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.
OK, here’s one:
Exactly what evidence do you have that decreasing ‘greenhouse gas production’ would be of any benefit whatsoever to Chico, to California, to the United States, or to the world? Please be specific: which gases? what benefits? For extra credit, include a cost/benefit analysis of the measures specified.
/Mr Lynn
I just replaced my dishwasher with one of the new energy efficient models. Now in order to make it clean as well the old one, I had to increase my hot water temperature by 15 degrees (F), and let the water run at the kitchen tap for 2 minutes before starting the dishwasher. Somehow, I don’t think I am saving water or energy.
Just another example of how government mandated regulations end up doing the opposite of what was intended.
Mark says:
“The simple answer is that reducing greenhouse gasses (sic) is state law, recently confirmed by the voters of California.”
So why did the Chico city council think they needed to pass yet another redundant law?
Your “simple answer” is typical of the eco-nuts running the state and local governments. And the tens of $millions poured into defeating Prop 23, in conjunction with the population so incompetently ‘educated’ by the corrupt government propaganda system, was obviously sufficient to bring about the Idiocracy of the result.
BTW, how did you vote? Like you were told by the movie stars/climate experts? And were you edumacated somewhere in the Peoples’ Socialist Soviet of Mexifornia? Chico, perhaps?
Mark says:
December 15, 2010 at 9:59 am
“The simple answer is that reducing greenhouse gasses is state law, recently confirmed by the voters of California.”
In much of Europe through the 1930s and 40s the law said you had to denounce your neighbour if he/she was Jewish, gay, Communist, etc, etc. Would you obey that law too?
Mark says: December 15, 2010 at 8:00 am Mark says: December 15, 2010 at 9:23
But Anthony, I am a citizen of this town too. On what basis do you make the distinction between us?
He isn’t mandating you update your house on the unproven hypothesis of manmade warming.
Understanding that methane has 16X the “greenhouse effect” of CO2, have you considered mandating the sale of methane absorbing diapers exclusively? Where does the silliness end?
A cynic might say that eco-toilets that do not flush well might serve a useful purpose. They might make the earth closet look OK in comparison. There is an interesting article on earth closets at the link below.
http://www.oldandinteresting.com/earth-closet.aspx
“Born in 1801 and a hero, in a small way, of the 21st century green eco-movement, the Rev. Henry Moule patented an earth closet toilet system in 1860. His motives were to save his poor Victorian parishioners from cholera by devising a sanitary but simple set-up, suitable for homes where indoor piped water was an impossible dream. Today his design, now re-named a composting toilet, could save us from water shortages and expensive plumbing, while enriching our vegetable gardens. The big drawback is that someone has to haul earth around: first filling up the hopper which releases a dollop of earth or ash at the right time, and then emptying the bucket into a potato trench. ”
Moule’s motives were admirable. I don’t know if earth closets are used anywhere today but I would have thought they might possibly be useful in rural areas in some third world countries. Fortunately I doubt if any politicians in the West would try and make them compulsory on ecological grounds!
KD says:{December 15, 2010 at 10:53 am}
“Q1: How will you measure that GHGs have been reduced by 25%?”
If 25% of the population leaves town due to silly regulations like this that would be a start.
Well, as promised, here is my attempt to answer the questions posed, by name.
KD,
#1) The City (and State) use the ICLEI software that calculates greenhouse gas production based on readily available data like energy use, vehicle miles traveled, economic activity, etc. The reports are produced ever five years. The City commissioned one in 2005, so another is due
#2) The city does not measure this
#3) I agree that the city reduction alone will have a negligible impact. I do not have any right to tell homeowners what to do in their homes, or anywhere else for that matter. Cities, however, have a long-standing precedence of regulating individual behavior for the collective well-being.
Increasing energy-efficiency in building does have a measurable impact on energy use. I can appreciate that many/most on this blog do not believe that energy use has a measurable impact on the climate. Respectfully, the State of California disagrees.
#4) Straw man
Mr Lynn,
This entire blog seems to be devoted to asking and answering your question. Other commentators are much better at explaining the two sides than myself.
Smokey,
The City of Chico did not pass another law. It updated the cost figures for an existing law.
I voted No on 23, and I was educated in Iowa and Wisconsin.
Steve,
Another poster asked why the City of Chico acted. I said to follow the law. I would hope CA cities would follow CA state law.
Tim,
No, and never, it appears from the various replies. : )
Roy says:
December 15, 2010 at 11:51 am
A cynic might say that eco-toilets that do not flush well might serve a useful purpose. They might make the earth closet look OK in comparison. There is an interesting article on earth closets at the link below.
Let’s all just do what the bear do. Do doodoo in the woods.
