I’ve written about this before. We have a group of citizens here in town called the “sustainability task force” which is highly influenced by the eco-zealotry of Chico State University pushing their ideas of how everyone should live onto the citizens of the town. Just last week, it got worse.
Below is an editorial rebuttal from our local newspaper.
From the Chico Enterprise Record: Hits and Misses 12/11/10
MISS: The Chico City Council just made it more expensive for residents who want to sell older homes.
The council voted 6-1 on Tuesday — with Larry Wahl voting no — to mandate up to $800 in energy efficiency improvements paid by sellers for any house built before 1991. The mandate is the work of the city’s sustainability task force, which falsely promised no government regulations aimed at private individuals.
It’s just another case of the council’s penchant for wanting to dictate how people should live their lives and passing some regulation to do so.
In this case, as we’ve stated before, any home improvements that are needed should be negotiated between the buyer and the seller. If the buyer wants, for example, extra insulation in the attic or better weather stripping on the windows, the buyer can make that part of the purchase offer. Then it’s up to the seller to decide whether to accept that offer or not.
That is how it has always worked, and how it should continue to work.
Here’s the report and agenda (PDF), with a screencap below:
I echo their sentiments in saying: stay out of my house! My home sale is a private transaction and none of your business.
I’m sure we’ll hear in comments from professor Mark Stemen of CSUC, who has blown gaskets (and started name calling) here at WUWT anytime CSUC and this pet group of his is mentioned, to tell us why what we do privately with our homes, is the business of the “sustainability committee”, or the council’s.
I’m all for energy efficiency, but in my opinion, this “mandate” for an $800 energy efficiency upgrade upon a home sale screams for civil disobedience.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, I don’t know how to get those other characters to show up. Shoot me!
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated by the progressive borg.
This is typical of the mindset of these people. Another example was in the past couple of days when Michelle Obama (who has been elected to no public office) made the announcement that what children eat just can’t be left up to parents anymore. These people actually believe they have the right (probably believe they have the *duty* in their minds) to tell other people how to live their lives.
California is somewhat of a lost cause at this point but in the record number of other states where these people have been tossed out of office on their ears, the incoming administrations need to clean house. A very deep steam cleaning of political appointees in all agencies is in order with a sweeping of these bureaucratic busy-bodies from their ivory towers.
California is lost. I am moving out of the state as soon as it is practical to do so.
Below is a link to many of the solar energy aspects of home heating. This is from Arizona Solar Center; Arizona has just about the best solar potential of any US state.
Their claim is that passive solar heating is cost-effective when incorporated in a home’s design. That may be true. What is definitely NOT true is that retro-fits to install many of the passive solar heating systems are cost-effective.
http://www.azsolarcenter.org/tech-science/solar-architecture/passive-solar-design-manual/passive-solar-design-manual-heating.html
From tim maguire on December 15, 2010 at 4:33 am:
As it says on the bottom of the pages at the American Geophysical Union’s web site:
I am glad the AGU exists to motivate scientists to advance science’s existing power to keep the Sun shining, prevent impacts by celestial objects above a certain size, as well as prevent super-massive volcanic eruptions, which is all that is needed to ensure life on this planet will enjoy a sustainable future for many hundreds of millenia to come.*
* Certain transitory lifeforms may feel more is required, but that doesn’t matter since any particular individual species is just “passing through” as far as evolution is concerned.
@DJ Meredith –
Your comment assumes that one or more of the council members who voted for this are engaged in private commercial enterprise. Sadly, ’tis not the case.
Mark says:
December 15, 2010 at 8:00 am
The City of Chico has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas production by 25% by 2020. The portion of ghg reduction associated with homes (25%) cannot be placed on new construction alone.
That would be the ec0-zealotry kicking in. It’s the idea of forcing people to pay for your Belief system which people find objectionable.
“Here’s how I see it. I don’t try to tell you or anyone else how to run CSUC, nor do I mind at all that LEED in king there. I applaud it. So work in your own realm, but don’t push your mandates that work for CSUC off on the citizens of this town. The whole of the sustainability committee is a university clique. Mayor Schwabinator, task force for example. – Anthony”
But Anthony, I am a citizen of this town too. On what basis do you make the distinction between us?
I own a home in Chico. My kids go to Chico schools. I shop locally.
Why must I contain my involvement to my place of employment?
Do you?
REPLY: Apparently you missed the part of the article that points out the lie:
The mandate is the work of the city’s sustainability task force, which falsely promised no government regulations aimed at private individuals.
As citizen, you can advocate whatever you want, but when a committee that you influence heavily lies to the populace, then calling them on it is fair game.
