Technical Tipping Point?

We continually see new graphs, maps and tables showing changes in temperature, sea level, precipitation, ice cap area, etc., etc., BUT the impact on public perception of Climate Change seems minimal. How come?

Most people are pretty self absorbed-- interested in themselves--and perhaps their immediate family and a few friends. Information concerning global trends doesn't resonate. It's not so much the technical aspects as the fact that people don't pay much attention to information that is not local and specific and readily visible. There's a tendency for humans to depend on innate perception of what could possibly affect their immediate environment. Of course that innate sense has been wrong, dead wrong, countless times over the millennia--but that fact offers no solace for the future of Climate Change mitigation.

Soooo, as far as technical information goes---it probably doesn't matter that much. I find each new data point intriguing, but I'm a scientist. It will be a long wait till some particular study galvanizes massive public action to reduce CO2 emissions in an attempt to save the Earth as a quality human habitat.

Consider folks who fly on commercial airlines (which account for a HUGE amount of CO2 emissions, by the way). Most do NOT even vaguely understand aeronautical engineering, navigation systems or cockpit flight controls. They still board the planes and fly at 20,000+ feet of elevation at amazing speeds, through storms and think nothing of it. Why? Because some entity WANTS them to fly---and spend money for the experience. There's profit in flight--perhaps not what there used to be, but there's still profit. People don't understand the technology of automobiles, but they buy and drive them by the millions. Fortunately, with automobiles, there is labeling--mpg figures have made a difference--at least to some Buyers. There's a lesson there, but few are learning from it.

Generally, less CO2 emission means less profit. Of course there's the Earth to consider and future generations of humans and other living creatures, but our track record as a species isn't that great at preservation and enhancement. Humans are more highly skilled at discovery and exploitation. Rain forests, ivory, buffalo herds, gold, coal, oil, etc etc all displaced and destroyed or decimated. How do we perform against that pattern with Climate Change? Is there a tipping point in terms of behavioral change among individuals? Can that change occur quickly and create small, but significant reductions in CO2 emissions holding the potential to avert non-linear, catastrophic climate events?

I believe it can and that is has in various communities around the world--none in the US.

I read an important book recently (below) that focuses on those communities and suggests that similar efforts could occur nearly anywhere, given some carefully planned programs that address human perceptions and Climate Change in a realistic way. The book has a huge amount of material, from which I plan to pull some particularly interesting ideas that might produce easy, pleasant changes in human behavior.

Visualizing Climate Change

A Guide to Visual Communication of Climate Change and Developing Local Solutions

By Stephen R.J. Sheppard

The documentary "I AM"

This is a post that got deferred---for a while!!

If you haven't seen this short documentary (77minutes) you should. It's not primarily focused on Climate Change--made back in 2008 when that topic was not quite as prominent as it is now. 

www.iamthedoc.com 

The above link takes you to the website--info, order the DVD, watch, join forum, etc. 

The movie involves discussions with famous intellects concerning what is wrong with human society (much), how come (many reasons) and what can be done to change it. 

From the Climate Change perspective TIME is the most ominous problem. If there is a 4-5 year window of opportunity within which to avoid unknown non-linear acceleration of climate degradation, slow progress toward change is not going to avert a major reset of the Earth's environment and the biota dependent on it. 

Humans tend to ignore warnings in preference for "business as usual, as long as possible".
This is often followed by "OOPS" episodes and in the case of Climate Change, a very big 
"OOPS" may transpire. 

For the 1% that makes partial sense, because however bad things get, the rich will find a place and a way to minimize any diminution in their lifestyle. The health effects in terms of disease, famine, etc will be borne mostly by the 99%.  

2012 retrospective

Yes, this retrospective is a little strange--this blog didn't start till way into 2012 and then it sorta went sideways along the way. With escrow challenges, plus Sandy effects, and general malaise arising from  a lack of engagement during the election followed by post election fiscal cliff posturing, inconsequential Doha UN Climate Talks, etc, etc. , there's been an big gap in posting. 

Nonetheless 2012 was a significant year for Climate Change. The Climate IS changing--faster than most forecasts and although humans are the primary cause, they have, at this point, no control over the process and for the most part no clue in how to get that control. Guess that means I'm not using "significant" in a good way?

The local Green Your Business Challenge finished up with some winners--well, most offices were winners, but there weren't many participants. It's safe to say the gasoline consumed by the members of the committee in attending the meetings exceeded the CO2 saved by the conservation measures undertaken by the offices. That's pretty common with many Climate Change programs. The Energy Event put on the the County of San Luis Obispo was another example in which the carbon footprint of the gathering far exceeded any CO2 savings generated by the content (there were photo-ops for politicians, so it wasn't a total waste--LOL). 