Why not shut down the university to save energy. There are plenty of other universities around to pick up the students without a commensurate increase in energy use.
K~Bob says:
December 15, 2010 at 10:23 am
Of course, in razing the current structure, the new owner will have to comply with hundreds of environmental regulations and safety standards.
One of the provisions slipped into one of those multi thousand page pieces of legislation passed at midnight on a Saturday night, that absolutely had to be voted on before anyone had any opportunity to read them, was a requirement that any HIPs performed on structures that were built before lead based paints were banned, had to be performed by contractors whose employees are certified in HazMat. If you’ve been doing any DIY around an older home in recent months you are a definite scofflaw. Of course, if you are still upright and taking nourishment in the USA at this point it is almost impossible not to be a scofflaw. Depending on where you live and what you do, if you wanted to order a hard copy of every law, regulation, rule and requirement that you subject too from the bureaucracies at all levels of governance, we are rapidly approaching the point where one semi won’t be sufficient to make the delivery. And since the rules are often contradictory between the various bureaus and sometimes even internally within them, the only thing that keeps any of us from legal and financial jeopardy is that they don’t yet have the necessary manpower to completely monitor every activity of every citizen. Unfortunately, if you do come to the negative attention of any part of the structure, they won’t have to search too hard to find a way to make your life quite uncomfortable.
Mark, I think, in this venue, going down the route of saying ‘It’s the law’ is simply the refuge of a man with no argument and certainly no proof of the justification for the law he cites. Until the 1950s a person could, technically, be prosecuted for witchcraft in Britain. It was the law – that did not make it either rational, reasonable or acceptable (facts, ironically, that the law itself had acknowledged in the 18th century; the amended act remained in place to punish frauds who claimed magical powers and gulled the unwary). Other posters have also drawn your attention to race laws in fascist Germany (I know, I know, Godwin’s Law). When you were asked ‘Why’ you hid behind a law that to rational people here is based on entirely unproven science and only sustained by political manipulation and misinformation. Please answer the question. And, that said, I admire you for putting your head into the scientific lion’s jaws.
Question 1: What gives the city the right to do this?
Question 1a: How about private property rights?
Question 2: What about people who can’t afford it? Sometimes homes are sold “as is” because the seller has no money for improvements. These homes usually sell for less and it’s the buyer’s responsibility to fix it up.
Question 3: Who enforces this and who pays for the enforcement? Who does the inspections?
Question 4: Will this make homes more affordable or less affordable, or have no impact? Explain.
Richie P,
I would be foolish of me to debate climate science with the people on this blog because, well, you would make me look foolish.
I only comment when Anthony makes fun of our town. Today was different. He straight called me out. So, I am willing to answer questions about the City’s efforts, but I am not here to debate the science. I will leave that to my colleague Jeff Price, if he wants.
REPLY: Actually I only make fun of the sustainability committee, its connection to CSUC and you, plus the folly of our local politicians buying into it. But given how you see things, I can see how you’d think that is the whole town.
You do well enough at making yourself look foolish, like confusing smoke issues with the home energy audit above, you certainly don’t need help from us. – Anthony
“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.”
To Larry Wahl’s good health! Wasn’t he also one of those who debated the skeptic position at a CSU event? He would make a fine governor, I’d say.
this is nothing but a stimulation package…making people spend money
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
December 15, 2010 at 3:12 am
UK Sceptic said on December 15, 2010 at 1:44 am
They’ll be dictating what colour toilet paper you can use next…
Thus the soon-to-be-mandated color of toilet paper will be… “natural.” Besides, everybody knows “Natural is best.”
Not to mention the bimbo with the guitar who will serenade you as you squat with a song about how many squares to use…
Unfortunately, Professor Mark Stemen is somewhat correct in his assertion that “it is state law.”
“Implementation Strategies
State and Local Governments Programs
Implementing these strategies will require leadership and strong policies from state and local
government. State government plays a role in setting statewide targets, leading by example, and
ensuring that model voluntary codes that surpass minimum state requirements are available for
adoption as requirements by local governments within their jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions
have distinct authority to pass ordinances and green building standards that are more stringent
than the GBSC and energy requirements that exceed those of Title 24. If these local standards
are based on state models already written in code language, builders will not face a mix of
different requirements. Some local governments are already setting green building targets very
similar to those recommended in this Scoping Plan, demonstrating their desire to be ahead of the
curve in responding to the dual challenges of increasing energy prices and climate change. “ [bold emphasis added] — from page C-147 of the 2008 AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan Appendices, available here:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/appendices_volume1.pdf#page=177
The “GBSC” referred to is the Green Building Standards Commission (which appears to be a mistake or typo; from the context it appears the correct reference is CGBSC, or California Green Building Standards Code).
