I was flipping through the Economist and saw an advertisement from BASF, or "The Chemical Company." At least this company doesn't shy away from what it truly is. The ad actually raised an interesting concept about hybrids. If we have hybrid cars noted the ad, then why not hybrid homes? I was a little confused by the reference to the term "hybrid," since I always think of that to mean a mix of energy sources. Meanwhile, this use of the term seems to mean some energy use blended with techniques to avoid energy use altogether. BASF provided products for affordable housing in gritty Paterson, New Jersey. This housing, described in the ad as "Near Zero Energy," incorporates insulating foam sealants, panels and concrete forms and is 80% more energy efficient that the average home in the U.S. This type of housing makes conservation sound a whole lot easier, since most homeowners would not care about using less energy if they don't even notice the difference. Many Americans have the belief that conservation of energy means a major cramp in everyday lifestyle and simply aren't willing to take those measures. If new homes could all be this efficient, we could really take a lot of pressure off of the power grid and make a transition to alternative energy sources much easier. Judging from the photo of the energy-efficient housing, most people would probably be very excited to live in homes like this, as they are attractive as well as energy-efficient. It's smart for a company to try to change the image of conservation from one that is painful to one that is pleasant.