depends on the circumstances. Look at the circumstances and you decide. You tell me, how green can a second home be?

Image via Nancy Doniger.