The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

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?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

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?

Bureaucrats would have easy access to National labs.The national labs have access to engineers.The engineers know a lot about efficiency.The codes would reflect good engineering practice.Especially thermodynamics.It's impossible to optimize the performance of a home without strict attention to thermodynamics.That's where the savings are.
The federal government already has national building,electrical,and plumbing codes.They're regularly updated anyway.We're just talking about engineering for better efficiency.
I stumble at the notion that individuals know exactly what challenges they face.
I'd outlaw the 'incandescent light bulb of homes',and mandate the 'LED version.'
We'd go from 5% efficiency,to 40% efficiency.That's the quickest way to a tax-free pay raise and improved standard of living.At no cost.Remember,the object is getting to zero-carbon.That doesn't happen with a light bulb and weather strip.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Bureaucrats would have easy access to National labs.The national labs have access to engineers.The engineers know a lot about efficiency.The codes would reflect good engineering practice.Especially thermodynamics.It's impossible to optimize the performance of a home without strict attention to thermodynamics.That's where the savings are.
The federal government already has national building,electrical,and plumbing codes.They're regularly updated anyway.We're just talking about engineering for better efficiency.
I stumble at the notion that individuals know exactly what challenges they face.
I'd outlaw the 'incandescent light bulb of homes',and mandate the 'LED version.'
We'd go from 5% efficiency,to 40% efficiency.That's the quickest way to a tax-free pay raise and improved standard of living.At no cost.Remember,the object is getting to zero-carbon.That doesn't happen with a light bulb and weather strip.

You're right that individuals don't know exactly what challenges they face, but the same problem is magnified in a bureaucracy that any inefficiency that is mandated gets multiplied millions of times rather than just once. The private sector can more quickly adapt to changing technologies too. Just look, we've got laws on the books to require side mirrors in vehicles even though manufacturers already have superior solutions to the problem.

By mandating design, you inevitably create situations where the mandated solution is inferior in certain applications than some alternative.

I'd rather have energy consumption limited than have design dictated to me. Some sort of meter that shuts off for the month once a certain threshold was hit, or at least gets severely throttled back. I could spend my limit on a few inefficient things, or lots of efficient ones. Still hate that idea though because it doesn't take into account the individual. Better to just make things cost more if you don't want people using them.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

You're right that individuals don't know exactly what challenges they face, but the same problem is magnified in a bureaucracy that any inefficiency that is mandated gets multiplied millions of times rather than just once. The private sector can more quickly adapt to changing technologies too. Just look, we've got laws on the books to require side mirrors in vehicles even though manufacturers already have superior solutions to the problem.

By mandating design, you inevitably create situations where the mandated solution is inferior in certain applications than some alternative.

I'd rather have energy consumption limited than have design dictated to me. Some sort of meter that shuts off for the month once a certain threshold was hit, or at least gets severely throttled back. I could spend my limit on a few inefficient things, or lots of efficient ones. Still hate that idea though because it doesn't take into account the individual. Better to just make things cost more if you don't want people using them.

As I mentioned in the post,the premise is 'performance'.The designer is free to do whatever they want as long as the home performs to specification.If they bring in a more efficient design,they're free to go hog wild with the difference.
FDR poured concrete sidewalks in Denton,Texas in the 1930s for the school kids.Local developers never thought to do this for their community.Today,they're still there to walk on,86-years later.Homes are a 200-year proposition.They ought to be as good as they can be.And what's not to like about a more comfortable,less expensive place to live,on a stable planet.

[redpoint5]

I'm not totally against regulation or updating existing regulation. I brought up the idea that 120v AC running LED bulbs with built in ballasts is inefficient. Maybe some new standard could be developed where the converter is installed in a centralized location with a single 120v circuit feeding it, with the LED bulbs being driven by low voltage DC in a newly designed socket more appropriate to LEDs.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohed

What's been their movement on climate change since 1958? I know of no extant,ongoing state experiment which has embraced this model philosophy.

There's an inherent contradiction in 'anarchist movement', isn't there. Environmentalism, solar power, commercial space operation, Internet & etc. all manifested without, or despite, state intervention.

Historically,social democratic states have produced the greatest social equity at the lowest cost.Why bet on an abstraction when we have the bonafides on a proven winner? Ockham's Razor.

Socialism, as Tim Pool likes to point out, doesn't scale, it devolves with scale. Anarchism has already scaled to global proportion and consumed it.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

By mandating design, you inevitably create situations where the mandated solution is inferior in certain applications than some alternative.

Bingo! Basing your standards on 4x8 sheets mandates that you'll never get out of the box. The ultimately most efficient shape is a torus.

[oil pan 4]

Building in 4x8 is inspectable.

[sendler]

Some scientific studies on the "Electrification of everything".
.
Be patient. Persistent. And accepting of the scale of the transformation. Wishful thinking and picking time frames out of a hat do not change the physical requirements on the ground.
.
"Electricity’s share of total final energy in 2050 reaches 41 percent in the high scenario, up from 19 percent in 2016 and 23 percent in the reference scenario. The shift to electricity in the high scenario also found fuel use reductions of 74 percent for gasoline, 35 percent for diesel, and 37 percent for natural gas in 2050. Because electricity end-use technologies are typically more energy efficient to provide the same service per unit of final energy than other technologies,” noted Mai, “that leads to an overall final energy use reduction of about 21 percent by 2050.”
.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...ty-consumption
.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70485.pdf
.
.

.
.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sendler

"Electricity’s share of total final energy in 2050 reaches 41 percent in the high scenario
.
.

So much for "we only have 12 years before we are doomed".
Might as well get comfortable.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Building in 4x8 is inspectable.

Building inspectors like to be able to see the stamps on the framing lumber. What if you build in aerated concrete?

Information Gerrymandering: Solar Wind Impact, Cascadia Pattern, Truth Crisis | S0 News Oct.24.2019