UK to be World's first "green" economy

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

And' date=' this is what makes right-wing, short-sighted wackos so hard to talk to. Of COURSE the gov't has the right to take your money if you decide not to remodel your house.

[/quote']

Really? When did we vote on this?

That was before you were born. Or before you were able to vote. Not that it's relevant. We all have to obey a lot of laws we didn't vote on.

I thought left-wingers for the poor? The only people this hurts are those who can't afford to remodel their homes. It isn't short-sighted, it's a reality!

The working poor are typically the ones whose homes do not meet code because they live in lower-quality homes. Where does a working-class person get the money for solar panels and windmills? They can barely afford to make the mortgage as it is.

Why do you think Terry didn't buy a hybrid? Because he couldn't afford it. That's what he said right? What if all of a sudden with almost no warning, the government required everyone to drive a hybrid? You'd be for that? Where do poor people get the money dude? Sure, they're driving old beaters that pump out more CO2 then this thread is, but where do they get the money to upgrade????

Let me guess, let government pick up the tab and slap a tax on people like me! And I'm the one who's short-sighted....

In a lot of way this statement above is true.

Tragically poor people can't afford to live a greener and cleaner lifestyle even if they choose to.

You have some kind of money in the bank to spend in order to save money.

For example, the whole hybrid car thing. In Florida there is only 2 hybrid vehicles on the market. The Toyota Prius and that Lexus SUV.

Sure I would love to have been able to buy one and save money on gas, but I can't afford a $499 dollar a month car payment to have either one of those.

Same go's for grocery shopping. Sure I can afford to go shop at Whole Foods to buy organic food, but most people can't afford to pay $1 more for a dozen organic eggs, or $1 more for organic milk. Little costs like this all adds up to people on a fixed income.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the government telling people that they have to be cleaner. It's been happening for a long time.

If you get caught thorwing a ciggarette butt off a bridge and into an intercoastal you'll get slapped with a $1000 fine. If I don't keep my service alley behind my house clean and free of debris, the city of Hollywood will fine me $500 for every week the debris is back there.

But I think imposing fines or requiring poor people on a fixed income is wrong. If the governmnet wants them to clean up then the government should pay to improve the infrastructure of these peoples communities and help them clean up not force them to.

[Guest pod]

In a way, that's the whole problem behind a lot of green initiatives that governments (lib, conservative, whatever, they're all jackasses these days) try and do force on people. Being green costs money! "Efficient" (30%) solar panels are tens of thousands of dollars. You're looking at a second mortgage to live off the grid.

Same thing with hybrids, as Terry pointed out. Not just the ones here in FL, but in general, hybrids are a few thousand more at the minimum, than a comparably equipped gas-powered car.

Reminds me of "eating healthy". That shit'll bankrupt you.

And, most lawmakers aren't exactly hard up for money themselves, so it's so easy for them to pass these laws, since they don't see the day-to-day struggles a lot of people go through. The government is no longer in touch with the people it supposedly serves.

[Guest coach]

Okay, here's the deal. Let's take Shaun as an example. He is smart enough to realize that paying the extra money up front for an extra energy-efficient house is a good deal because he will save money in the long run. As several have pointed out, not everybody can afford to pay this upfront money, though. So what? We should all just waste money because a few people can't afford to save it? That's just dumb.

What everyone seems to fail to realize is that industry works of economies of scale. WHY did Shaun's house cost so much more than a less efficient house? Answer: because so few are being made. Economy of scale.

Here is what happens when government steps in and legislates changes in codes, of any kind. This opens a technical opportunity window. For example, if *every* new home has to have solar panels, then there becomes an acute need and an entrepreneurial opportunity. Business will rush in with innovation and investment to fill that opportunity, strong competition will ensue, and prices will come down. And everybody knows that it costs MUCH less per unit to manufacture 10,000 of something than to manufacture 100. So, if the "solar panel" industry (or any other energy-efficiency industry) starts to take off, the prices drop drastically due to economies of scale, as well as competition.

In addition, businesses, who are in the business of making money, will invest more heavily in R&D both due to competition - you want to have the "better" product then your competitor, as well as percieved return on investment. Right now, the return on investment for solar panels, or any energy-efficiency technology, is very low because even if you do invent a better product, the market for it is very small. However, if the market was *everyone*, then your return on investment potential for creating a hot product is huge.

This is how it has worked for centuries. It will work the same way now. But, practically everybody is *always* so short-sighted, in both directions. They don't look at the past to see the trends and they don't look at the future to see the benefits. They only look at the cost *right now*.

