A new report from Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality urges the state to give people incentives to live in smaller homes or disincentives to live in larger ones. A Life Cycle Approach to Prioritizing Methods of Preventing Waste from the Residential Construction Sector reviews the energy costs of various styles of homes and comes to the startling conclusion that larger homes require more energy than smaller ones. (How much did it cost to figure that one out?)
The report therefore recommends that the state “place incentives on smaller homes or disincentives on larger homes.” Why? If someone needs a bigger home, and they are willing to pay for it, why should the state care? Despite the coy use of the term “incentives,” what they really mean is coercive measures to arbitrarily make larger homes more expensive to force more people to live in smaller houses.
With prolonged used, it will make your external as well as pregnancy outcomes. purchase levitra no prescription Many buy viagra from canada of the electronic components and assemblies found in this type of equipment are replaceable or disposable. When the blood is not possibly reached to the penile organ that is to those organs from where erection is possible. buy sildenafil uk The penis starts swelling as soon as the blood leaves the groin area, generika cialis things should return to normal. It might be one thing to argue that energy consumption results in externalities that the energy users don’t pay for. But a lot of the electrical energy used in Oregon residences comes from hydroelectric dams that don’t pollute the air or generate greenhouse gases. Incentivizing smaller homes may not address any real externalities.
If there are externalities, it makes more sense to try to build them into the price of energy. That would allow people to choose between living in a smaller home or making their large home more energy efficient. The report does note that making single-family homes more energy-efficient can have as many or more environmental benefits as persuading people to live in multi-family homes. But it never really does a cost-effectiveness analysis to figure out whether the best energy-savings measures are smaller homes, more energy-efficient homes, or multi-family homes.
The latest report from the U.S. Department of Energy finds that single-family detached homes use about 10 percent less energy per square foot than single-family attached homes (rowhouses), while multi-family homes use close to twice as much energy per square foot as single-family detached (see p. 2-22, physical page 93). While not a life-cycle analysis, the fact that single-family homes tend to be owner-occupied while multi-family tend to be rented suggests that letting people make their own choices can result in the greatest energy savings.
Note that the “study’s” title reads: …Preventing waste from the Residential Construction Sector in the State of Oregon.” How Orwellian. So now having a big house is wasteful. How about we stop wasting money in government and on light rail/trolleys/ so-called “high” speed rail first? Then, the wannabe tyrants who wrote this report can think about finding themselves some new jobs where they’re not wasting taxpayer dollars creating junk like this.
metrosucks said:
Note that the “study’s†title reads: …Preventing waste from the Residential Construction Sector in the State of Oregon.†How Orwellian. So now having a big house is wasteful. How about we stop wasting money in government and on light rail/trolleys/ so-called “high†speed rail first? Then, the wannabe tyrants who wrote this report can think about finding themselves some new jobs where they’re not wasting taxpayer dollars creating junk like this.
THWM: It would be nice if Koch didn’t pay O’Toole to “brake” other peoples “windows” & waste their time/money. So then he’d have to find a real job, though that is what they do & why Koch along with the rest of the tea party is so damn tyranical/evil!
The Antiplanner wrote:
The report therefore recommends that the state “place incentives on smaller homes or disincentives on larger homes.†Why? If someone needs a bigger home, and they are willing to pay for it, why should the state care? Despite the coy use of the term “incentives,†what they really mean is coercive measures to arbitrarily make larger homes more expensive to force more people to live in smaller houses.
But if we can force people into smaller and densely-developed communities, then we can force them to take some form of mass transit.
Right?
It worked in the former East Germany and the former Soviet Union, didn’t it?
It did not work in my neighborhood in Montgomery County, Maryland.
The Antiplanner also wrote:
It might be one thing to argue that energy consumption results in externalities that the energy users don’t pay for. But a lot of the electrical energy used in Oregon residences comes from hydroelectric dams that don’t pollute the air or generate greenhouse gases. Incentivizing smaller homes may not address any real externalities.
I don’t know that much about the markets for electric power in the West, except that the Western Interconnection is not terribly well connected to the Eastern Interconnection (roughly east of the Rockies).
But demand for electric power does presumably vary by time-of-day in Oregon, and it makes sense for it to be priced so that consumption during periods of low demand costs less than using it during periods of high and higher demand. My electric utility company has been (optionally) allowing customers to use so-called time-of-day electric service (it requires a different meter) for over 10 years.
That is probably more important than forcing people to live in smaller homes.
On the supply side, some (not all, but some) baseload sources of electric power (of which generation from hydroelectric plants is one), can (to some extent) be operated (or “dispatched,” as they say in the electric power business) so that more power is generated when demand is up. In some areas of the United States, there are also “peaker” generating stations that only run when demand for electric power is especially high. These “peaker” plants usually cost more to operate than baseload plants, which is one reason why electric power should cost more when demand is at a peak.