Having been a founding member of that committee, I back what the ER said about the false promise. The 2008 report issued from the sustainability committee is chock full of such broken promises.
Let’s look at some of the suggested “community reduction” actions in this report presented by Schwab and her task force:
* A suggestion to pay city employees to give up their parking spot.
* Require energy audits on residential units at the time of sale.
* Increased fees on waste disposal.
* A local gasoline tax to generate local revenue.
* Forcing a lights out policy on local businesses after hours
* Free electricity and free parking for city employees that drive electric vehicles
* Free or reduced cost electricity and parking for citizens that drive electric vehicles
You can find these items in Appendix C of the report, near the end under “Community Reduction Measures” which are designed to meet a carbon emissions target.
You once raised hell with me over these items, saying they were simply “suggestions” taken from ICLEI. Well now one of those suggestions has come to pass, how many more? How long till we have a gasoline tax because Schwab and her band of spendthrifts can’t control their spending habits, are in the financial hole, and need even more money? If it happens, I’ll buy my gas in Hamilton City or Oroville just to spite them, and I’ll bet others will also if it comes to pass.
This tax and spend feel good atmosphere of Chico (and California) isn’t sustainable without bilking the citizens for more money to support green dreams.
So Mark, the central question is this: Why must lies be told? Why do you think your lifestyle choice must be foisted on everyone else?
The answer is the same for greens everywhere, they think they are superior and more moral than everyone else because they are “saving the planet”.
– Anthony
#
Roger Sowell
December 15, 2010 at 8:53 am
####
I lived in a house designed to take advantage of the sun for about a year while living in Sonoma County Cal. Nowhere close to the amount of sun Az gets (I’m from ~Phoenix), but still it worked pretty damn well. Two little oil-filled space heaters rarely ever had to be used, and then just on the lowest setting. The only way to retrofit a house to behave like this one would be to completely tear it down and start over.
John F. Hultquist says:
December 15, 2010 at 8:48 am
You’re right, but for some reason it didn’t bold. Probably my mistake. I use a Firefox addon called BBcode, which takes some of the strain off my memory, but I sometimes use the wrong format. It will provide formatting in html, bbcode, xhtml and various user settings also. For this forum I should have used html code instead of [ ]
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/128/
Mark says (December 15, 2010 at 8:00 am): “The City of Chico has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas production by 25% by 2020.”
Why?
Well, at there is some good news on the eminent domain front by those using “green energy” to make a quick buck: http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20101214/NEWS01/12140302/Judge-denies-MATL-use-of-eminent-domain
Are the Chico “energy efficiency” contractors invested in the council?
Here in the UK, I forget the exact proportion but I think its about 75% of our housing stock, was built before 1970. So now our eco-loony Department of Energy and Climate Change (yep – that’s what its called) wants us all to take out LOANS to retro-insulate all our homes – many of which (those pre-1930) have solid walls, so achingly difficult to do anything with, unless you want the massive upheaval of internal insulation, and to make your ten foot wide rooms nine feet four…
But – my main point is – who the hell, in the current economic climate, wants to put themselves in MORE debt..?? What mindset in government is saying: ‘Well – the country owes billions, so why shouldn’t you lot be up to your necks in debt as well..?’
Re ‘low energy’ lamps – HELLO governments out there – these stoopid mercury-filled jobbies which the energy companies are giving away and supermarkets are selling for 10p/15c – are SOOOO year-before-last – haven’t you heard of LEDs..?? A quarter of the energy consumption of so-called low-energy lamps, no mercury, and last for ever..?
@Dave Ward:
Yes, Common Purpose is known outside “Europa” and the UK. Its equivalent in North America is, as I began the comments above, Local Agenda 21, whose guiding philosophy (apart from misanthropy) is Communitarianism. In a nutshell, Communitarianism is about “balancing” the rights of the individual with the rights of society, i.e. taking away individual rights in the name of the common good. The Grand Poobah of the Communitarian agenda is a little known but very influential, and seemingly protected, individual named Werner Falk, better known by the name he gave himself: Amitai Etzioni. The name sounds sort of Italian, but it actually means Tree of Knowledge from Zion. Remember the Tree of Life in the ecoprop film Avatar? Yep, it’s a Kabbalistic concept, and if anything the guiding philosophy can be considered quite legalistic, which is where it fits so seamlessly with building codes and mandates on resource usage.
It seems that in addition to the Sierra Club and other usual suspects, the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation is never far from this agenda for destruction of traditional faiths in favor of earth worship and control over all resources by the self-appointed clergy class of the new Gaia religion.
Mark says:
December 15, 2010 at 9:23 am
“Why must I contain my involvement to my place of employment?”
