MagillaGorilla wrote:
rjxj wrote:
10forty2 wrote:
The Tiny House movement is all part of the current, so-called "progressive" mentality. They think they are minimizing their impact on the climate....
I'll take my RV any day, and still keep my modest 1,200sq. ft. ranch home!
So 300 sq ft vs 3,000 sq ft isn't better for the environment/climate and uses much less energy?
It depends on where the house is. If the house is in Hawaii and uses no heat or AC then the energy differential is minimal.
As a general rule of thumb a smaller house will require less energy than a large house. Most people don't need 8500 sq/ft but they also may need more than 185 sq/ft.
Also the original post was about comparing the Tiny House movement to the RV that already exists. The point was that many people think that tiny living is new. Full time RV's have been doing for ever.
I would rather have what I want, Not what I need.