Yet Another Reason to Hate Cap-and-Trade
My post today at the American Issues Project deals with a rumor I’ve seen making the e-mail and blogging rounds. It says that if you own a home and want to sell it, the Democrats’ cap-and-trade bill would require you to have your house inspected to make sure it meets a certain energy-efficiency target and, if it doesn’t make it, to bring it up to code before you sell it.
As it happens, the rumor isn’t very far from being true. It’s both not quite as bad as it could be and far worse.
What that’s saying is the state will be empowered to inspect your home if you want to 1) renovate your house in any way that requires a building permit, 2) sell your house, or 3) change the name of the person responsible for any utility bill.
By now, if you haven’t swallowed your tongue and are in need of medical attention, you’re probably wondering if there’s a penalty for not being in compliance with the new efficiency ratings. The answer is no, and yes. Here’s where the bill gets really sneaky. So far as I can tell, there is no direct penalty if your house does not meet the bill’s target. However, it does require that the number of buildings inspected by the state meet certain percentage targets and if they do not, the state loses out on a significant portion of the money it could get from Washington. In other words, the bill demands certain things from the states, but ties funding for those demands to compliance with the demands.
Did I say the bill gets sneaky? I was wrong. The bill strong-arms the states like a couple mob heavies leaning on a witness in a Rico trial. In turn, the states are going to put the screws to you, so it gets the billions of dollars Washington is dangling in front of them. So while the Federal government won’t directly punish you, it will provide the states with lots and lots of rectangular, green reasons to do so.
Please read the whole thing and be sure to leave a comment when you do!
UPDATE: The post is apparently quite popular today. it’s been linked by Michelle Malkin, Melissa Clouthier (twice!), and got its own memeorandum entry. This comes on the heels of my “green shoots” post last week bagging an Instalanche.
Meanwhile, traffic here languishes like a fact in Henry Waxman’s brain. One day, I’ll get the whole package working!
UPDATE 2: Well, that was unexpected. The post has taken off like a rocket. My editor told me earlier today that the link had been re-tweeted at least 35 times by her quick count, which seems a lot to me. A number of other bloggers have also linked there and since I can’t jam that post full of updates, I’d like to thank all of them here.
So, thank you to Howie at The Jawa Report, Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard, the Freepers, and Stephen Spruiell at NRO whose posts provided inspiration for the whole thing
Other Posts of Interest:
- Cap and Trade Hope on the AIP Blog
- I’m From the Government and I’m Here to Change Your Oil
- No More Money for Highways.
Category: Blogs and Blogging, Featured, Oh the Climate, It is A-Changin', The Economy and Your Money, The Rise of the Nanny State
It appears to me that there's a bigger agenda here/ more than Congress going green. On a global plantation with salaries being leveled to (per auto – green shoots) $12 an hr, NOBODY will be able to afford a home. It appears that every obstacle/barrier possible is being put in place (check it out for your state) to drive people into 'workforce housing'; better known as company housing of old. Perhaps, being the largest DEBTOR nation/ people's HOMES are part of the collateral put up/ along with timber/ water/ coal/ gas/ parks etc.
Like the Waxman observation!
Thanks, Chris! I don't think you can make too many insulting analogies to Henry Waxman.
[...] Jimmie has more to say. SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Cap-N-Trade: Your House Is Not Your Own–UPDATED", url: "http://www.melissaclouthier.com/2009/07/08/cap-n-trade-your-house-is-not-your-own/" }); [...]
Some of this is already in effect in California. It's covered in a law called "Title 24"…at least, that's what we refer to when we have a customer come in with a lightbulb they've never seen before and need replaced. Part of the requirements are that certain percentages of your lighting for the kitchen, for example, must be fluorescent. I think it's 70%, but I'm not sure. Bathroom also has a % requirement. Additionally, all lighting attached to walls or ceilings must have a socket that limits insertion of lightbulb to a fluorescent – specifically, they use a GU24 base – a base with two pin/knobs set 24 millimeters apart, and inserted with a twist and lock motion. They are not widely available, are limited in wattage and color (warm white is usual, cool white or daylight are hard to get). This is in addition to all the other varieties available. In order to avoid this requirement, you have to re-socket the fixture, which most homeowners aren't prepared to do and don't want to pay an electrician (at $75 per hour) to do.
