Comments on: LEED and the Education of Legislation http://www.100khouse.com/2008/12/10/leed-and-the-education-of-legislation/ The former home of the 100k Blog Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:21:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Nic Darling http://www.100khouse.com/2008/12/10/leed-and-the-education-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-2027 Nic Darling Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:42:54 +0000 http://www.100khouse.com/?p=270#comment-2027 Kevin - I fully agree on the technology point. Legislation that mandates technology will be quickly outdated. Even if it does, by some chance, back the right solution, our tediously slow process can never hope to keep up. However, creating laws which demand certain levels of performance regardless of the technology used to reach those levels, could be useful. Laws which mandate, or even just incentivize, performance standards, demonstrate the importance of that particular type of performance. This can, if leveraged properly, be used as a tool to educate the consumer without negatively impacting innovation in the market. The only ones hurt by minimum performance requirements are those too stagnant to improve their products and methods (mileage standards vs. the US automakers). Will government mandates for green building be cumbersome and laden with the bribery-induced extras that plague nearly all of our laws? Yes, but, as Steve said, sometimes an imperfect law can be useful. Legislation is sometimes the only tool by which change can be started. The market will not shift if the current methods are profitable and many industries have proven themselves remarkably good at hiding bad practices behind a curtain of prosperity. Legislation is occasionally the way to pull back the curtain, and then, as many of you pointed out, it is the role of innovators to create change. Kevin – I fully agree on the technology point. Legislation that mandates technology will be quickly outdated. Even if it does, by some chance, back the right solution, our tediously slow process can never hope to keep up. However, creating laws which demand certain levels of performance regardless of the technology used to reach those levels, could be useful.

Laws which mandate, or even just incentivize, performance standards, demonstrate the importance of that particular type of performance. This can, if leveraged properly, be used as a tool to educate the consumer without negatively impacting innovation in the market. The only ones hurt by minimum performance requirements are those too stagnant to improve their products and methods (mileage standards vs. the US automakers).

Will government mandates for green building be cumbersome and laden with the bribery-induced extras that plague nearly all of our laws? Yes, but, as Steve said, sometimes an imperfect law can be useful. Legislation is sometimes the only tool by which change can be started. The market will not shift if the current methods are profitable and many industries have proven themselves remarkably good at hiding bad practices behind a curtain of prosperity. Legislation is occasionally the way to pull back the curtain, and then, as many of you pointed out, it is the role of innovators to create change.

]]> By: Kevin D http://www.100khouse.com/2008/12/10/leed-and-the-education-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-2024 Kevin D Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:53:10 +0000 http://www.100khouse.com/?p=270#comment-2024 I'm personally not a big fan of traditional green politics, like passing laws that favor evaporative coolers over conventional A/C. (This happened in Denver recently) In most cases, market forces combined with lots of consumer education will produce the best results. "Unintended consequences" often result from poorly thought out laws. All other things being equal, fewer laws are better than more laws for many reasons. High on that list of reasons is the need for fewer lawyers. Chris Nevitt, Denver's "greenest" city councilman, however, informed me of an interesting law passed by the city of Berkeley, CA. If you own a home and want to put photovoltaic solar on the roof, find a contractor and get a bid. The city will pay for it, then add the cost to your property tax bill to be paid over time. With a financing scheme like that, there really aren't any barriers to PV ownership. The yearly savings on your electricity bill is instantly larger than the property tax increase. Where you definitely get into trouble is when the technology being promoted isn't the best solution, even if it was when the law was passed. The free market reacts to technology improvements much quicker and more accurately. I’m personally not a big fan of traditional green politics, like passing laws that favor evaporative coolers over conventional A/C. (This happened in Denver recently) In most cases, market forces combined with lots of consumer education will produce the best results. “Unintended consequences” often result from poorly thought out laws. All other things being equal, fewer laws are better than more laws for many reasons. High on that list of reasons is the need for fewer lawyers.

Chris Nevitt, Denver’s “greenest” city councilman, however, informed me of an interesting law passed by the city of Berkeley, CA. If you own a home and want to put photovoltaic solar on the roof, find a contractor and get a bid. The city will pay for it, then add the cost to your property tax bill to be paid over time.

With a financing scheme like that, there really aren’t any barriers to PV ownership. The yearly savings on your electricity bill is instantly larger than the property tax increase.

Where you definitely get into trouble is when the technology being promoted isn’t the best solution, even if it was when the law was passed. The free market reacts to technology improvements much quicker and more accurately.

