Round-up: Hazard in line for start and Onuoha could miss four months

first_imgEmbed from Getty ImagesEden Hazard is in line for a return to the Chelsea starting line-up for Wednesday’s EFL Cup match against Nottingham Forest. Hazard, who had ankle surgery during the summer, has not started a match for the Blues so far this season.The Belgian’s latest appearance as a substitute came in Sunday’s goalless draw with Arsenal and Chelsea boss Antonio Conte looks likely to include him from the start against Forest.“I think in the last 20 minutes Hazard played very well,” said Conte.“Now on Wednesday he has the possibility to start against Forest and then to complete his recovery. We hope everything is okay after this (Arsenal) game.” Chelsea youngsters’ comebackEmbed from Getty ImagesCallum Hudson-Odoi scored a late equaliser as Chelsea’s Under-23 side came back from two down to draw 2-2 with Manchester United.The young Blues trailed with 18 minutes of the Premier League 2 match at Aldershot remaining.Hudson-Odoi hit the post early on and Chelsea were on top before Tosin Kehinde scored against the run of play eight minutes before half-time.James Wilson headed United further ahead early in the second half but the home side battled on.They had a strong shout for a penalty waved away when Hudson-Odoi seemed to be fouled in the box.And they were eventually rewarded for their persistence when Hudson-Odoi back-heeled the ball towards Issac Christie-Davies, who fired home.The outstanding Hudson-Odoi netted with a cool finish eight minutes from time to earn a draw. Wilkins calls for Costa returnEmbed from Getty ImagesRay Wilkins believes Chelsea should recall Diego Costa and play him as well as Alvaro Morata.Speaking on Sky Sports News, Wilkins insisted the out-of-favour Costa should be in London with the rest of the Blues squad.Wilkins said: “When I look at Diego Costa and I look at Morata I see a better footballer in Morata – better control, better movement and probably quicker.“But when I look at the beast, in Costa, and what he gives you – he upsets people – I’d sooner have Costa than Morata.“Why we haven’t got both, I don’t know. Costa still has, is it one or two years left on his contract? He should be at Stamford Bridge.“We should be using both of them and then we would have a proper strikeforce.“I cannot for the life of me see why Costa is still on the beach in Brazil playing five-a-side with his mates.“He’s still a Chelsea footballer and he should be back here in London.” Onuoha out for up to four monthsEmbed from Getty ImagesQPR captain Nedum Onuoha might be out for four months with a torn hamstring. Boss Ian Holloway said after Saturday’s 3-2 defeat at Middlesbrough that Onuoha, 30, was facing three months on the sidelines.But Rangers believe the defender could be out for slightly longer, perhaps not returning until the new year, depending on how quickly the injury heals. Onuoha, who requires an operation, suffered the injury during last week’s draw at home to Millwall.It leaves the R’s with serious problems in defence because James Perch is out with a long-term knee injury and Grant Hall and Steven Caulker are also unavailable.However, Joel Lynch is seemingly close to a return following a hamstring problem. QPR youngsters loseQPR’s development side lost 4-1 at Sheffield Wednesday on Monday afternoon.It ended the Under-23s’ 100% record this season – they had won all five of their previous matches, scoring 17 goals in the process.The visitors trailed 2-0 at the interval and Dan Darbyshire pulled a goal back early in the second half before Wednesday scored two more. Mepham’s new dealBrentford boss Dean Smith says Wales Under-21 international defender Chris Mepham can challenge for a regular first-team spot after signing a new five-year contract at Griffin Park.“Chris has shown a real progression during the last 12 months and is developing into a player that we believe can get to a high standard,” Smith said.“With a fierce determination and excellent attitude to go with his footballing ability, we are pleased that he has chosen to continue his development with Brentford. I fully expect him to be pushing the senior centre-backs within the first team.” No Edwards for Spurs tieEmbed from Getty ImagesTottenham boss Mauricio Pochettino says Marcus Edwards will not be involved in the EFL Cup game against Barnsley.The highly-rated Edwards, 18, made his senior debut in the competition a year ago and has not made a first-team appearance since.Youngster Tashan Oakley-Boothe could feature at Wembley after being named in the squad for Tuesday’s tie.But Pochettino says Edwards is building his fitness and confidence following an ankle injury and is not in contention to play against the Tykes.“Last season was difficult for him. He was injured and then he had an operation,” Pochettino said.“He dropped a little bit, but that is normal after nearly one season that he didn’t play. Now he is building his confidence again.“I think we need to wait a little bit for him to build his physical condition and his confidence more. He’s better playing in the Under-23s. Holden confident he can progressMiddlesex teenager Max Holden says the club’s track record of promoting youth convinced him he would be handed a chance in the first team.The 19-year-old batsman made his senior debut for the club in their severely rain-affected County Championship Division One draw against Hampshire at Uxbridge.“I’ve played with those guys in the second XI, so of course it was pleasing to see them progress and it gave me confidence that if I kept working hard, the opportunity would come,” said Holden.“It shows the path is definitely there for guys who work hard and score runs in the seconds. [Managing director of cricket] Gus Fraser has said that previously – if young guys perform, they will be backed. Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebooklast_img read more