Of course, on the kitchen requirement…you can always double the lighting you install and then just use the incandescent…but even that's getting to be a trick. The other requirement is that the "primary" lighting on the entry light switch panel must be fluorescent. People have found that if you install undercabinet fluorescents and use them as the primary switch, it makes for a nice effect…! Especially as nightlights. Then you use the next switch to turn on the lights you _really_ intend to use.
Of course, you _will_ remember about 10 years ago when the State of California refused to allow the power plants to raise the price of electricity when we had a problem with a power shortage…can't do that…but they can mandate what lightbulbs you use with your cheap imported electricity.
Idiots.
That's good information, Sue. As I understand it right now, the environmental building codes in CA are going to be a large part of the "baseline" from which Washington will build the new codes.
[...] Read the rest…. Hat Tip: Sundries Shack. [...]
[...] bill he had noticed circulating in the blogs and over email. The rumor, as he explains here, is that “if you own a home and want to sell it, the Democrats’ cap-and-trade bill would [...]
"What that’s saying is the state will be empowered to inspect your home if you want to 1) renovate your house in any way that requires a building permit, 2) sell your house, or 3) change the name of the person responsible for any utility bill."
And how is that different from the current situation? When I bought my house, it damn well got inspected. Turns out, I actually wanted that so I knew what I was buying. You seem to be advocating a situation where nobody knows what they're buying. And when I renovated it, they came back to make sure I did it right. Bad wiring is a really big cause of fires, and in a dry climate, fire is a very sensitive issue. But you want people to create fire hazards. The third point is a little strange, but let's face it, the utility company already comes by twice a year to verify my meter and check the main feed to my house. I'm kind of glad that they check up on that main feed. I like to know that it's not going to burn my house down. What you are complaining about is what already happens. Are you advocating that no building inspections ever occur? Is that really what you want? Do you really want our country to be full of buildings that fall down and start fires? I'm all for less government intrusion, but don't count me in the pro-Fire, pro-Building Collapse camp that you're in.
No, Tom. I'm not talking about routine building inspections and, unless you've suddenly regressed to the reading comprehension of a ten-year old, you know I'm not.
Well, since I apparently am a ten year old, why don't you explain to me how inspecting a building when it's sold is different from inspecting a building when it's sold. Tell me how inspecting a building after a renovation is different from inspecting a building after renovation. I just don't see it. The supposedly horribly insane building inspections listed above are exactly the definition of routine building inspections. Buy a house, and you'll know that these are routine. But since you are the expert, having not owned a house, tell me how these inspections are different. Given your complete lack of experience, you no doubt have some special insight here.
Nah. I don't feel like playing your game today.
[...] Room Dwight Schultz, Big Hollywood: Obama’s EPA Ignores Inconvenient Truths The Sundries Shack: Yet Another Reason to Hate Cap-and-Trade JustOneMinute: Paul Krugman Misstates Bruce Bartlett Fire Andrea Mitchell!: Dave Reichert – one [...]
Wise choice Jimmie. However, I'll bite one time.
The difference, fostert, is that previous standards addressed by the various inspections dealt with _safety_ issues. Code required certain standards of electrical wiring, for example. Weight of the wiring used, amps per line – that sort of thing. The inspections being proposed will inspect for compliance with certain energy standards which are newly established. It has nothing to do with safety – it has all to do with energy consumption.
And it's bogus – if they wanted to establish a certain limit of energy consumption per person actually living in the house, that would be one thing (no, I wouldn't agree with that either, but it would make sense if your goal was to reduce overall energy consumption), but in fact there's no limitation on the size of the house or square footage per occupant – just the percentage of lighting fixtures(attached to the house) that have to be low energy rating, and the permanent electrical elements (heating/cooling, eg)also have to meet certain efficiency standards. Also, I presume, the insulation would have to meet approved standards.
Note that these energy efficiency levels would be determined by the Federal government, not the individual. The individual has _always_ had the right to a professional evaluation of a home/building before buying it – and would be foolish not to use it. That's not the same as _mandating_ that a home be required to meet certain standards before permitting occupancy.
By the way – we learned that in Texas there are no building standards – at least outside municipal areas(we weren't looking at property inside municipal limits, so I don't know about them). You're on your own. If your electrical system is faulty and your house burns down, it's your problem. If you buy a house and don't have it inspected for safety and something bad happens as a result – it's your problem. If you build it yourself and don't have a septic system (much less one of a certain size) – it's your problem.