“Title 24” refers to Title 24, Part 6, California Code of Regulations, commonly known as Residential Energy Efficiency Standards. This went into effect January 1, 2010
see: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/
Further, ARB has a page on its website specifically for Local Government Actions for Climate Change activities:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgovernment/localgovernment.htm
Meanwhile, CO2 increases and the Earth cools. Hurricanes diminish in number and intensity. Sea levels don’t rise. Ice caps grow. The evidence against CO2 as the cause of catastrophic global warming is overwhelming.
Mark says:
“The simple answer is that reducing greenhouse gasses is state law, recently confirmed by the voters of California.”
And that’s why California is going bankrupt.
“Cities, however, have a long-standing precedence of regulating individual behavior for the collective well-being.”
In order to reduce the spread of venereal diseases, out-of-wedlock sexual intercourse is now illegal in Chico, CA. Further, to reduce the possibility that a criminal who is none-the-less married will infect his or her partner, sexual intercourse within marriage is now restricted to once a month.
By their own standards, this is perfectly acceptable, no?
“I would hope CA cities would follow CA state law.”
Numerous CA cities have declared that they will defy federal law in regards to immigration. Perhaps a CA city can declare itself an “economic activity sanctuary” and refuse to enforce the myriad idiotic regulations that are strangling businesses?
Nuke,
1) It was an existing building ordinance.
1a) The ordinance only applies when the property is sold. No rights are lost.
2) There are exemptions for short sales. Again, this is existing law.
3) The enforcement is voluntary and is part of the escrow paper process
4) The items of improvement were selected because they were also proven to be cost effective. Low flow toilets and programmable thermostats were made optional for the reasons posted by others
I don’t live anywhere near Chico, thank goodness, although having Anthony for a neighbor would be great. But I note that this concept was included in the hopefully defunct cap and trade bill that is languishing in Washington. So that makes my questions both personal and pertinent for those who don’t live in Chico.
How many times must one house go through this process? Is an energy audit done to be sure the house needs an upgrade? What are the standards for efficiency and how are they applied? Must every house meet the same standards? Is it even possible for every house to meet the same standards? Who gets to decide? Do the bank-owned houses have to meet this, too? How about the houses that are being foreclosed on (that is a legal sale just like any other, albeit with an unwilling insolvent seller)?
My null hypothesis about those who seek political power at any level is that they are criminal psychopaths. Now and again, here and there, I find evidence that this isn’t so.
Mark says
#3) I agree that the city reduction alone will have a negligible impact. I do not have any right to tell homeowners what to do in their homes, or anywhere else for that matter. Cities, however, have a long-standing precedence of regulating individual behavior for the collective well-being.
1.A couple of conflicting things there, if it’s negligible why bother upgrading a law/bill that can not be make any difference?
2. How will the negligible impact benefit the collective well being of the citizens
3. should you not have offered the citizens of the city a vote on this law /bill seeing that its there collective well being and there individual behavoir that is being called in to question,and them being forced to pay for the action, for the negligible impact.
To those who aren’t aware, California’s global warming prevention law (AB 32) was approved in 2006 and is still valid after proposition 23 failed at the ballot box last month. Chico is updating its general plan, which triggers the need for an environmental impact report. The report MUST address greenhouse gas emissions according to standards set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act and associated guidelines as adopted by the state. Jurisdictions who tried to ignore GHG emissions when doing environmental reports for updating general plans were sued by former attorney general (now governor-elect) Jerry Brown, and he prevailed in this suits. Any city or county in california MUST address GHG reductions in environmental documents. Cries of “prove it will make a difference” are moot – it’s already law in California.
That said, California has been pushing energy efficiency for so long that per capita energy use is already among the lowest in the nation. California building codes mandate energy-efficient construction, and California’s energy mix is also almongst the least carbon intensive in the nation. We’re at the “reducing returns” portion of the cost/benefit curve. If Chico is really concerned about GHG emissions and their effect on global climate, I would respectfully suggest that the money that would otherwise be used for energy efficiency upgrades in Chico should instead be shipped off to jurisdictions in the midwest and the south for energy efficiency upgrades in areas where the grid is almost entirely powered by coal. It doesn’t make much sense, but it’s the logical outcome of trying to be cost-effective with one’s GHG emissions reduction dollars. Of course, reducing GHG emissions in Indiana or West Virginia won’t help Chico comply with AB 32 (not to mention the fact that other states aren’t subject to AB 32), so this proposal is more of a thought exercise. However, it does show some of the logical fallacies of trying to address a global problem at the local level.