Evolutionary Materialism Promotes Deadly Sins

first_imgName a vice, and Darwinians will be there to rationalize it on evolutionary grounds. They claim proud ownership of the Seven Deadly Sins.Timothy D. Clark preached a fiery sermon to the readers of Nature last week, warning about the alarming rise of dishonesty among scientists. “Too many researchers make up or massage their data,” he says. It’s not a small problem, either. You can almost hear the pounding on the pulpit:Scientists like to think that such blatant dishonesty is rare, but I myself have witnessed several serious cases of scientific misconduct, from major data manipulation to outright fabrication. Most have gone unpunished — in fact, it has been disheartening to see the culprits lauded. It makes little sense for fraudsters to fabricate mediocre data. Their falsehoods generate outstanding stories, which result in high-profile publications and a disproportionately large chunk of the funding pie.I have noticed a lesser-known motive for bad science in my field, experimental biology. As environmental change proceeds, there is great demand from the public and policy­makers for simple stories that show the damage being done to wildlife. I occasionally meet scientists who argue that the questions we ask and the stories we tell are more important than the probity of our investigations: the end justifies the means, even if the means lead to data fabrication. That view is alarmingly misguided and has no place in science.But should it be surprising that scientists act this way? Most of them are evolutionists, and evolutionists from Daddy Darwin on have tried to explain every human behavior in terms of a material process called natural selection. In Darwin’s godless world, whoever wins the fitness race is OK. There are no morals. So why be honest? Why not let the ends justify the means? As we shall see, Darwinian theory itself proposes a ‘scientific’ reason why cheating ’emerges’ in social groups, from bacteria to humans, so it’s to be expected that a certain number of scientists will cheat, too. But a funny thing happened on the way to the lab. In an amoral universe, one cannot tell the difference between a cheater and a cooperator, except by which one belongs to the majority at a point in time. Today’s cheater could evolve into tomorrow’s cooperator. Ever hear of ‘honor among thieves’? Ever hear of ‘might makes right’? In short, fitness is Darwin’s standard for morality – and fitness can be anything imaginable, as long as your genes survive.Dishonesty is not the only vice they can justify on Darwinian grounds. Evolutionists seem on a virtual campaign to rationalize the Seven Deadly Sins as normal and natural. Study Darwinian literature on the origins of human behavior, and you can almost hear the hiss of the serpent in the background: You will be like gods, knowing good and evil. Don’t believe it? Read on.Pride — Sin or Incentive? (UC Santa Barbara). You read that right; pride is a good thing that evolution bequeaths to us. Forget the Bible’s hoary value of humility. Darwin is here. Though we satirize their thoughts in italics, we’re not exaggerating. Let the smiling faces of John Tooby and Leda Cosmides tell you in their own words:As human emotions go, pride has earned a bad rap. Christians count it among the seven deadly sins, the ancient Greeks charged it with provoking destruction by the gods, and non-industrial peoples around the world consider it a source of bad luck.Still, some behavioral scientists reject pride as a universal emotion, arguing that individuals in other cultures, such as Japan, lack the pride-achievement motivation so familiar to Westerners.But does pride really deserve its reputation both as a menace and as an emotion limited to only some cultures? Perhaps not, say a group of researchers at UC Santa Barbara’s Center for Evolutionary Psychology (CEP). Pride, they argue, served an important function in social life that led to its evolution among our foraging ancestors.They’re not talking about a pride of lions, mind you. Notice that pride “evolved” in their twisted thinking (actually, perfectly logical thinking, given the premise of Darwinian amorality). No wonder David Berezow listed “The article is about evolutionary psychology” in his list of ‘fake science’ tip-offs (see 2/03/17). It’s easy to see why. All you have to do is turn the story on the authors: You’re just saying this because natural selection