37 replies to this topic

[davek]

I will improve my insulation as I redo parts of my house. Not because of a financial savings but it will mean less energy usuage from my home which all in all is better for the environment. It is about choices not just the dollar.

I admire your intentions, but with out reviewing costs, how can you know if what you are doing is better for the environment? Insulation consumes resources in its manufacture, transportation, installation, and disposal. Will your lower energy usage offset these inputs? At first glance, it would seem nearly impossible to calculate.

Happily, most of the information required is contained in a simple format; price. By and large, an expensive item consumes either more resources or more valuable resources than a cheaper item. This means that if improving the insulation costs more than will be realized in savings, the environment likely suffers a loss.

[mat]

The rejection of long-term investments in home energy efficiency is not indicative of an inability to think long term. People make long-term investments all the time, and some people feel they will get a better return if they invest their money in stocks, or a small business, rather than extra insulation. Some builders think they serve society better by building cheap, inefficient housing that consumers want, rather than the homes that wannabe social engineers think they should have. Some prefer to invest in efficient cars, rather than efficient homes.

Should all these people be forced to forego their preferences because others think their own personal preferences are superior, or will lead to superior outcomes? I have seen what happens when government is given the power to force people to sacrifice for the greater good, so I am opposed.

Should these people be forced to forego their preferences because they are stupid/ignorant/selfish? If that premise justifies forcing builders to add extra insulation, it justifies forcing people to do anything. Again, I have seen what happens in these cases, and I am opposed.

Using government force is beneficial in a very limited number of areas. Energy efficiency is not one of them.

Davek - I beg to disagree, and forcefully. Under your terms there would be no codes for safety, no construction standards at all...

Every construction code ruling has an impact on the building industry - whether it is stud distances, the type of pipes used in plumbing, R ratings, and, of course, incentives for energy efficiency.

I advocate going beyond attic insulation and tri-ply windows - our homes, especially here in Victoria, can make energy - owners just need the knowledge and incentive.

[davek]

... if the city came to me and said I could borrow $8000 at a fixed rate, over 20 years, and simply added to my property taxes to install solar panels that would generate 70% of what we use as a household - I would say yes.

Whew. This would be a lot more fun if we were all sharing a pitcher.

An agreement much like the above could certainly be worked out with a bank. The only time government makes loans is to provide them at subsidized rates, or to people who couldn't otherwise get them. It is a good deal for the borrower, but not so great for the rest of the taxpayers.

[jklymak]

Using government force is beneficial in a very limited number of areas. Energy efficiency is not one of them.

The use of energy and its impact on the environment is the ultimate tragedy of the commons. Regulating the commons is one of the prime purposes of government.

If the energy market took into account the future cost of present use, I'd agree with you that there should be little need of regulation. But it doesn't, and so if enough of us agree we should stop using so much energy and polluting the atmosphere, then government is the only way to make it happen. I'm all for making it free market friendly, thats why I think an energy tax is a great way to go. It encourages efficiency and accrues to governments the funds they will need to clean up the messes made.

Now if you don't believe there will be any future costs to current energy use, then I guess you won't be convinced by this argument. However, if a majority of us think there will be a cost, your view won't prevail.

[mat]

Whew. This would be a lot more fun if we were all sharing a pitcher.

An agreement much like the above could certainly be worked out with a bank. The only time government makes loans is to provide them at subsidized rates, or to people who couldn't otherwise get them. It is a good deal for the borrower, but not so great for the rest of the taxpayers.

So right - a pitcher would help! and Davek I know all kinds of numbers could fly around about long term interest rates, depreciation, incentive growth curves etc.

The fact is at least one major county in the US, Berkeley, is trying this out on a both ecologically, commercial and financial scale - they have worked the numbers. It ends up being cheaper to offer cash to homeowners, in terms of long term, fixed rate loans to retrofit to solar vs incentive grants that must be applied for. Many Victoria mortgage holders apply property tax to the loan - adding another layer for energy benefits would not be a hardship for most, nor a mental leap.

[VicHockeyFan]

So right - a pitcher would help! and Davek I know all kinds of numbers could fly around about long term interest rates, depreciation, incentive growth curves etc.

