Hi "Drive More". I suspect it is a bit more complex. There are acquisition costs and operating costs. Our current home ownership incentives tend to subsidize acquisition at the expense of operating costs. One thing we should be looking at is the market distortions caused by all of our current subsidies - suburban homes get a lot more subsidies than urban, cars get more subsidies than other forms of transportation, etc. And then there is the question of 'market externalities', these are real costs that are not captured by the market system. For markets to work effectively they need to be transparent and to capture the most important costs. People make buying decisions on a whole host of complex factors, cost being only one of them. And informed buyers base their price decisions on the value they receive, not just on costs.

it all depends on how much it costs. Given choice A a LEED Gold Olympic Condo or choice B a regular well built River Green condo but cheaper most would choose B.

people are interested. many people would do "green" things if given a chance. for example, many people I know, given choice A, which is not sustainable and choice B which is, will choose B. HOWEVER, the same people if given only choice A, would rarely ask "is there a more sustainable alternative?" It's all about making the choice obvious.
p.s. if you are troll, you are doing a very good job.

The problem with global warming is people do not understand why it is happening, they believe all these doom and gloom theorists trying to extract Billions from the Oil and gas Industry with carbon taxes. Where the REAL problem is the current destruction of the Tropical Rainforests in the Amazon and SE Asia.

http://www.savetherainforest.org/

http://www.amazon-rainforest.org/

http://ohthestupidity.com/blog/2008/12/want-to-save-the-environment-then-stop-reproducing/

I would also point out your comment is somewhat ideological. If you really do not wish to believe in global warming, then you should at least consider what is going to happen when we run out of oil, or at least "cheap" oil.

Almost every source of oil (except for Alberta and Saudi Arabia) has already gone past peak oil production and is now beginning to decline. Every year we are losing an average of 6.7% from conventional sources, and new sources have been very rare to develop. The oil sands, regardless of their environmental impact, cannot support a demand that continues to grow despite the declines in conventional production. Supply is going to get harder and harder to maintain, or at least maintain for economically viable costs.

The last major oil shortage was for 8 days in the UK in 2000 and it caused the country to nearly shut down. Transportation shut down, food supplies were cut, hospitals were flooded, and the army and most heavy industry virtually closed. The effects would only be magnified if that were to happen in Canada as we are even more dependent on oil.

I think if cities like Vancouver do not move in the right direction, you'd be asking why weren't things done before when something like this happens.

Thank you Steven. Well put...

What Steven said.

Oh yes, you would have more credibility if you had the courage to use your own name.

I guess I am not a regular citizen. Live in a single family dwelling, run companies, invest, have grown kids with jobs in the city, pay taxes. Sounds unusual to me. Shifting our economies to be sustainable and resilient is not ideological, it is a practical response to economic and social change. Without change we will become a fractured wreck of a city - look at what is happening in so many US cities (and I have lived in Boston and visit San Francisco, Chicago, Phoenix, Austin, NYC for work). Vancouver, like many cities, invests huge amounts of money in its infrastructure every year and I for one am glad to have some input and would like to see investment that will make the city a better place to live.