S
Pelosi Requires All Homes to Meet Eco-Standards Before They Can Be Sold
- Thread starter blue fluff
- Start date
I just bought Atlas Shrugged, but it's HUGE. I have a million other books to read to help save my country. I think I need to quit my job.
So what is wrong with homes being more efficient? Most people these days can't think far ahead enough to figure out that it is a net benefit for a home owner. Yes you pay more now, but you pay much less over the long term, especially if utility prices increase like they seem to always do.
I think most of you guys are complaining just to complain. You never know, maybe it will decrease the cost of higher efficiency building?
In the large scheme of things, with RE technologies and all that, the biggest, number 1 difference you can make is to not need to use the energy in the first place. Wind, solar, all that crap makes a small difference as compared to just using the energy more efficiently.
I think most of you guys are complaining just to complain. You never know, maybe it will decrease the cost of higher efficiency building?
In the large scheme of things, with RE technologies and all that, the biggest, number 1 difference you can make is to not need to use the energy in the first place. Wind, solar, all that crap makes a small difference as compared to just using the energy more efficiently.
Absolutely nothing wrong with homes being more efficient! But homes aren't selling now let alone having the government getting involved by telling the homeowner what they need to do to their house before selling it. What if they want to sell it as a fixer upper or they need to sell quick? Or they just need to get out from under it because of the costs? Pelosi won't let them and then they'll be forced to join the ranks of the other not so fortunate people that had foreclosures.
To me... this is as dumb an idea as the banning of aspirin that I have been hearing about. Way too much government involvement IMO.
I guess I am complaining yes. I have yet to find something to praise them about!
There is nothing wrong with being more efficient. That isn't the issue for me. I have very little equity in my house. I bought it 2 years ago, then the market dropped. It was built in 1917. It has of course been remodeled, but I'm sure it would need more insulation, new windows, etc. to meet new standards. If that was done before I moved in, I couldn't have afforded the house. I can't afford to upgrade now.
My point (finally) is that if forced to upgrade I would be very upside down and wouldn't be able to sell, or lose the house because I couldn't pay for the changes. Also, it would put the house out of reach for many prospective buyers.
This seems like fine print put in the contract after you sign it.
Who said that is how the states have already decided to implement the strategy?
M
MPS
Well-known member
Ruffy....I will lay this out simple. How can you support this at a time like this? I am all for energy efficient homes.....but this the wrong time and the wrong way to do it! Incentives need to be offered or increased, this should not be forced! Middle class Americans are struggling to keep food on the table right now!
.
.
Maybe start with all new construction? Nice thought IF the contruction business was booming like it had in the past. My last house was a certified Energy Star house.
I agree, and all govt facilities should too. I would rather the govt pay people to work on the buildings then pay the same amount of money to utilities all the time. The federal buildings should be the highest example of green building. IMO.
What is the time frame that this will come into effect? If they passed it now, wouldn't it have to wait until the Jan 1st to come into effect? It could even have a further back starting date. IMO, there never is a "correct" time.
IMO incentives are never the appropriate action for government. They are not good choosers of technology. They should choose the loosers and tax those. In the end, the same thing is done, but the person has the options too choose whatever method they deem correct, and so does the market.
ha ha... typical link ... Has lots of good info, and factual too.. and then at the end it goes right off into left field.. or rather "right" field.
No one is arguing that all electricity generation should come from wind. If there are, those people are stupid. On the other hand, wind can and should play a much more significant role.
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Wow, that is the largest load of BS I have ever heard.
Why stop at homes.
Lets FORCE people that currently own cars to upgrade.
Lets say you MUST have a car that gets 100mpg and has a zero carbon footprint or you can't drive it.
How about if you aren't at your federally approved doctors perfect weight, you don't get food.
How about if you say something that's not pollically correct you get jailed.
Hey I have a great idea.
HOW ABOUT WE TELL THE FEDS TO BUTT THE #$%^ OUT!!.
Believe it or not, IT'S NOT THE FEDS JOB TO DICTATE THIS KIND OF STUFF!!
It is constitutionally ILLEGAL for them to do this.
Wonder if any of those idiots have heard of the 10th amendment?
I will burn my house to the ground before I do all this non-sence.
Who says what has to be done?
What's to stop them from increasing the amount of stuff that has to be done?
What happens if you go thru all the dictators load of bs, upgrade your house and such, only to find out they imposed more restrictions?
W
Wolfrun
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Ruffy, there is nothing wrong with more efficient homes. I built my present house from scratch in 1993. It has 2 by 8 studs and has the gas filled Andersen windows and 30 inches of insulation in the attic and all that. It costs less than 1000 dollars a year for heating and cooling. I meant to do about double what was thought to be necessary in 1993 but technology has changed so much since then I know it would not come close to meeting Nancy's standards for sale today. Renovation to meet all todays standards could cost at least 40,000 dollars if you had to hire it done. Just meeting radon gas standards is expensive. The real problem is all of this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The 10th Amendment is being ignored in all this. This is the states job.
The standards have not been created yet, have they?It is stated that the states are to decide the implementation of it.
W
Wolfrun
ACCOUNT CLOSED
I'll bet they are somewhere in those last unread 300 pages, but really the uniform building codes have have changed so much in 16 years that it would be very hard to update it to the present code. Formerly older houses have always been grandfathered in because of the cost. I woke up in my second floor bedroom in the house my father built in 1928 more than once with snow drifted on my quilt.
It is stated that the states are to decide the implementation of it.
My opinion is that by the 10th Amendment the Feds don't tell the states what to implement. Originally the states made the decisions on what happened inside their borders. The Fed is slowly taking over our whole lives and I don't like it.
OK, I've read enough of ruffryders posts. This guy can't be real. One of you guys is altering through this guy just to stir up the pot. Who is it?
I was thinking about this at lunch. It would take somebody really smart to act this stupid.
Who do you think it is?
Ollie, how many computers do you have????
We are all speaking hypothetical about these "Standards" simply because they are not law currently. You're not putting Belvedere in the bong again are you???
Stu Varney is hosting Neil Cavuto today and he's talking about this right now on Fox. He's getting in a fight with a Lib when the Lib called him "silly."
Stu said:
Section 202 of the Bill passed by the House says "the program to implement the residential and nonresidential policies shall be known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance." Elsewhere it says "By 2012 new buildings are to be 30% more efficient than they are now. New buildings defined to include new homes."
I looked up the bill and found this paragraph in Sec 202
(b) Establishment- The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for single-family and multifamily residences. The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Director of Commercial High-Performance Green Buildings, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for nonresidential buildings. The programs to implement the residential and nonresidential policies based on the standards developed under this section shall together be known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program.
I HAVE to find the video for this, Stu puts the dude in his place. Go Stu!
Stu said:
Section 202 of the Bill passed by the House says "the program to implement the residential and nonresidential policies shall be known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance." Elsewhere it says "By 2012 new buildings are to be 30% more efficient than they are now. New buildings defined to include new homes."
I looked up the bill and found this paragraph in Sec 202
(b) Establishment- The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for single-family and multifamily residences. The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Director of Commercial High-Performance Green Buildings, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for nonresidential buildings. The programs to implement the residential and nonresidential policies based on the standards developed under this section shall together be known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program.
I HAVE to find the video for this, Stu puts the dude in his place. Go Stu!
Last edited:
He is for real and I am glad he's here ! That way if i agree with him I can go ahead and knock some sense into myself before someone else does!