The fact is at least one major county in the US, Berkeley, is trying this out on a both ecologically, commercial and financial scale - they have worked the numbers. It ends up being cheaper to offer cash to homeowners, in terms of long term, fixed rate loans to retrofit to solar vs incentive grants that must be applied for. Many Victoria mortgage holders apply property tax to the loan - adding another layer for energy benefits would not be a hardship for most, nor a mental leap.

But it don't work so well when one county does it, and the next one over doesn't. If the whole country does it - well, most of us aren't gonna leave the country over some extra insulation or solar panels, so it can work.

[mat]

it works because ONE COUNTY can do it, and make it financially affordable with a limited number of homes. This kind of real energy making - and I emphasize the 'making energy' part - works on all levels. This would be a perfect initiative for the Conservative party - independent energy, individual control, P+P financing etc. - yet they are not advocating it, the Harper team have not time, no answer to helping either home owners or commercial operators changing to self-generated energy.

[davek]

It is an indication of how thoroughly the nanny state dominates when people feel that without government building codes, there would be no building codes at all. This is highly unlikely, and does not consider what has been displaced by government intervention. In fact, lenders, consumers, builders, and insurers all have a vested interest in the level of quality to which a home is constructed. Even though the government effectively bars competition by forcing all builders to purchase from the government's de facto monopoly, the private sector has provided inspectors for existing homes, and inspectors who certify homes that have been voluntarily built to exceed code-mandated energy conservation requirements.

In the absence of government intervention, purchasers and insurers concerned about quality and safety would look for assurance from an organization like the Building Officials' Association of BC, the private sector organization which certifies most of the inspectors currently employed by BC municipalities. Homes would be built to different levels of quality and safety, insured at different rates. This would be a much more flexible and customer oriented system. Consumers could select the levels and combinations of quality, safety, and energy efficiency that best satisfied their needs.

However it manifested itself, a private system would ultimately prove itself superior to the needlessly aggressive, one-size-fits-all public system.

[VicHockeyFan]

It is an indication of how thoroughly the nanny state dominates when people feel that without government building codes, there would be no building codes at all. This is highly unlikely, and does not consider what has been displaced by government intervention. In fact, lenders, consumers, builders, and insurers all have a vested interest in the level of quality to which a home is constructed. Even though the government effectively bars competition by forcing all builders to purchase from the government's de facto monopoly, the private sector has provided inspectors for existing homes, and inspectors who certify homes that have been voluntarily built to exceed code-mandated energy conservation requirements.

In the absence of government intervention, purchasers and insurers concerned about quality and safety would look for assurance from an organization like the Building Officials' Association of BC, the private sector organization which certifies most of the inspectors currently employed by BC municipalities. Homes would be built to different levels of quality and safety, insured at different rates. This would be a much more flexible and customer oriented system. Consumers could select the levels and combinations of quality, safety, and energy efficiency that best satisfied their needs.

However it manifested itself, a private system would ultimately prove itself superior to the needlessly aggressive, one-size-fits-all public system.

Davek, you know I'm one of the most right-winger libertarians on this site. I don't believe in "design boards" etc. deciding how a building should look. Hell, if it's ugly no one will buy into it.

But I do believe in some type of long-term thinking on energy-efficiency, and education has hardly changed our ways in the last 35 years, despite increased awareness and even in the midst of a fairly high energy-cost era.

[davek]

Regulating the commons by prescriptive mandate, such as requiring ever higher levels of insulation, is a proven and repeated failure fraught with opportunities for government misbehaviour. It is fine to say that a home may consume no more than a certain amount of energy per square foot per degree day. It is detrimental to say that it must do so by installing more insulation. State the goal, and leave the market to find the means to reach it.

[VicHockeyFan]

Regulating the commons by prescriptive mandate, such as requiring ever higher levels of insulation, is a proven and repeated failure fraught with opportunities for government misbehaviour. It is fine to say that a home may consume no more than a certain amount of energy per square foot per degree day. It is detrimental to say that it must do so by installing more insulation. State the goal, and leave the market to find the means to reach it.

