Editor's Note: With this post we welcome yet another new writer to the team. Andrew Hunt writes out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and will be sharing his knowledge on green building and other topics. Today Andrew begins with a consideration of how our increasingly transient society is costing us more. Welcome Andrew!
Whilst searching the Web for the most recent solution to global warming (the truth is out there?) I moused across a report issued in February 2007 by the International Energy Agency titled Financing Energy Efficient Homes: Existing Policy responds to financial barriers.
A riveting 52-page read to be sure.
The report starts by stating that existing buildings account for 40 percent of the world’s energy use and 24 percent of the carbon emissions. These numbers jive with the US Department of Energy’s figures as well, unfortunately.
Bullet point number four of the executive summary caught my eye because the concept is so obvious I had never considered it. In short it suggests that one of the significant barriers to employing more energy responsible building technologies is that in residential settings where renters are concerned, no one has a vested interest in improving energy efficiency.
Landlords are disinclined to beef up insulation and invest in the latest green building technologies to reduce energy consumption because, more times than not, it is the renter who is responsible for the energy bills. Renters have little desire and often no opportunity to pony-up for new energy efficient heating and cooling systems, windows, and fixtures. Why would they invest in someone else’s property and see so little gain?
The IEA contend there is a perpetual game of “not it” being played. Landlords and tenants both pass the buck. This game is being played out in commercial applications as well where buildings are leased to tenants, invariably the landlord is more concerned with occupancy rates than R-values.
Renters account for about 30 percent of the US residential market, so what about the other 70 percent of Americans who own homes? The buck stops with the home owner, right?
I remember when I bought my first home someone said “You don’t own it, you just pay rent to the bank.” Although a bummer of a thought, especially for the first-time homeowner, it is an accurate statement.
Couple that concept with the fact that the average homeowner moves every five to seven years and basically the motivation to dramatically improve the performance of existing buildings dries up. Why break a sweat with an energy overhaul to your home when you will sell it long before recouping on the investment? What incentives are there for people to spend a remodeling budget on “greening” the homestead instead of adding a master bath?
We live in a world of finite resources, and that also applies to construction budgets. How can we motivate homeowners to choose an energy audit with blower door tests over marble countertops, or to install low flow toilets and pass on the Olympic-sized soaking tub?
The biggest barrier to change, as I see it, is that we try to justify “going green” in terms of financial gain, and that message will only sway part of the market.
“Install EnergyStar appliances and save money” says the Environmental Protection Agency. When did the EPA get into the business of microeconomics? I’m not knocking the EnergyStar program, but an undo emphasis seems to be placed on the money you will save instead of the planet you can save.
Perhaps we should reframe the discussion of energy efficiency and resource conservation from a monetary debate to a practical debate and stop passing the buck.
Using less makes sense, not cents.
