Keep in mind that windows and doors needn't be replaced to improve
their performance dramatically. Depending on the design, single-
glazed timber windows can often be converted to double-glazing by
cutting out reveal profiles and substituting glazing beads.
Similarly, reliefs can be cut to accommodate widely-available
synthetic sealing profiles. That way there is less wastage of
resources (perhaps rare hardwoods), and the money goes to local
skilled labour rather than to centralized heavy industry.
I'm worried about the emerging big-business/eco-authoritarian
approach that would foist new, mass-produced "approved" windows and
doors on us, when the same immediate result can be achieved by
gentler means whose systemic repercussions render them far more
sustainable in the long run.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "Matt Hohmeister"
> My house is anything but "green": it was built in 1951 and has the
original windows and
> outside doors. Fortunately, the biggest energy user (HVAC) was
installed in 1995, so it's not a
> noisemaking energy hog.
> If I weren't renting the house, there are a handful of energy-
saving tricks up a homeowner's
> sleeve: insulate the subfloor, new doors and windows, etc.
> It seems that "energy efficient" buildings are actually "energy
elsewhere" buildings. The
> building owner can develop on cheap land in a distant suburb,
receive massive subsidies for
> building a so-called "green" building, get a free ad on page 1A of
the local newspaper, and
> the building's true energy cost is passed to
employees/customers/visitors, who have to pay
> their own way out there.