OK, I can go with that.

[jklymak]

^^ Sure sounds good. As I said above, tax the problem. You want to own a house with no insulation, you're going to compensate the rest of society for the damage you do. I'm sure insulation will become very popular.

[Nparker]

However it manifested itself, a private system would ultimately prove itself superior to the needlessly aggressive, one-size-fits-all public system.

Please supply specific examples, how this private building code system would work, how it would be superior, who would monitor to assure it was being maintained, and the cost savings to me as a taxpayer.

I assume you also abhore the government's intervention in the issues of slavery, women's suffrage, abortion and a myriad of other human rights issues.

[jklymak]

One problem with a private system for building codes is that someone would still need to ensure accurate disclosure. i.e. a building inspector. A second problem is that the consumer would need to be educated enough to understand what was being disclosed. i.e. everyone would need a civil engineering degree.

[davek]

Anyone who cares to have more information than I provided in post #28 as to how a private system might work may PM me for a face-to-face meeting. Of those, anyone hinting that a person who suggests a private system might be superior to a government system must also be misogynist and pro-slavery will have to agree to pay for the first pitcher.

Someone to ensure accurate disclosure. i.e. a building inspector, would likely be a feature of a private system, just as it is the public system. There is no reason to view that as a problem.

The market has provided numerous ways for a consumer to confidently employ people who have specialized knowledge that the consumer lacks. This includes not only civil engineers, but public and private building inspectors, mechanics, computer repair technicians, barbers, and so on. Municipalities themselves accept letters of assurance from registered professionals such as structural engineers, based on nothing other than proof of membership in a professional association such as the Association of Professional Engineers and Geotechnicians (APEG). They do not have an in-house engineer who reviews the calculations to confirm they are correct, and a private consumer would not have to either.

The private sector provides a huge and expanding range of goods and services at ever increasing value. There is no reason it couldn't do the same for building codes and inspections.

[davek]

...I assume you also abhore the government's intervention in the issues of slavery, women's suffrage, abortion and a myriad of other human rights issues.

When government used its police and judicial powers to support and defend slavery and to require segregation... yeah, I think that was abhorrent.

And when government jailed, beat, and fined suffragist activists, I thought that was abhorrent, too.

And when government seeks dominion over a woman's body, aiming to deny her an abortion at all times and under all circumstances...yup, abhorrent.

And when government exploits the commons, swelling it's coffers and buying votes by ignoring its role as steward of the nation's treasure and instead auctioning it off to whomever best serves their interests... well, you know.

There is hardly an evil to be found in this world that is not caused, exacerbated, or indulged by government. It has its role, but it is not the benevolent institution too many take it to be, and we would all do well to see it severely curtailed.

[jklymak]

Anyone who cares to have more information than I provided in post #28 as to how a private system might work

OK, I admit to not reading #28 properly. Sorry. That system doesn't sound completely unworkable. Of course you are replacing "government" for "professional association", which is a pretty subtle distinction in my book. I'm also not sure who would be liable, if in 25 years my building turns out not to have been built to the specs the builder and private inspector claimed it was.

[davek]

OK, I admit to not reading #28 properly. Sorry. That system doesn't sound completely unworkable.

You're just trying to get out of drinking with me. Mark my words, sooner or later you and I are going to polish a bar top with our sleeves, together!

Of course you are replacing "government" for "professional association", which is a pretty subtle distinction in my book.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean or where I did this.

I'm also not sure who would be liable, if in 25 years my building turns out not to have been built to the specs the builder and private inspector claimed it was.

Liability is always a concern, and more so when government is the service provider. If you get a chance to review a building permit, you will likely find a clause limiting the liability of the government. It usually says something about the homeowner or permittee being ultimately responsible for code compliance. Imagine if you contracted a house, sold it after ten years, and then a serious structural fault was found. You, a homeowner acting in good faith, are suddenly in an actionable position. Of course in a competitive system no one would accept a contract with such a clause, but when government has a monopoly, what choice is there?

And, on-topic, subsidies are bad, mmm-kay? So nobody support subsidizing renewable energy, mmm-kay?