Texas enjoys its own grid separate from the rest of the nation. Texas has a bifurcated electric power grid. Legally, it is divided into a transmission side and a generation side. Different companies are responsible for each function.
The transmission side functions like the natural gas transmission business or an auto tollway. Users pay the owner a toll based on usage. Transmission tolls are quite heavily regulated.
The generation side is competitive with users choosing their own provider based on their personal tastes or budget. I have over a dozen electric providers to choose from. Some providers purport to use renewable generation methods, others don’t. You vote for what you want with your checkbook. The City of Houston chooses to purchase more green electricity than any city in the nation.
Texas has none of the transmsission or capacity problems that plague other states and regions in the country. Texas has none of the access to hydro-electric power that other parts of the nation enjoy. In spite of that, through purely market forces, not government coercion, Texas produces and consumes more renewable energy than any state in the nation.
Sounds like they are trying to un-distort distorted market signals. That must be bad. Efficiencies must be bad too, apparently. Incentivizing ….erm…”forcing”…goods are bad.
Riiiiiight.
DS
They told me that if we did not win the war against Communist Vietnam that we would end up living our lives controlled by oppressive government bureaucracies controlling ever aspect of our lives. And they were right!
Mao Tse-tung himself could have written this recommendation:
Increased density and fewer home possessions were not explicitly included in the scope of this study and could further contribute to the benefit of small homes.
“But a lot of the electrical energy used in Oregon residences comes from hydroelectric dams that don’t pollute the air or generate greenhouse gases. Incentivizing smaller homes may not address any real externalities.”
Have to call bs on this one. Coal supplies 2/3 of all of Oregon’s energy. Over 1/3 of OR households use natural gas for heating. For residential electricity carbon based fuels account for well over half of the supply.
While Oregon is a leader when it comes renewable and hydroelectric energy use, it’s precisely because of this so called state social engineering that y’all fear so much.
I don’t even have to get into the externalities associated with hydro power…
http://www.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=OR
http://www.eia.doe.gov/states/sep_sum/html/pdf/rank_use_per_cap.pdf
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/docs/EnergyUseOR.pdf?ga=t
With so many market failures of late related to excessive scale (of homes, credit, debt, financial sector hocus pocus) I’m not sure I agree with the Antiplanner’s assessment here.
Obviously, the state has had it’s role in all of these debacles, but I’m wondering when government intervention into market failures (a tenant of capitalism) is okay with my opponents.
“While not a life-cycle analysis, the fact that single-family homes tend to be owner-occupied while multi-family tend to be rented suggests that letting people make their own choices can result in the greatest energy savings.”
I don’t follow you. First thing this tells me is that you are a world class data cherry picker. The report you linked to does show that “per square foot” single family detached uses less energy. However in the same table you’ll see that single family detached has higher energy consumption per household unit, per household member, and total consumption. Per household member is the particularly telling stat to me.
People living in a single family detached homes use almost twice the amount energy of people living multi-family housing of 5+ units!
Nice try.
People living in a single family detached homes use almost twice the amount energy of people living multi-family housing of 5+ units!
I’ve pointed out this utterly basic fact on this board several times. Yet the misleading talking point continues to be parroted. It is misleading because of the wasteful behavior difference (partially due to distorted market signals).
If there are externalities, it makes more sense to try to build them into the price of energy.
Of course there are. Which is the reason for a carbon tax – the easiest thing to monitor. A PM tax or NOx tax would also work to make polluters pay.
DS
Dan posted:
Which is the reason for a carbon tax – the easiest thing to monitor.
I presume that you are in favor of more electric power generated by hydro and nuclear sources, both of which generate zero carbon emissions – right?
And what about carbon fuels consumed in Red China or India and used to produce less-expensive goods and services for consumption in the U.S.?
A PM tax or NOx tax would also work to make polluters pay.
Not so sure that the above is workable for “mobile” (transportation) sources of air pollution. Might be for “point” sources, such as coal-fired electric generating stations.
Both of those pollutants (including PM 2.5) have declined and are forecast to continue to decline (PM 2.5 is a measure of very fine particulate pollution, with diameters of 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller).
Both declined significantly as ultra-low-sulfur Diesel fuel was phased-in for highway use in the past decade, and as ULSD is now phased-in for non-highway use, they will decline even more.
Gasoline-powered vehicles also produce nitrous oxides or NOX (a precursor to ground-level ozone) – but as the fleet of vehicles turns over, NOX emissions are also declining and are forecast to continue to decline.
