I don’t quite get how using recycled carpet leads to reduced emissions, at least not as it directly relates to its use in the house. If the reduction comes from the difference in emissions between production of new carpet versus use of recycled carpet – it is a strained comparison.

And it seems fairly common sense that reducing the size of a house will reduce emissions. And that requires a study? What seems more interesting is that someone is willing to dumb down their living and housing goals. E.g., “We don’t consider how much space people actually need. My wife, baby and I live in a 670-square-foot home . . . .”

I wonder how that person will feel about 640 sq. ft. when the child is no longer a baby?

Finally, does smaller always equal to sustainability? Interesting is that a Wikipedia article defines sustainability as the capacity to endure; and the Free Dictionary defines endure as carrying on through despite hardships. That fits this article’s use of sustainability.

My point – is sustainability best achieved by lowering standards of living? Thus, am I contributing to longer or continued existence (another definition for sustainability) for myself or the planet, if you will, by accepting lower standards?