turned you into a couple of stuck-up, insufferable, conceited know-it-alls. If they protest, ‘No, we’re honest about this,’ you can arrogantly respond, Aha! I know you. Well, I evolved to tell you off, and inform you that you are complete losers! What can they say? Here’s what they might say with pride: You think you are so clever. Well, WE got published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences! We’re obviously better than you! So there! Ahem; Truth just flew out the window when you weren’t watching.Microbes may encourage altruistic behavior (Phys.org). To the evolutionist, altruism is the flip side of selfishness. Both are integral parts of mindless behaviors that emerge through natural selection. It emerges in bacteria; it emerges in human societies. It’s neither good or bad; just indifferent. Darwinians typically employ ‘game theory’ to model how altruism emerges. This can only mean one thing: the scientists who say this are only playing games to trick you. They are only pretending to be altruistic by sharing scientific truth with you, when really they are being selfish. “I believe the most important aspect of the work is that it changes the way we think about altruism from centering on the animals (or humans) performing the altruistic acts to their microbes,” one of them said. Blame your gut bacteria, in other words. Such teaching is sure to increase charitable giving, is it not?Fish show cheating can be better than playing by the rules in the mating game (Domino Joyce, The Conversation). Two of the traditional deadly sins are lust and greed. You can see where this article is going just from the title. Cheating wins in the evolutionary game. If it works for fish, it can work for thee. Don’t teach this to the teenagers.There’s still a lot we don’t know about these fish. How did so many species evolve in such a short evolutionary time scale? What is the genetic basis for their behaviour? What determines female preference and why? How do changes in the environment affect their ability to attract mates?Studying these questions provides a wider insight into the evolution of complex behaviours and the way that female choice can shape evolution. Males who build impressive sandcastles are favoured by females, and this has driven their evolution. But it’s possible that being sneaky could also be a viable strategy for evolutionary success.Female sociality and sexual conflict shape offspring survival in a Neotropical primate (PNAS). Get a load of this: natural selection can produce infanticide. “These findings indicate that new alpha males are more likely to target the infants of more social, and therefore central, females. Our study provides evidence that female sociality can negatively affect offspring survival by increasing the likelihood of infanticide.” It’s all you women’s fault. You’re standing in the way of the alpha male. He can’t help himself. Is that the lesson of this paper? Since humans are just another species of primate in Darwin’s reductionist world, how can a court convict a child killer?Impact of Social Reward on the Evolution of the Cooperation Behavior in Complex Networks (Nature Scientific Reports). At the risk of overdoing the subject of the “evolution of cooperation” by “evolutionary games” played by natural selection, we’re showing this is a common theme in a variety of major journals. Cooperators, cheaters, games— various ‘strategies’ merely emerge by the mindless actions of individuals driven by their selfish genes. These authors are dead serious: “Our research might provide valuable insights into further exploring the nature of cooperation in the real world.” So let’s ask them: Are you guys cheaters or cooperators? How am I supposed to tell? Are you writing this paper just to take advantage of me? Are you just playing evolutionary games by making this story up? The major media seem incapable of thinking this through. Phys.org reported cheerfully, “A research team led by mathematician Tatsuya Sasaki from the University of Vienna presents a new optimal theory of the evolution of reputation-based cooperation. This team proves that the practice of making moral assessments conditionally is very effective in establishing cooperation in terms of evolutionary game theory. ” If it’s just a game, ‘making moral assessments’ is just part of the strategy.Killing off rivals makes for happy families, bacteria study finds (University of Edinburgh). Here comes a gem from Charles Darwin’s own alma mater that the Family Research Council is sure to love: “A grisly method by which bacteria dispatch their distant relatives also creates conditions in which the attackers can thrive.” Hey, if it’s for the common good, great. Who’s to complain? It increases their fitness. Since fitness is the only value in Darwinism, let’s all learn a lesson from bacteria that kill off their rivals. The rivals don’t have to be bad or evil; they’re just anyone that stands in their way of sex (don’t teach this to teenagers). Now for the fine print: “The study, supported by The Wellcome Trust, The Human Frontier Science Program, The National Science Foundation, NASA and The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, was