“I presume that you are in favor of more electric power generated by hydro and nuclear sources, both of which generate zero carbon emissions – right?”
These are not without massive externalities, as demonstrated by radioactive ground water in the American Southwest and decimated salmon populations in the PNW.
“People living in a single family detached homes use almost twice the amount energy of people living multi-family housing of 5+ units!”
Seems to me an answer to this problem is to stop looking to external sources for power and for SFHs to generate their own power using solar, wind, hydrothermal, and other sources on site. It might be more expensive in terms of KWH of energy generated, but excess production can be sold to offset costs. Maybe someday, most/all SFHs will be constructed to be energy self-sufficient as they were in our not-too-distant past.
Carbon trading is a bust. Carbon taxation has led to fraud. Time to return to self-sufficiency.
Bennett says, “Coal supplies 2/3 of all of Oregon’s energy.”
What is your source? According to the Department of Energy’s State Electricity Profiles, Oregon generated 56.5 gigawatts of electricity, 63% of which came from renewables, mostly hydro, 30 percent from natural gas, and 7% of which came from coal. Oregonians consumed only 49 gigawatts, so if the state did import coal-powered electricty from other states, it was balanced by exports of hydropower.
Let me know if I am misinterpreting these numbers.
Frank,
You say, “Carbon taxation has led to fraud.” But your link goes to a story about carbon trading fraud, not tax fraud. It seems like it would be harder to engage in fraud over a real carbon tax.
I presume that you are in favor of more electric power generated by hydro and nuclear sources, both of which generate zero carbon emissions – right?
I’m more in favor of retrofitting for efficiencies than power sources with different yet just as significant externalities of their own.
And what about carbon fuels consumed in Red China or India and used to produce less-expensive goods and services for consumption in the U.S.?
What about this obvious problem? Surely you aren’t trying to bait me into stating this is just ducky, right?
Not so sure that the above is workable for “mobile†(transportation) sources of air pollution.
It may be if you tax at the basin level and implement, say, a PAYD or per mile or per gallon tax.
And I agree with Frank about the building envelope efficiencies, but disagree on the implication that C tax shouldn’t be implemented because of some fraud. Fraud is a byproduct of human societies – a bug, not a feature – but nonetheless part of the mix.
DS
One thing you need to understand is that since Dan’s very “profession”, ie planning, is based in fraud, he has no problem with fraud in other government programs. Simple as that. No wonder he is a proponent of the utterly fraud-based carbon tax scheme.
“People living in a single family detached homes use almost twice the amount energy of people living multi-family housing of 5+ units!
Nice try.”
I’m glad Bennett jumped on that. O’Toole has a tendency to avoid that stat and use the other, much less meaningful, statistic to make it appear as though detached single family homes have energy efficient qualities. The fact of the matter is that people in single family homes use more energy per person in a less efficient living environment.
I do, however, agree that there is no need for incentivizing smaller homes. Just get rid of any subsidies related to oil or coal and the choices should be a lot clearer to consumers.
“Let me know if I am misinterpreting these numbers.”
Well, don’t I feel like a jack ass. After lambasting the Antiplanner for selectively cherry picking data (which he did), I realize that I misinterpreted the numbers re: coal in OR.
I had it backwards, as he politely (thanks for that) pointed out. Although the data/reports I linked to have conflicting data on the source mix. The DOE says 63% comes from renewabls, but the state DOE says only 42%, the rest from coal (38%) and natural gas(15%).
Regardless, I’m busted. Good catch Mr. O’Toole.
I guess it’s fraud concerning the VAT on carbon trading, not carbon tax fraud per se. Thanks for pointing this out.
“And I agree with Frank about the building envelope efficiencies, but disagree on the implication that C tax shouldn’t be implemented because of some fraud.”
I suppose my biggest worry is what happens to the tax on carbon. How is that money used? I suppose I could do the research, but it’ll have to wait.
“I do, however, agree that there is no need for incentivizing smaller homes. Just get rid of any subsidies related to oil or coal and the choices should be a lot clearer to consumers.”
I agree totally. Subsides distort the true cost. If you included the cost of war and other externalities in the price of oil, some consumers might make different choices. I also think that if the Federal Reserve would quit its tinkering with interest rates and if banks were required to end fractional reserve banking, we wouldn’t have housing bubbles which result in an increase in the average size of a SFH. These distortions are a part of the problem, too.
The Antiplanner wrote:
What is your source? According to the Department of Energy’s State Electricity Profiles, Oregon generated 56.5 gigawatts of electricity, 63% of which came from renewables, mostly hydro, 30 percent from natural gas, and 7% of which came from coal. Oregonians consumed only 49 gigawatts, so if the state did import coal-powered electricty from other states, it was balanced by exports of hydropower.
