International Law

Cheap ways to reduce greenhouse emissions

By David Jeffery

Two things are particularly notable:

• There are a number of options that have a negative cost. In other words, not only would they reduce emissions, they?d also save us money. The biggest one is insulation and low-energy lighting is also up there.
  
• The solutions we hear a lot about ? such as wind, solar and carbon capture ? are among the most expensive options.

So why are we not voluntarily making decisions that would not only reduce emissions but also save us money?

The Economist identifies a couple of possible reasons, the most compelling to my mind is that the people who make the choices are not the people who pay the costs of those decisions. For example, property developers have to pay for insulation but they won?t get the benefits of lower electricity bills, so their incentive is to go cheap on insulation. If the property is to be rented out, it?s not even the buyer who pay those bills ? it?s a tenant.

How to solve this? In theory, awareness of the issue should be enough: if tenants and buyers of new houses (or other buildings) are aware that good insulation can save them substantial amounts of money, they should demand it and be prepared to pay more for it ? in the same way they?d be prepared to pay more for a good bathroom or kitchen.

So why isn't this happening? And seeing as it doesn?t seem to be happening, is there a role for government in mandating it in building standards or requiring developers and sellers to at lease provide understandable information (eg, energy efficiency ratings)?

[HT: RSMG Blog]

Full post as published by Oikos on June 27, 2007 (boomark / email).