published in Nature Communications.” Knowing that, run for your life! The people who believe this have money and power. They’re after you. You are the rival if you don’t cooperate! Don’t run to the editors of New Scientist, though; they’re infected with the Darwin mind virus, too. “Vicious microbial warfare helps bacteria evolve cooperation,” they celebrate.Had enough? One more:Evolved instincts shaped democracy to resist bullies like Trump (Christopher Boehm for New Scientist). We keep thinking we can’t top the inanity (or insanity) of the last Darwinese mythoid, only to be disappointed. Boehm not only begs the question that Trump is a bully—he not only misrepresents Trumps words and actions—he actually rationalizes murdering the President on Darwinian grounds! – or close to it. Listen:But resisting bullies has been part of our nature for a long time. As an anthropologist, I study human hunter-gatherers. For tens of thousands of years, these egalitarian people would band together to kill tyrants. Some 90 per cent of human history was spent in such groups. Those instincts are with us still, albeit sanitised for contemporary society.Now we can understand all the anti-Trump rallies being promoted by scientists:“Act for Science” (Rush Holt in Science Magazine)“From a tweet, a March for Science is born” (Lindzi Wessel in Science Magazine)“Science stood apart from politics for a long time, not any more” (Michael Brooks in New Scientist)“Should Scientists Engage in Activism?” (Oransky and Marcus at The Conversation)“Science entering a new frontier: Politics” (Phys.org)We know from Darwinian assumptions what’s going on. These self-righteous protestors don’t mean a word of it. They, too, are pawns in evolutionary games being played by the invisible hand of natural selection.Update 2/13/17: Frequency-dependent female genital cutting behaviour confers evolutionary fitness benefits (Nature Ecology & Evolution). That this paper would even be published shows the extremes to which evolutionary biologists will justify evil. Female genital mutilation is a human rights violation! It is practiced by adherents of violent, male-dominated religions like Islam. To even suggest that it has “evolutionary fitness benefits” gives aid and comfort to the perpetrators of evil. Allison Macfarlane (a professor of perinatal health in London) gave this idea only a mild rebuke, calling it “unproven and potentially damaging” in The Conversation. Meanwhile, Medical Xpress only writes about the best treatments for female genital mutilation, ignoring the obvious one: stop the bad guys who do it. This common-sense outlook is foreign to evolutionists, because they don’t believe true evil exists. In their view, every human behavior—no matter how bad—must have come about because it “confers evolutionary fitness benefits” somehow.The deadliest sin of all is self-deception. You see it right here, in what the Darwinian mindset has done to truth, rationality, and morals.  Don’t worry about what they say, because it cannot possibly be true — it is self-refuting! If Darwinian evolution produced their righteous indignation, it’s just a game. It has no meaning.Evolutionary scientists are wonderfully designed human beings, but like all people, are fallen into sin. The sin nature that afflicts all humans gives rise to lust, gluttony, greed, laziness, wrath, envy and pride – the “seven deadly sins” to which we are all prone. Darwin’s doctrine is the latest manifestation of man’s prideful inclination to justify sin rather than confront it.So how should rational people like Christians respond to all this? Well, we don’t act like them with lies, anger and trickery. We don’t play games. We use Christ’s formula that never fails: speak the truth with love. Paul said, “so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.” (Ephesians 4:14-15). Continuing, Paul describes our age pretty accurately, then prescribes what to do about it. “Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. But that is not the way you learned Christ!— assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness (Ephesians 4:17-24). Christ is the Door to the light of life, where truth is true and morality is genuinely moral. Reject the Darwinian game world. Escape to reality.(Visited 155 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Women lead in sanitation project

first_img14 May 2003An innovative project aimed at improving health conditions by changing hygiene practices and improving sanitation is changing the lives of a community north of Pretoria. And women are playing a key role in that transformation.According to the White Paper on Basic Household sanitation, nearly one million households in South Africa have no access to sanitation and a further two million have inadequate sanitation.According to David Gadd, project manager for Rand Water’s community-based project department, the Winterveldt Community Sanitation Project was launched in 2001 “as it was felt that the full health benefits of the water project could only be fully realised with the implementation of improved sanitation”.In line with national policy for rural and peri-urban household sanitation – which focuses on creating ownership of sanitation facilities by providing a household subsidy for on-site sanitation facilities – the project set out to help the Winterveldt community construct their own latrines.