]]> By: Chris Cheatham http://www.100khouse.com/2008/12/10/leed-and-the-education-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-2006 Chris Cheatham Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:26:23 +0000 http://www.100khouse.com/?p=270#comment-2006 Fantastic post! You really covered the issues very well. When I was at Greenbuild, I heard a great presentation regarding creating green building codes. The speech presented three steps for creating green regulations: (1) Incentivize; (2) Educate; and (3) Mandate. It seems we are still at the incentivize/educate level in most jurisdictions. I get nervous when I see green building mandates. And thanks for the link, lavardera! Chris Fantastic post! You really covered the issues very well. When I was at Greenbuild, I heard a great presentation regarding creating green building codes. The speech presented three steps for creating green regulations: (1) Incentivize; (2) Educate; and (3) Mandate.

It seems we are still at the incentivize/educate level in most jurisdictions. I get nervous when I see green building mandates.

And thanks for the link, lavardera!

Chris

]]> By: Brian Baughan http://www.100khouse.com/2008/12/10/leed-and-the-education-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-2005 Brian Baughan Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:36:32 +0000 http://www.100khouse.com/?p=270#comment-2005 You said, "The government, on the other hand, is in a position to collect the combined learning of a great many people and share the important information with its citizens." That may be the case, but seriously, are we ever going to trust the integrity of that important information? Won't it serve special interests? Hasn't it always? However messy it is, I think it's best to establish standards on our own, and by that I mean within on our communities and local governments. But damn, it's a lot of work, even if you're semi-literate. You said, “The government, on the other hand, is in a position to collect the combined learning of a great many people and share the important information with its citizens.”

That may be the case, but seriously, are we ever going to trust the integrity of that important information? Won’t it serve special interests? Hasn’t it always?

However messy it is, I think it’s best to establish standards on our own, and by that I mean within on our communities and local governments. But damn, it’s a lot of work, even if you’re semi-literate.

]]> By: Steve http://www.100khouse.com/2008/12/10/leed-and-the-education-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-2003 Steve Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:16:42 +0000 http://www.100khouse.com/?p=270#comment-2003 Nice Post! I think the answer to your question is painfully obvious. Your question can be usefully related to the mortgage crisis and the challenge it poses to unregulated business practices, which is often but shouldn't be confused with free markets. The lesson is that when a market is not transparent, the market will not self regulate. The (for a while) invisible toxicity of the mortgage debt is identical to the environmental toxicity of unregulated building practices. The external environmental costs are not being applied and won't be (in time) without good regulation, as we have learned, again. The regulation don’t set the price, but makes sure the true costs and risks, as opposed to those the market can get away with, are priced in. So, barring a monumental sudden mass enlightenment on the part of the builders on the planet similar to your own splendid one as exemplified by the 100k house project, legislation is the only way to save the planet. People used to just throw their garbage out the window into the street. This led to sickness and stunk. Now there are laws against it. Those laws were not made by any necessary market function. Just because legislation is never ideal doesn’t mean we’d be better off without it. Nice Post! I think the answer to your question is painfully obvious. Your question can be usefully related to the mortgage crisis and the challenge it poses to unregulated business practices, which is often but shouldn’t be confused with free markets. The lesson is that when a market is not transparent, the market will not self regulate. The (for a while) invisible toxicity of the mortgage debt is identical to the environmental toxicity of unregulated building practices. The external environmental costs are not being applied and won’t be (in time) without good regulation, as we have learned, again. The regulation don’t set the price, but makes sure the true costs and risks, as opposed to those the market can get away with, are priced in. So, barring a monumental sudden mass enlightenment on the part of the builders on the planet similar to your own splendid one as exemplified by the 100k house project, legislation is the only way to save the planet. People used to just throw their garbage out the window into the street. This led to sickness and stunk. Now there are laws against it. Those laws were not made by any necessary market function. Just because legislation is never ideal doesn’t mean we’d be better off without it.

]]> By: bk http://www.100khouse.com/2008/12/10/leed-and-the-education-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-2002 bk Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:45:52 +0000 http://www.100khouse.com/?p=270#comment-2002 I have my doubts that legislation=education in a positive way. The market can and should act more efficiently than government mandates. Most mandates have ridiculous strings attached to them due to politicians doing what they're good at- being politicians. Good post though- I can tell you're reluctant to sign on for more government. I have my doubts that legislation=education in a positive way. The market can and should act more efficiently than government mandates. Most mandates have ridiculous strings attached to them due to politicians doing what they’re good at- being politicians.

Good post though- I can tell you’re reluctant to sign on for more government.

]]> By: lavardera http://www.100khouse.com/2008/12/10/leed-and-the-education-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-2001 lavardera Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:01:33 +0000 http://www.100khouse.com/?p=270#comment-2001 do you follow the Green Building Law blog? http://www.greenbuildinglawupdate.com/ do you follow the Green Building Law blog?
http://www.greenbuildinglawupdate.com/

]]>