Confusion is a powerful marketing tool. It often plays a fundamental role – sometimes for the better, but usually not – in the marketing of a wide variety of products and ideas, from consumer goods to government policy and political candidates to, most certainly, homes. And when it comes to the latter, consumers face few sources of confusion more potent than the word green.

绿色很好。绿色昂贵。绿色会拯救你的钱。绿色是节能。绿色是无菌的现代主义设计。绿色是一个泥泞的小屋。或许绿色只是一种颜色。如果您是一个潜在的购房者，那么定义可能会依赖于您所要求的谁。根据哥伦比亚大学的地球学院研究人员进行了一项调查，许多美国人也毫不符合他们可以采取的最有效的策略来保护能源。

A home Ratbert would love

在一篇论文中，按照“我（几乎）拯救了地球”published last Saturday in theWall Street Journal, Scott Adams, creator of the “Dilbert” comic strip, described his own green-intentioned adventure in homebuilding and created a composite of an eco-minded client who wants to do likewise. All the while, Adams exploits, for amusement and illumination, the sometimes murky perceptions of green on the parts of both consumers and industry professionals.

“Dilbert”-like absurdity, hyperbole, and plausibility infuse the portrait of a client who is inspired by a magazine article “about a guy who built a ‘green’ house using mostly twigs, pine cones and abandoned bird nests,” and who pursues his quest for greenness haplessly but with enough determination to persevere in the face countervailing advice from an architect and a building engineer. The client’s ultra-rustic house eventually gets built but, alas, performs like a house built mostly with twigs, pine cones, and bird nests.

Green pragmatism

Adams doesn’t say how big his new house is but notes that it is in a part of California where it is temperate (he has lived for a long time in the Bay Area). He knows that a white roof is the most reflective but nixes white in favor of a light but less stark color (“If you want a beautiful home, a white roof won’t get you there.”). He installs a photovoltaic system, in part because he likes the idea of making his electric meter spin backwards (it apparently hasn’t – a least not the way he envisioned), but he also admits to mixed feelings about an eventual return on investment. “I expect the system to pay for itself in nominal dollars, perhaps in 15 years,” he writes. “If I compare it with the most obvious alternative, it makes no economic sense. The smart alternative would have been to wait until the costs for systems like this drop by 50%, which will probably happen in a few years.”

在更广泛的水平上，他提供自己的讽刺，但诚实地对待绿色感知与现实。“最温馨的家是你不建造的家。如果你真的想拯救地球，请与另一个家庭一起进入并分享已经建造的房子。更好的是，生活在森林里，无论吃什么都不想要。不要吹嘘我骑自行车工作;很多能量都进入了那辆自行车的建造。不要像我这样的伪君子。

“I prefer a more pragmatic definition of green,” he adds. “I think of it as living the life you want, with as much Earth-wise efficiency as your time and budget reasonably allow.”

Adams also highlights energy efficiency variables – from roof insulation to building orientation and window placement to HVAC options – that require serious attention if the house is going to perform well. The most cost-effective approach, he adds, is to consult with experts who don’t have a stake in selling clients a particular product – and clouding their perspective with confusion.