“The key objective of the project is to achieve health improvements in the community by changing current poor hygiene behavioural practices and improving sanitation facilities so that they are sustainable in the long term. This includes the development – through skills training – of an environment in which such facilities can be maintained and improved,” Gadd said.The project began with a pilot project in Ten Morgan, the most rural section of Winterveldt that includes 1 000 households. The lessons learned from this pilot project were then applied to planning for the other under-serviced areas of Winterveldt, covering over 23 000 households. To date, about 1 050 toilets have been constructed throughout the settlement.Gadd said that ensuring sustainability was vital. When the project needed to find builders, it ensured that not only experienced builders would apply, but also women with no building experience.“The advantages of appointing women as builders are that they are more likely than men to remain in the community due to household commitments and, as primary care givers, they are more able to communicate important hygiene and maintenance messages. Currently over 50 percent of the builders on the project are women.”The community selected a “suite” of designs, with consideration given to their maintenance requirements, capital costs, water requirements and cultural impacts.The ventilated improved pit latrine remains one of the most cost-effective ways of providing sanitation to rural areas. The way it works is simple: waste drops into the pit, where organic material decomposes and liquids seep into the surrounding soil.Continuous airflow through the top-structure and above the vent pipe removes smells and releases gases into the atmosphere. By maintaining a darkened interior, insects entering the pit are attracted towards the light at the top of the vent pipe and trapped by the fly screen.“One of the key lessons learned during the pilot project is that trained community members, staff and builders involved in the project were capable of implementing the project with minimal external input and few significant problems,” said Gadd.“It is virtually impossible to eradicate poverty and disease as well as improve quality of life without adequate sanitation and hygiene,” said Rand Water CEO Simo Lushaba.Lushaba noted that, in most cases, local governments do not have the capacity to implement service delivery to the required standards and speed. “Public sector players, like Rand Water, can and do – in partnership with local government,” he said.Source: Rand Water Want to use this article in your publication or on your website?See: Using SAinfo materiallast_img read more

A Proposed Passivhaus Amendment for New England

first_imgThere has been no shortage of discussion lately about modifying the Passivhaus standard to make it more adaptable to, and address more precisely, regional climate conditions.Passive House Institute U.S. is exploring ways to fine tune the Passivhaus heating and cooling requirement, and possibly impose a load requirement for dehumidification, to enable Passivhaus builders to cost-effectively address the variety of climate conditions in North America. That initiative prompted architect and Passivhaus consultant Hayden Robinson to suggest in an online petition that PHIUS use a name other than Passive House for its certifications should the group’s requirements deviate from those of the existing Passivhaus standard.While the debate over the appropriate use of the name Passive House has been lively, it doesn’t seem to have curtailed suggestions from those who believe the standard is extremely valuable but also in need of improvement. A case in point is a document titled “Proposed New England Passivehouse Amendment,” which was posted online on March 31 by energy efficiency specialist Marc Rosenbaum.A focus on primary energyRosenbaum identifies what he believes are five principal deficiencies of the Passivhaus standard: RELATED ARTICLES Redefining Passivhaus A Petition Strives to Defend a Certain Definition of ‘Passive House’ The Passivhaus Institut in Germany Disowns Its U.S. Satellite The American Passive House Institute Responds to Dr. FeistRound 3: Wolfgang Feist Discusses the PHI-PHIUS SplitPassivhaus Combatants Continue To Speak OutPossible Relaxation of Passivhaus Standard Stirs Debate PHIUS Tries to Trademark ‘Certified Passive House Consultant’PHIUS Draws a Line in the SandA Bridge Over Passivhaus Waters â— The standard’s annual heating demand and annual cooling demand (AHD and ACD) limits are the same for all regions, leading to extreme solutions in severe climates.â— Meeting the AHD requirement in severe climates diverts focus from the overall primary energy consumption of the building and its occupants.â— The Passivhaus standard limits are set per unit of usable floor area, which means large houses meet the standard more easily than small ones. That creates a perverse incentive to build big houses. Accordingly, the standard sidesteps the core issue of resource-use equity.