Don't know _what_ they'd do in a state like West Virginia where poverty is such a problem that the houses are constructed of uninsulated wood boards in many cases. My sister has worked with a group there (Nazareth Farms) whose mission is to use free labor (young people from colleges) to assist local families in upgrading their homes to have insulation and in some cases, just paint. Of course, they don't use much in the way of energy…just wood stoves for heat, very often. No air conditioning. Some houses don't even have electricity.
Very energy efficient.
They'd probably meet the new standards.
Found you via a link at DPUD. Great post.
As AGW Zombies and their handlers are the prime target of my vitriol, I am pleased to find someone else who agrees Waxman is simultaneously the stupidest and most dangerous man in America. If ypou find any of my AGW posts and their links useful, steal away. Just look out for the NSFW spassfabrik babes.
[...] drawn over 50 comments here, and many more on other sites that linked to the post (thank you to all the linkers, by the way). Some of the comments raised objections to a couple points I made or asked for some [...]
"The difference, fostert, is that previous standards addressed by the various inspections dealt with _safety_ issues."
Nice try. I had two inspections when I bought my house. One of them was the city inspector, the other was private. The private inspector's report had a nicer cover, but was basically the same report. And guess what? Both reports talked about the energy efficiency of my house and suggested improvements, most of which I've done. And the private guy gave me an extra suggestion on my insulation. I have some old vermiculite insulation which might become illegal in ten years. He suggested that I might get rid of it before that law passes. But I wouldn't know about that if nobody looked at it, would I? Well, actually I would. I did my time in construction and know exactly what vermiculite is. It's nasty, and you really want to wear a mask when dealing with it.
But have you ever had a real inspection? They look everywhere anyway. The fact that they might look at your insulation is no different than what they do anyway. They are already climbing through it when they look at your wiring. The only difference I see is that they spend an extra five minutes writing their report. And this is some kind of crazy government influence that will destroy my life? Get real. They already do it anyway. Both of my reports show that. And society hasn't collapsed, I'm still alive, and the only thing that's a danger is that vermiculite they warned me about. This is a problem? Buy a house before you talk to me about this.
And let's be clear about this. Both inspectors caught a small natural gas leak. I fixed it, but the city doesn't know about that. Legally, I'm not even allowed to fix that, but hey, someone else must have done it. But the City never came back. When they won't come down on you for a gas leak, I don't think they'll come down on you for anything else. I'm guessing I have at least twenty years on the vermiculite. Which is longer than I'll live. When I come up with the money for the attic renovation, I'll deal with the vermiculite properly. Until then, I've spent a lot of money making my house more efficient. I just haven't got to the rear windows and attic. But I have big plans there, so it's understandable that it might go slow.
And to make this more clear, I've cut my energy usage by 30% with the same house. Imagine if America could do that. That's enough to put Iran completely out of business. Of course, these are fungible markets, so nobody who drills oil will go out of business. But maybe their profits would be less if we buy less from them. It's your choice, I'm overhedged anyway. You can lower your cost and mine by buying less energy. If you don't, I make money on my energy stocks. You'll put money in my pocket either way. Which pocket do you want to put it in?
"That’s enough to put Iran completely out of business. "
I doubt we have the guts to really take Iran out. The way to do it is with oil and gas. But we wouldn't ever sacrifice those things. If we did, it would work. As it is right now, Iran is in a tough pickle. Low oil prices and internal strife. Normally, Ahmadinejad would buy off the people using oil revenues. Just like Sarah Palin would. But neither of them can do that now, can they? Palin quits, and Ahmadinejad cracks down. In the end, both will go down, just in a different way. But for the same reasons. Live by oil, die by oil.
[...] exposé at The Sundries Shack: “Yet Another Reason to Hate Cap and Trade”—click here to read the whole piece: …Here’s what the Democrats have planned for you. The program [...]
[...] global warming as lead message Pundit & Pundette: Is the tide turning? The Sundries Shack: Yet Another Reason to Hate Cap-and-Trade and At Least You’ll Get A Nice Quill Pen and Inkpot JustOneMinute: Paul Krugman Misstates Bruce [...]