It seems that you misread the Climate Change Corp's article. The article, by Paul French, was clearing stating that the project to make Huangbaiyu into an eco-town was a *failure*. Only three houses of 42 were built with the compressed earth bricks, not most. In addition, this is not a US technology specifically. There are companies in many countries that produce the machines the are used for creating such bricks.

The CCC also article notes they do *not* have "full southern exposure". All of this was directly stated in the CCC article, yet this blog decides to write the exact opposite? Also, the radiant floor systems never worked, and only one house has solar power, and that is not effectively connected to the grid. Most importantly, there is no town. Two families live in the project area, and not completely by their own choice.

If an eco-town were a good idea, why would people oppose it? The problem is that what some developers, architects or corporations think is a good idea for their product is a very bad idea for the lives and livelihoods for people who live there. I would offer that if an eco-town were to truly consider and plan for the ecosystem in which it is being built--and that includes the people--than people would support it. Why wouldn't people want something that improves their lives? And if it doesn't, it shouldn't be built.