â— The standard counts solar input from direct-gain solar heating and solar thermal hot water, but it does not allow solar electricity to be used in meeting the standard.â— The standard does not require performance reporting beyond a blower-door test that shows a maximum of 0.6 air changes at 50 Pascals.Addressing these issues, Rosenbaum points out, means focusing more on primary energy consumption (PEC) per person and less on the building’s annual heating demand (AHD). A focus on AHD – the most challenging criterion of the Passivhaus standard – leads to “extreme solutions” that are not only costly but diminish the attention that should be paid to PEC.An AHD-centric approach, he says, “can lead to buildings with excess south glazing, with increased heating season temperature swings (and higher cost). It can lead to quantities of insulation that likely exceed any defensible rationale when compared to investments in renewable energy.”The Passivhaus standard’s AHD, he adds, is based on the idea of lowering the design heating load enough to deliver heat via the home’s ventilation air system – 10W per square meter, which in the climate of central Germany, where Passivhaus concepts were developed, yields 15 kWh per square meter per year. In New England’s climate, it is “extremely challenging” to push the annual design heating load down to 10W/m2, Rosenbaum says.Key features of the amendmentHe contends that building comfort and durability can be achieved with less aggressive levels of insulation than those that would be required to meet the existing Passivhaus AHD criterion. The shift in focus should be to a design heating demand (DHD) limit of 30W/m2 (or 9.5 btu/hr/ft2) based on treated floor area — which, he says, better reflects the fact that primary energy consumption attributable to heating in New England is 25% to 30% of total PEC.The standard’s annual cooling demand criterion would be eliminated for New England because cooling in the region accounts for too small an amount of overall energy usage. Rosenbaum adds, though, that a separate dehumidification calculation (as yet to be developed) should be incorporated into the PEC calculation.As mentioned, the amendment makes PEC the principal focus of the New England amendment, with the PEC limit set according to the number of bedrooms — a surrogate for the number of occupants — in the building rather than setting energy-use limits according to total usable floor area. This per-person budget for energy consumption is intended to help address the fact that, under the current criteria, it is more difficult for smaller houses to meet the Passivhaus standard than it is for larger homes.With the AHD and ACD limits eliminated, the design heating demand limit, based on treated floor area, is 30W/m2. (Rosenbaum notes that this is the limit before solar and internal heat gains are calculated, and so is not directly comparable to the 10W/m2 limit shown in the Passive House Planning Package worksheet, which shows net heating load after those gains are added.)Other key features of the amendment: the domestic hot water limit per occupant is raised to 10 gallons per day from the German limit of 6.6 gpd; photovoltaic power can count for as much as 20% of the primary energy consumption limit (each kilowatt of PV offsets 2kW of primary energy); the dehumidification load is added; and certification is renewed annually based on energy use data.Calculations and expectationsRosenbaum developed an algorithm to calculate the PEC limits — in kWh per year and million btu (MMbtu) per year (see table above) — based on the number of bedrooms in the project. He also describes the processes for calculating design heating demand, annual cooling demand, domestic hot water, and auxiliary electricity and electricity for appliances, lighting, and plug loads – all as they would apply to the Passive House Planning Package program. The data, added together, show total primary energy usage, which can then be compared to the PEC limit for that particular project.Rosenbaum, who founded Energysmiths consultancy, in West Tisbury, Massachusetts, to advance design and construction strategies that make buildings more energy efficient, notes that the Passivhaus standard has been modified to both suit climate conditions in other countries and focus more tightly on primary energy consumption.But he also observes that his proposed amendment is unlikely to be adopted in eager, speedy fashion by existing Passivhaus organizations (including Passive House New England). Nor does he delve into concerns about whether modified Passivhaus criteria should carry the name Passive House. He does hope, however, that his ideas precipitate useful discussions about the standard’s benefits and weaknesses.“At the least,” he writes, “the aspiration is that this proposal may guide a well-focused and thoughtful exploration of how to live ethically and effectively on this planet for practitioners and clients, rather than aiming blindly at what are ultimately arbitrary numbers despite our best intentions.”last_img read more