On December 5, the Times-Call had editorialized that such "green building" should not be required. Unfortunately the T-C doesn't have that much of an online database, and it isn't available online anymore. (Hello, Times-Call? It's 2006.) Anyway, on Wednesday, the three Commissioners had an editorial "Special to the Longmont Times-Call" published. This is not online either.
Here's the gist of their comments from my point of view:
Because Boulder and Longmont are strengthening green building requirements, so should the County. Lafayette, Louisville and Superior will soon be considering them, and so should the County. The negative impacts of pollution are tangible, however we have numerous solutions available to combat inefficient energy use. That said, incentives for such solutions must also give way to mandates and requirements. But don't worry, the requirements will show a positive ROI - in most cases. No decisions have been made on the mix of voluntary and required building techniques. Energy budgets could be devised. Please come to our meeting with comments.
When the government of the County or a community wants to tell you what you can build with, I think people need to be at least aware of the discussions. You can find info on the public meetings about these proposals here.
As I've debated somewhat with Alex earlier, I'm not against all regulation; dangerous building materials should not be allowed, and the safety of design must be codified. But dictating efficiency standards as opposed to incentivizing them is too heavy-handed. It comes across as arrogant.
1 comment:
Some would call energy efficiency a national security issue. At least, that's the buzz in national politics when one speaks of dependency on foreign oil and depletion of domestic non-renewable resources. While letting the market dictate how rapidly we draw reserves toward zero has certain economic advantages, this type of policy also has many drawbacks, both environmental and economic risks.
Can we be content to have plentiful cheap energy and the liberty to consume to a level of deliberate excess if we so choose? That may sound like an ideal situation to some, but can we really be content in this state of affairs if the price is for future generations to have no hope of sustaining such grand views of liberty and property rights?
Even looking at the status quo, I don't think it is entirely accurate to say that the government has no business regulating energy efficiency. For example, it occurs to me that the insulation 'R-value' of residential construction receives some attention in the standard building codes. Certainly, if it came down to Congress versus local government trying to address the problem of energy demands, I'd rather see local government take the initiative than wait until Congress declares a national crisis to hand down a special interest-driven national mandate.
In my opinion, it is best ot have an open mind about the role regulation can play in preserving for future generations the resources and the choices we value so highly. Personally, at this point I don't have enough information to draw any conclusions about what the County Commissioners might do.
Your objection is that, "Dictating energy standards as opposed to incentivizing them is too heavy-handed. It comes across as arrogant." I think this comes from earlier comments about the County potentially trying to control building size under the guise of energy efficiency. This may or may not be a matter where individual Commissioners approach the problem with preconceived notions and a sense of arrogance. However, it seems very possible that - as with so many of our democratic institutions - the real wisdom will be contained in the process and not because of the egos involved. It still seems premature to me to pass so much judgment on a process that has barely started.
Post a Comment