Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
In a climate change mitigation scenario,I'd be pushing for orders of magnitude in savings.I'd set more aggressive parameters,and if a home designer could bring the home in,complying with the standard,then any 'slop' left over could allow for aesthetics or whatever.But the standard would have to be met (just say 'no' to Barbie).No state pension fund would be allowed to own stock in a building materials manufacturer and utility provider, and then make it a law, that all new homes must include those materials in their construction,and use that utilities energy,as is done in Texas.Higher sale price would eventually be offset by lower life cycle operating cost,ultimately paying for the advanced technology,and afterwards monthly dividends.No builder could skirt the regulations.A level playing field.
Once the country was at zero-carbon,we could discuss relaxation of constraints.
|
You've explained exactly how all bureaucracy works; that special interests end up being served instead of the people because those in authority act in their own self-interest rather than the people they ostensibly serve. It's precisely why a wise king is an unrealistic ideal.
Instead of dictating down to the mm of what specific material must be in my home; which itself is specified to certain dimensions... the goal of reduced fossil fuel consumption can be accomplished more efficiently by simply increasing the cost of fossil fuels (taxation). Then homeowners decide how best they will save money by building efficiently.
Why assume bureaucrats can come up with better solutions to a problem than individuals who know exactly what challenges they face for their individual problems?