Al French concerned for the poor??
On February 21 an article appeared in the Washington Post titled, “How the housing industry is working to stop energy efficient homes.” This was the subtitle: “Home builders have used their political muscle to prevent states and cities from adopting the latest code, which would lower the climate impact of new houses.” The subtitle reminded me of local rhetoric.
Striving for energy efficiency has always made economic sense to me—even before most of us were aware of global heating resulting from the burning carbon fuels. Building a snug home (or retrofitting an older one) with insulation and efficient heating and cooling systems will cost something extra up front, but the investment will always pay for itself over a period of years thanks to lower energy bills—and after that the annual savings is a dividend.
Furthermore, it is usually cheaper to build an energy efficient home than it is to retrofit an old one.
At the end of a recent county legislative meeting Spokane County Commissioner Al French (District 5-West Plains & South) offered up from the dais (to no one in particular) that changes in the state building codes requiring more energy efficiency would “hurt the poor.” French’s statement seemed broad and counterintuitive—a gratuitous soundbite.
Al French sits on the State Building Code Council where he has staunchly opposes updated energy efficiency standards. Predictably, in her periodic Spokesman opinion column Sue Lani Madsen has spilled a lot of electrons and ink decrying the extra costs entailed by the new code. (See here, here, here, and here.) Both she and French strictly avoid mentioning the energy savings that would result from the new code—and both of them cite between $25,000 and $50,000 additional cost for the average home to comply, quoting numbers from various builders associations. In addition, neither Madsen nor French consider that with code-mandated anti-fire upgrades the new homes are likely to draw lesser increases in home insurance premiums—as well as helping to keep home insurable at all.
Both French and Madsen try to focus the reader’s attention on the plight of those seeking to rebuild following the wildfires of last summer, while Mr. French, in particular, works to oppose the code changes overall
The Washington Post article cited in the first paragraph concentrated on Republican efforts to freeze building code updates. It cited North Carolina as an example of the building industry’s nationwide efforts to oppose energy efficiency standards. This quote stood out for me:
A federal study found that North Carolina’s proposed code update would have added at most about $6,500 to the price of a newly built home, not $20,400. According to the analysis, these changes would have paid for themselves through lower power bills and, during the first year alone, reduced carbon dioxide emissions by the equivalent of taking 29,000 cars off the road.
Granted that eastern Washington is not North Carolina, but there’s that builder’s lobby quote of upwards of $20,000 again. It makes you wonder how that quote was generated and whom it is meant to serve. Once put out there and repeated all over the nation such numbers take on a life of their own.
But, leaving the number aside, one wonders if the real issue for Madsen and French (and others) is this [the bold is mine]:
Tim Minton, executive vice president of the North Carolina Home Builders Association, also cited spiraling home prices in his group’s push to freeze residential energy standards. “I’m not going to get into a debate about climate change, what I’m going to get into a debate about is affordability,” he said in an interview.
To me that Tim Minton quote makes Al French’s sudden concern for “the poor” into perspective. If one denies the science of climate change based on burning carbon fuels, then, from a builder/developer’s viewpoint any additional cost expended to comply with code in building a home simply cuts into the profit to be made. The energy savings from the upgrades accrue to the homeowner, not the builder/developer. The builder/developer moves on to the next project even as the consequences in global heating from building energy inefficient homes lives on for decades.
Neither Sue Lani Madsen nor Commissioner French—or, for that matter, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, is likely to come out and say the quiet part out loud. That would be to declare global warming a “hoax” like the leader of their Party has done. Mr. French, like McMorris Rodgers, is far too politically savvy for that—but their arguments give them away.
Pick your candidates carefully this August and November. Deduce from their arguments where they stand on global heating and vote accordingly. We cannot afford to get this wrong any longer—nationally or locally.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry