I live in Brisbane in an old Queenslander. These are wooden houses traditionally with high ceilings and on stilts to allow for air circulation and beat the heat of the tropics. They tend to be difficult to insulate and my home is particularly cold during our brief winter. When there is no breeze the house can also be hot in summer.
There was some discussion about energy efficient homes at this web-log on 25th November; that was the day the Australian Building Codes Board meet to discuss implementing a 5-star building standard for new homes across the whole of Australia, click here.
In a comment following the post Steve explained:
This standard relates to a home's thermal design - how much energy is required to keep it cool in summer and warm in winter.
Victoria had already implemented a 5-star requirement for new homes, since July 2004.
In addition to the 5-star requirement, the Victorian policy requires the home builder to also install either a solar hot water system OR a raintank.
The Housing industry media release posted by Jen is about the implmenetation of 5-star across the country.
According to the today's The Sunday Mail - a local Brisbane paper - the resulting new energy-efficiency laws could spell the end of the iconic Queenslander home:
Changes to the building code to be adopted next year mean wooden houses and timber floors could be a thing of the past, Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane told The Sunday Mail yesterday.
The "five-star" energy-efficiency measures to be introduced from May are also tipped to increase the cost of building an average house by up to $15,000.
Mr Macfarlane called the decision a "terrible mistake" and warned it would be the death of elevated homes built with timber floors on stilts.
"The ordinary house on stumps
Of all the stuff I've seen on what does asbestos insulation look like your post on Jennifer Marohasy » Wooden Floors Fail Enery-Efficiency Test is the best
We are talking about the difference between a 'free' market that fails, and a regulated market to avoid market failure.
""Let the markets decide the best outcome."
I would like to introduce Queenslanders to suburbs of McMansions with ducted airconditioning, no parkland, no public transport infrastructure, and no mains gas, and electricity infrastructure problems made acute by the rapidly increasing use of airconditioners. Enjoy!"
The above is how the market discussion got started on this thread.
Somehow we got from this to a market based solution, ie put the price of infrastructure into the cost of electricity, air conditioners, etc.
QED, as they say.
The market isn't necessarily bad - but if you turn your back they'll do a swiftie - like not "internalise their externalities" e.g. pollute rivers in the public domain or have a oil carrier shipwreck etc and try to just walk away.
Capitalising gains and socialising losses is another cute one.
I'm not anti-market - it brings choice, price competition, variety and a continual need for efficiency if properly run - a civilised society just needs a few rules. In this example if people want a McMansion that's fine. It's just that whole suburbs of them are ratcheting up water and power demand in a non-linear fashion. Forgetting the environmental considerations - just purely as a taxpayer and ratepayer - I don't want to have to pay for new dams or new power stations before absolutely necessary.
So some modern environmental standards for water and power are not unreasonable to ask for.
Society has lots of reasonable rules - you can't drive as fast as you like, we insist on seat belts as we're sick of picking up the hospital bills, you can't put a sheet metal works in the middle of an urban sub-division etc. You can't legally build shonky unsafe buildings or direct stormwater where you feel like.
Surely a reasonably civilised society has a few rules for the greater good. And a civilised society also can comment about southern European style homes with no shades. Many new developments have detailed caveats on contracts that specifies what style of home you may build. A bush hut just won't do.
You are actually arguing for a more efficient market then, Steve? But didn't you use McMansions as an example of why the market is bad?
Actually Rog,
Our power prices are higher because we have to fork out for more infrastructure to accomodate all the new mcmansions and their airconditioners. If only the cost of the infrastructure was included in the cost of an airconditioner. Then i wouldn't have to swelter, and fork out for others.
*just don't expect me to subsidise their power and water*
Nobody does Phil, user pays.
However you have indicated a preference for an"environmental" levy on "them others", another name for selective and discriminating extortion by the State.
Thanks for the wetlands link - didn't see them.
I agree with just about all your sentiments.
I think we can just agree to disagree on the legitimacy of particular regulations. I don't regard regulation for a fairer society or a more sustainable society as being driven just by the particular interests of individuals.
Steve - It's all about balancing individual needs with societies needs. The aim should be the minimum restriction required to allow society to function smoothly. Problem is, people differ wildly about what they see as smooth functioning.
I prefer minimum government interference in my life. I think that's a perfectly reasonable preference. Others seem to think society should be fairer, more sustainable or whatever their particular interest is.
Did you miss the wetlands when you were in Hong Kong? Of course, they may have been smelly too, (but in a good way!).
http://www.hketo.ca/abouthk/explore/Wetland_July-23-2003.html
Paul, its not about what is good for you. Its about what is good for everyone. You keep talking about perceptions of what is good for you. I think that most regulation - including smoking, alcohol, and illicit drugs restrictions - are about what is good for everyone, even if sometimes they seem to be about telling individuals what is good for the individual.
----
And unaccountable? You think the government (the ones who make regulation) is unaccountable? We vote the govt in, if we don't like it, we vote them out. Sounds like you have problems with democracy.
PS Hong Kong is also a crowded, polluted place with an odd hodge podge of awful decaying, wobbling apartments and soaring skyscrapers. The one time I was there (1999) the whole city (except the top of the island) smelt like rotten eggs, presumably from vehicle pollution.
I wonder
- whether Hong Kong or London is higher on the most livable city list (including job opportunities etc)?
- what Hong Kong is doing now to make itself more livable, and what regulation that involves.