Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

5. Through the demolition and new construction, we have left less sealed surface than before

Polemically summarized: I inherited and rebuilt where something already stood before. Others who do not inherit land and therefore are forced to build on greenfield sites should practice better restraint for the sake of the environment. Legitimate opinion :-) And no, nobody "has to" rebuild, but criticizing the designation of more new development areas based on new construction is really charming :-p For the environment!

About a year ago, we were still offered a gas heating system and only the heat pump as a more expensive alternative. We decided in favor of it only because of the KfW subsidy. Which we are now glad about.
But that is still the standard. When I walk through new housing developments here, the heat pump is not standard, nor is photovoltaics.

According to Statista in 2020, 48.5% share of heat pumps in new buildings. Clearly an increasing trend...

In Sweden, by the way, 90% - among other things due to high gas prices because of CO2 taxation.

"Low-budget" cookie-cutter houses (share ~25%) like T+C almost exclusively gas
Mid-price range, as frequently represented here (~50%) 2/3 gas 1/3 heat pump
High-end single-family houses + investment properties again almost exclusively gas

Actually, it would be enough if builders planned and built more resource-consciously.

Exactly! All good reasons to regulate resource consumption in building (and heating). As long as providers get away with rejecting existing and long-tested principles and techniques out of sheer mental laziness, nothing will change. When I think of the platitudes from our first architect meetings ("Ventilation is a form of paternalism that I didn't want in my house," "We don't need an energy consultant, he only makes everything complicated," "Choose gas, it’s still the best"), I still get worked up. Apparently, the construction industry must be forced into its own good.

I am firmly convinced that it would be possible to build much more resource-consciously at no extra cost—if only one wanted to.

In Sweden, by the way, 90% - among other things due to high gas prices caused by CO2 taxation.

Apples and oranges Because that could also simply be due to the low electricity prices of about 15 cents/kWh in Sweden. Hydropower and nuclear power combined with a sparse population make it possible. The former is hardly feasible here, and the last two points are politically just not opportune...

If you live in your own single-family home yourself, such sayings are easily made. Two years ago, the four of us still lived in just under 70m2 on the third floor without an elevator with small children in a problem area; from my perspective, there would not have been enough building areas to designate. But as long as it is others who want a single-family home with their family and they themselves are already sitting in a fairly newly built single-family home, some privileged forum writers suddenly rediscover environmental protection. The change of perspective apparently happens quite quickly :)

What does it matter whether someone smokes or not if they realize that smoking is harmful? Some statements are simply not a question of perspective. This logic of affectedness leads to nothing. It is clear that (almost) everyone affected resists something that stands in the way of their goals or hinders them. One cannot expect individual persons to make the cuts for themselves and go beyond the socially defined framework. Therefore, it is not about the perspective of an individual, but about collective action. We probably have to learn that again.

[Polemically summarized: I inherited and rebuilt where there was already something before. Others who do not inherit land and therefore have to move out to greenfield sites are supposed to exercise better restraint for the environment.

Legitimate opinion :)

And no, no one "has to" build new, but criticizing the designation of more new development areas from the standpoint of new construction is really charming :p For the environment!

Don't put words in my mouth. You could have bought the property with the building.

I have never criticized the designation of new development areas. I have never exempted myself from anything. I have never told anyone they are not allowed to build. Do I have to keep quiet now because I, a bad person, built new and didn't stay in the 60sqm apartment in my parents' house? Am I not allowed to generally criticize (consumer) behavior? Then everyone here has to be quiet, including you. Then carry on without reflection. Flying, SUVs, one-season fashion, my house, my boat, my car]

In new residential areas, you see a lot of environmental technology, photovoltaics, electric cars. The clientele has the money for it and also buys a clear conscience that way. However, the climate is global. That means it is of no use to replace an intact gasoline car here with an electric car if this gasoline or diesel vehicle is not then scrapped. Of course, it is not; it continues to run for decades, first here, then in Bulgaria, finally in Iraq or somewhere like that. It keeps running and running. The local electric car, however, was produced and thereby generates CO2 on top. The same goes for photovoltaics. It is an additional source of electricity, which is often eaten up by installing saunas, whirlpools, and other power guzzlers in the house. Therefore, I am very skeptical about all these new must-haves. The gentlest thing for the climate in my opinion is simply not to acquire anything, but to keep using the old Ford, the old washing machine, etc. until the end. Think about it.