Interesting that you consider this type of activity to be merely community involvement. You couldn’t just volunteer at a homeless shelter or coach a local soccer team? Anything that didn’t involve intruding on the lives of your neighbors, and then expecting them to thank you for it?
“Mark says (December 15, 2010 at 8:00 am): “The City of Chico has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas production by 25% by 2020.” Gary Hladik asks, Why?”
The simple answer is that reducing greenhouse gasses is state law, recently confirmed by the voters of California.
“Effective June 1, 2009, homes older than 10 years old and receiving energy from the city of Austin utilities located within the city limits of Austin must have an energy audit prior to the sell of that home. This complies with the energy conservation audit and disclosure (ECAD) ordinance. Some exemptions may apply. For more information please visit Austin Energy’s website.”
http://austingreenteam.net/ecad-energy-audits/
Mandatory ECAD Audit $225 Premuim Audit $450
These prices do not include $50 fee for each mandated “Gas Appliance Performance, Energy, & Safety Test”.
Of course, as usual in bureaucracy, the ordinance breeds a whole layer of parasites and institutions:
“The City of Austin has finalized their list of equipment and tests that are required for the Energy Audit. Texas Green Energy Audit is offering Green Energy Audit Certification through the BPI program. The BPI program focuses on the house-as-a-system concept, including mechanical equipment and the building envelope. Students who successfully complete the course, the online final exam, and the field test know how to identify problems, their root causes, and the appropriate repair. The purpose of Texas Green Energy Audits is to provide the latest in green education, training, and testing to qualified individuals who want to obtain the Building Performance Institute (BPI) certification and become a Building Analyst Professional able to perform energy audits in Austin.”
If seller does not comply with ECAD ordinance, he/she becomes a criminal:
“(A) A person commits a criminal offense if the person performs an act prohibited
by this chapter or fails to perform an act required by this chapter. Each
instance of a violation of this chapter is a separate offense.
(B) Each offense under this chapter is subject to a fine.
1I) Proof of culpable mental state is not required for a fine of up to $500.
(2) If the person acts with criminal negligence, a fine of up to $2,000.00 may
be assessed.
(C) Proof of a higher degree of culpability than criminal negligence constitutes
proof of criminal negligence.
(D) Prosecution of an offense and enforcement of other remedies under this
chapter are cumulative.” – http://www.cityofaustin.org/edims/document.cfm?id=123737
Enjoy your freedom while supply lasts.
– Al Tekhasski
“And this article is about the energy improvement mandate on home sales, not the upcoming attempt to oust wood stoves.”
They’re attempting to get rid of wood stoves and fireplaces too??!! Yikes! And to think I own a pellet stove…
To Professor Mark Stemen – I think that the town of Chico could easily achieve their long term carbon emission reduction goals by simply closing Chico State University, thereby removing all of the dirty, polluting campus buildings (and the people too).
When I sell my home, I’m going to be selling the *property* for my asking price, and tossing in the house, “as is”, for free. You want a new, green furnace and full radon exclusion? That’s between you and your wallet.
I’ll go so far as to recommend that the new owner raze the current structure; starting fresh: with a new, federally-approved, eco-friendly, zero-emissions, sustainable, energy-star-rated, CFC-free, fully accessible, minimal carbon footprint home.
It’s the right thing to do.
Of course, in razing the current structure, the new owner will have to comply with hundreds of environmental regulations and safety standards.
= “Sustainability” continues to run amok in my town=
Sustainability has also taken a hit with this sobering assessment of wind energy: http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/article_16fa0d00-04b0-11e0-a393-001cc4c03286.html
Quacks and thieves.
Symon says: “…I believe it is in Australia where the water saving device in the lavatory is a saying. “If it’s brown, flush it down….”
We had that same slogan in California. Unfortunately, people have forgotten, and he got re-elected Governor recently.
@Mark
Q1: How will you measure that GHGs have been reduced by 25%?
Q2: How will you measure the impact of whatever level of GHGs is actually accomplished?
Q3: I’ll make the assumption that the reduction will have negligible effect on any measurable quantity given the size of Chico and its GHG emissions relative to, say China. So the question is what gives the City, and you, the right to impose a financial burden on home owners/sellers to make improvements that will have no measurable impact on anything? Why not just legislate that every home owner burn $800 when they sell?
Mark says:
December 15, 2010 at 8:00 am
“The portion of ghg reduction associated with homes (25%) cannot be placed on new construction alone.”
An $800 requirement on older homes isn’t going to get anywhere near 25% either.
Renovation costs are easily 3X new construction costs.
Answer: requiring that money be spent to reduce something we cannot measure in order to have no measurable impact on any measurable quantity = either a) fascism, or b) insanity.
Q4: Which is it?