In discussing power in Oregon, it’s also important to note that Oregon (and presumably Washington next door) export a lot of that hydropower south to California via the Pacific Interties.
Dan wrote:
It may be if you tax at the basin level and implement, say, a PAYD or per mile or per gallon tax.
Are you confident that such taxes would be approved in the appropriate legislative bodies? I am not.
How would you suggest the resulting revenues be spent?
And I agree with Frank about the building envelope efficiencies, but disagree on the implication that C tax shouldn’t be implemented because of some fraud. Fraud is a byproduct of human societies – a bug, not a feature – but nonetheless part of the mix.
Fraud comes in many shapes and sizes. In Prince George’s County, Maryland, the (now-former) County Executive was recently arrested by the FBI on corruption charges related to development – and, in particular, a proposed “transit-oriented” development along the Metrorail Green Line in Greenbelt (and perhaps other development projects as well).
Are you confident that such taxes would be approved in the appropriate legislative bodies? I am not.
How would you suggest the resulting revenues be spent?
The oligarchs and plutocrats have successfully sold to a portion of the population the mantra that taxes are bad, and we have no politicians that can lead, so I agree that today in this climate, the chances are low that polluter pays taxes will be implemented nationwide. State’s rights are a different matter. There are many good ideas out there that coalesce around efficiencies for the revenue collected.
DS
“It would be nice if Koch didn’t pay O’Toole to “brake†other peoples “windows†& waste their time/money. So then he’d have to find a real job, though that is what they do & why Koch along with the rest of the tea party is so damn tyranical/evil!” – Highwayman
Why do you bother to post here? You never add anything to the discussion. You’re not going to change anyone’s mind with this puerile babble. Why not put the time into something useful like helping a kid learn to read or advocating for some local bike lanes?
“Gasoline-powered vehicles also produce nitrous oxides or NOX (a precursor to ground-level ozone) – but as the fleet of vehicles turns over, NOX emissions are also declining and are forecast to continue to decline.” – CP
Unfortunately not if the we continue to bump up the amount of ethanol that’s in the gas mix in our cars.
“The oligarchs and plutocrats have successfully sold to a portion of the population the mantra that taxes are bad…”
That’s what not sold me on the evils of taxation. It was the long history of tax resistance in our country from the Revolution to Jefferson (a wise and frugal Government…shall leave [the People] otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government…”) to Thoreau. That the Constitution wasn’t amended to allow federal income tax until 1913 speaks volumes about the long history of anti-tax sentiment in America.
Even without history, I don’t need real or imagined “oligarchs and plutocrats” to “sell” me the idea that taking a hefty portion of my hard-earned money is immoral. I have never liked income taxes, even when I was a Liberal, especially since I am forced to pay for the bombing of innocent civilians and so that people like my brother, who are capable of working, can become shut-ins who play World of Warcraft day in and out and live completely off the labors of others.
Rather than a carbon tax, I’d rather see fines imposed on polluters through civil litigation, and what those fines can be used for and by whom needs to be clearly defined.
Dan is the consummate leftist….tax tax tax. People who hate their money being stolen from their mouth (thank you Frank for that clarity) are evil or stupid, etc etc. How can anyone respect anything Dan has to say on any matter?
The last sentence should read: “…letting people make their own choices can result in the greatest energy savings per square foot.” The implication seems to be that letting people make their own choices leads to the purchase of single-family homes. Even if this is true, it does not lead to overall energy savings, just energy savings per square foot. Obviously between two houses using the same amount of energy, the larger of the two will have the greater energy savings per square foot, and purchased homes are almost always larger than rented homes when comparing units with the same number of bathrooms and bedrooms.
The report’s referenced table with the raw data (EIA, A Look at Residential Energy Consumption in 2005, Oct. 2008, Table US-1 part1) clearly shows that family expenditures in cities ($1,599) are less than in towns ($1,845), suburbs ($2,027), and rural areas ($2,004); that a family in a detached 3-bedroom home spends more ($1,924) than a family in an attached 3-bedroom home ($1,753); and that owners spend more on energy than renters, whether detached ($2,089 for owners and $1,824 for renters) or attached ($1,682 for owners and $1,495 for renters).
So: families who spend less on energy are more likely to live in cities than out of cities, are more likely to live in an attached dwelling or apartment instead of a detached home, and are more likely to rent their home than own their home. This means that the fact that single-family homes tend to be owner-occupied and detached while multi-family are most often attached and tend to be rented, suggests that the latter results in the greatest energy savings per family.