Shaun, if government (that is, the people in a democracy) *mandated* that all houses had to be built as energy-efficiently as yours, you would have saved a LOT of money on it because the technology and processes to do so would be ubiquitous rather than specialized. Not to mention all the money you would save because energy costs in general would be lower (that is, you would pay less $$ per watt-hour of your electricity).

So, to go back to the point about poor people not being able to afford the short-term costs of energy-efficiency. In the long run it IS cheaper for *everyone* to help them out with governmental assistance. Long-term low interest loans, grants, subsidized contractors are all good ideas for helping to get everyone up to speed. And I am sure a plethora of other entrepreneurial opportunities would present themselves if government mandated stricter energy efficiency codes. They always do.

As far as the "penalties" brought up in the story, the story sounds terribly biased. I looked there and could not find a link to the actual legislation. I'd have to take a look at it before I actually believed that the government would really go very far with penalties like that, *particularly* against the poor, PARTICULARLY in a socialist democracy like Great Britain. So, if anyone has a link to the original legislation, please pass that along.

Now my brain hurts and it is time for B-Live. I'm gonna go indulge in a little of my own greed and energy-wasting, so you guys have fun.

[Guest slamminshaun]

I can appreciate Coach's utilitarian economic theory, but weren't you the same guy who said "Save our Homes" shouldn't be repealled because a few old farts and poor people would suffer, despite it being for the greater good of everyone? Nevermind that, back to the topic...

We all remember Hurricane Andrew right? Well, out of the ashes of Andrew came alot of new building codes, and rightly so. Today, hurricane shutters are REQUIRED for all new homes built in Florida. Now, that's ALOT of homes built, especially over the past 5 years. Government mandated it, therefore, the huge demand should've driven prices way down so the average middle class person could afford them, right Coach?

Well, I'm no shutter expert, but shutters still cost about $4,000-5,000 for an average person's home. Who the hell can afford to put shutters on their house at that price? New construction, fine....to mandate everyone in existing homes to get them is nuts which is why they don't require it. Same is true with solar panels and windmills....nobody will be able to afford them no matter how efficient things become at the front-end, therefore, existing homes should be exempt. Incentives, not penalties!

[Guest coach]

Actually, shutter prices have come down quite a bit and continue to do so. But understand that the number of new homes vs the number of existing homes is very small. A larger market will drive prices down even further.

As an example, remember the catalytic converter for cars? There was a time when people said the same thing, "no way it will ever become reasonably affordable." Now, every car has one.

[Guest slamminshaun]

Interesting article in today's local paper (St. Lucie) regarding "green homes".

click here

And for anyone interested in voluntarily going green with their next home, www.floridagreenbuilding.org

[Guest coach]

Hey! Cool! Proving my point!

[Guest coach]

Hey! Cool! Proving my point!

I will definitely look into that when/if we get around to buying a home.

[Guest slamminshaun]

Hey! Cool! Proving my point!

I will definitely look into that when/if we get around to buying a home.

You should. Isn't it ironic that I might be the only one on these boards currently living in a "green house"? As I stated before, I just have a problem with gub'ment taking poor people's money simply because they can't afford to make upgrades to existing homes.

You want to upgrade the code for new construction, fine, I have no problem with that....just don't make poor people decide between feeding their children and putting solar panels and windmills on their house (a common argument from the left).

[Guest coach]

Dang, dude, you are turning crazy liberal on us! Like I said, I really doubt that a socialist country like the UK would enact legislation that would have a serious negative impact on the poor.

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

you guys can't compare the market costs of hurricane shutters versus the costs of solar panels.

If you don't have hurricane panels on your windows and a Cat 4 storm comes your way with 140 MPH winds and shatter your windows, the roof blows off of your house and your home is done!

One market deals with safety and determines its costs based on how much fear people have of losing their home die to the fact that every 9 months they face the possiblity of losing their life long investment.

So comparing the 2 market behaviors is moot.

[Guest pod]

Build with reinforced concrete and null-field tech. Simple as that. Oh and install a 3 GW fusion or M/AM reactor.

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

Build with reinforced concrete and null-field tech. Simple as that. Oh and install a 3 GW fusion or M/AM reactor.

You're techincal babble does not impress me one bit..

[Guest slamminshaun]

you guys can't compare the market costs of hurricane shutters versus the costs of solar panels.

If you don't have hurricane panels on your windows and a Cat 4 storm comes your way with 140 MPH winds and shatter your windows, the roof blows off of your house and your home is done!

One market deals with safety and determines its costs based on how much fear people have of losing their home die to the fact that every 9 months they face the possiblity of losing their life long investment.

So comparing the 2 market behaviors is moot.

Global warming alarmists don't use fear to get people to do what they want to do? The whole movement is built around fear!