There is also a real question as to whether to pursue such an in depth process of reform via existing big development companies or to encourage newer, smaller developers who are willing to think differently from the start. It’s pretty obvious which one we all prefer, but the practicalities need working out.

Seth, Amber: Both of you make good points, but I’m not sure that the market will create equilibrium on the basis of setting a single boundary condition. Or if it will, it will take far longer than it would if we gave it a good push.

What we really want is houses that are built to deal with our energy consumption needs in the long-term. If we have to constantly build new generations of homes that get incrementally better in their energy efficiency, we waste a great deal more energy in the process of building, as well as what was lost relative to the original better standard. Although I think a carbon tax is a good idea, I don’t think it’s an all purpose cure, because people won’t make the choices that maximise the energy efficiency of their homes.

When it comes to the decision of buying a home, people will have to weigh initial price outleigh against price outleigh over time, given that most people don’t have an adequate grasp on how prices will rise over time, my bet is that many would opt for a solution which would cost them more in the long term (and when scaled up to the population, cost us all more carbon wise). This is why most people’s homes in the UK aren’t insulated properly, despite the fact they’d save money.

The same applies if you instigate a carbon tax. People will make non-optimal solutions, and there will be a substantial market for lower price homes that cost you more carbon. This situation is worsened by the fact that a carbon tax would have to be scaled, getting greater over time, and as noted above, most people wouldn’t adequately compensate for the rise in the price of carbon over time.

What is more, I’d wager that the very existence of a bargain basement energy inefficient home market would drive up the prices of more energy efficient homes, because they would be in effect be ‘deluxe’ products.

There is also a real question as to whether to pursue such an in depth process of reform via existing big development companies or to encourage newer, smaller developers who are willing to think differently from the start. It’s pretty obvious which one we all prefer, but the practicalities need working out.

Seth, Amber: Both of you make good points, but I’m not sure that the market will create equilibrium on the basis of setting a single boundary condition. Or if it will, it will take far longer than it would if we gave it a good push.

What we really want is houses that are built to deal with our energy consumption needs in the long-term. If we have to constantly build new generations of homes that get incrementally better in their energy efficiency, we waste a great deal more energy in the process of building, as well as what was lost relative to the original better standard. Although I think a carbon tax is a good idea, I don’t think it’s an all purpose cure, because people won’t make the choices that maximise the energy efficiency of their homes.

When it comes to the decision of buying a home, people will have to weigh initial price outleigh against price outleigh over time, given that most people don’t have an adequate grasp on how prices will rise over time, my bet is that many would opt for a solution which would cost them more in the long term (and when scaled up to the population, cost us all more carbon wise). This is why most people’s homes in the UK aren’t insulated properly, despite the fact they’d save money.

The same applies if you instigate a carbon tax. People will make non-optimal solutions, and there will be a substantial market for lower price homes that cost you more carbon. This situation is worsened by the fact that a carbon tax would have to be scaled, getting greater over time, and as noted above, most people wouldn’t adequately compensate for the rise in the price of carbon over time.

What is more, I’d wager that the very existence of a bargain basement energy inefficient home market would drive up the prices of more energy efficient homes, because they would be in effect be ‘deluxe’ products.

There is also a real question as to whether to pursue such an in depth process of reform via existing big development companies or to encourage newer, smaller developers who are willing to think differently from the start. It’s pretty obvious which one we all prefer, but the practicalities need working out.

Seth, Amber: Both of you make good points, but I’m not sure that the market will create equilibrium on the basis of setting a single boundary condition. Or if it will, it will take far longer than it would if we gave it a good push.

What we really want is houses that are built to deal with our energy consumption needs in the long-term. If we have to constantly build new generations of homes that get incrementally better in their energy efficiency, we waste a great deal more energy in the process of building, as well as what was lost relative to the original better standard. Although I think a carbon tax is a good idea, I don’t think it’s an all purpose cure, because people won’t make the choices that maximise the energy efficiency of their homes.

When it comes to the decision of buying a home, people will have to weigh initial price outleigh against price outleigh over time, given that most people don’t have an adequate grasp on how prices will rise over time, my bet is that many would opt for a solution which would cost them more in the long term (and when scaled up to the population, cost us all more carbon wise). This is why most people’s homes in the UK aren’t insulated properly, despite the fact they’d save money.

The same applies if you instigate a carbon tax. People will make non-optimal solutions, and there will be a substantial market for lower price homes that cost you more carbon. This situation is worsened by the fact that a carbon tax would have to be scaled, getting greater over time, and as noted above, most people wouldn’t adequately compensate for the rise in the price of carbon over time.

What is more, I’d wager that the very existence of a bargain basement energy inefficient home market would drive up the prices of more energy efficient homes, because they would be in effect be ‘deluxe’ products.

The market takes care of equilibrium — once power decides what boundary conditions it wants.

The market takes care of equilibrium — once power decides what boundary conditions it wants.

The market takes care of equilibrium — once power decides what boundary conditions it wants.

This interregnum is not just political, but economic/industrial. I’m not sure we should be propping up or attempting to regulate industries back to life. This is a really sticky issue, but I see a huge opportunity in the lack of purchasing going on. It’s like our entire country (and yours in Britain) has realized that they don’t have to listen to marketing that tells people what to buy. For example, Detroit has always been build a car and tell the public that they want it…it will make them cool, will make people think they are rich, etc. Now that the buying has all but stopped, there’s an opening for the consumer to say here’s what I want and I’m not buying squat until you build what I want (and build it green).

Someone will eventually build the stuff that people want and need and are willing to spend their hard-earned money on. Question is is that ’someone’ going to be a small start-up or can the government somehow ‘regulate’ existing large companies into actually listening to their customers (again, instead of their shareholders). As Jon pointed out on another post, this will require an acceptance of moderate profits based on what real people are actually really buying instead of all of the accounting sleight of hand and skimming that has been going on for the last 20 years. Don’t know if the 1% is going to be willing (or able) to wrap their brains around that one. Perhaps it’s back to the pikes, pillories…and guillotines.

This interregnum is not just political, but economic/industrial. I’m not sure we should be propping up or attempting to regulate industries back to life. This is a really sticky issue, but I see a huge opportunity in the lack of purchasing going on. It’s like our entire country (and yours in Britain) has realized that they don’t have to listen to marketing that tells people what to buy. For example, Detroit has always been build a car and tell the public that they want it…it will make them cool, will make people think they are rich, etc. Now that the buying has all but stopped, there’s an opening for the consumer to say here’s what I want and I’m not buying squat until you build what I want (and build it green).

Someone will eventually build the stuff that people want and need and are willing to spend their hard-earned money on. Question is is that ’someone’ going to be a small start-up or can the government somehow ‘regulate’ existing large companies into actually listening to their customers (again, instead of their shareholders). As Jon pointed out on another post, this will require an acceptance of moderate profits based on what real people are actually really buying instead of all of the accounting sleight of hand and skimming that has been going on for the last 20 years. Don’t know if the 1% is going to be willing (or able) to wrap their brains around that one. Perhaps it’s back to the pikes, pillories…and guillotines.

Nine women and one month do not a baby make.

Nine women and one month do not a baby make.