Personally, the most important epiphany of the 2012 occurred when I quit trying to identify a threshold of factual information about how bad things were getting in a more rapid than forecast way to turn the tide. The scientist in me kept seeking the holy grail of statistics that, when viewed by any remotely rational person, would instantly galvanize them into focused, energy wise action. The information keeps flowing, but there is no magical tipping point related to public action. Quite the contrary, many people are sick of hearing, reading, thinking about the negative news concerning Climate Change. The incredible super storm Sandy came, went and except for the areas still recovering, or attempting to, has largely left public consciousness, certainly as a possible artifact of Climate Change. I still review the latest new on the science front, but that's my background. The majority of people really don't care to be aware of the details. 

This "tuning out" process is a danger, because of the time factor. As I've mentioned previously, there may be a 4-5 year window within which CO2 emissions must depart the "business as usual" curve and begin to decline. If they don't, the chance of non-linear, unpredictable climate events occurring could increase to a virtual certainty. Few of the governmental, organizational, technological "solutions" aimed at achieving CO2 reduction will come to meaningful fruition inside that 4-5 year window. 

What CAN happen within 4-5 years are simple changes in personal behavior that could reduce CO2 emissions by 10-20% with little adverse affect on lifestyle. The challenge to find a way to achieve that behavior change. Forget media and big money. They flow elsewhere, as does the political power. In fact, it makes many of those industrial-institutional types extremely uneasy that the public even consider changes in present lifestyle---who knows where that might lead? 

I'll explore this line of reasoning further soon (really!), but it is really very simple. Motivation and awareness meet a trigger and choices are made. Where does that process happen every day, millions of time across the nation? Restaurants! People desire food (motivation) they become aware of options and consequences (the promise of gastronomic delight vs calories and price) and with the help of a menu (the trigger) they make choices. WHAT IF there were a menu or menus to help trigger energy wise decisions? 

That's one of the projects in development for early 2013. 

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

Great vid clip!

Still getting caught up from state association meetings and an escrow that resulted from a negotiation completed while at the meetings---way too much time in the hotel room on the phone!

I ran across this Huffington Post clip a couple days ago---which is 54 minutes long. It has an excellent panel and it goes fast. Take it in a couple of doses if necessary, but I bet you'll watch it all.

http://youtu.be/ii9b8V6PhlM

It raises some tough questions and makes the point that I am now stressing at every opportunity.

Technology, government and corporate enlightenment MAY provide some significant CO2 emission reductions EVENTUALLY. That's MAY and EVENTUALLY.

What if tipping points representing non linear and unpredictable rapid climate change events arise in the next 4-5 years, if CO2 emission continue along the "business as usual" curve? What can be done in the next 4-5 years to prevent or reduce the odds of that happening?

How many degrees centigrade does it take to set off the non-linear hounds of hell? 2 or 2.5 or 3? If it goes to 4, is there any way out of population crashes and species extinctions? I won't be around by then, but this contest between humans and the Earth has no end and no winner. Our materialistic win/loose perspective has no relevance.

Fortunately, behavior can change NOW. CAN--we're back to ABILITY, MOTIVATION AND TRIGGER among individuals, but it CAN happen. It is also the Earth's best hope.

So the question is this: could most people cut their personal CO2 emissions by 10-15% with little effort, while experiencing little change in lifestyle? I'm betting the answer is YES!! 

We need a movement to encourage that sort of behavior change. Many people making a small change can reduce CO2 emissions rapidly. Many people also could grab the attention of politicians and corporate heads.

If the institutions finally get their acts together, that will be a huge help, but what if they don't? They haven't so far---as evidenced in the election campaigning. Energy was a bigger issue in 2008 than it is now and we know much more than we did in 2008---AND NONE of it is good news.

Individuals should do what they can do now. The present prevailing lifestyle of excessive consumption isn't all that alluring, when viewed from the perspective of a future Earth unable to support human populations living quality lives.

BTW you'll not see much about real estate in this blog---I've come to the conclusion that the real estate industry/trade organizations and Climate Change are not ready for each other just yet. There are more effective ways to spend my time than bucking the inertia of a multi million dollar a year lobbying/marketing machine focused on Climate Change denial and protecting antiquated business practices out of step with the best interests of the public.

Individuals in the industry and among the public have the ability to make better decisions about real estate and their future, decisions that are more consistent with sustaining the future of the Earth as a habitat for a rich diversity of living organisms, including humans.

SLO Happy

I attended an MLS event for the City of San Luis Obispo mayoral candidates on Tuesday. As expected the prepared questions focused on point of sale issues regarding greening the existing housing stock. Barasch at least mentioned that there were already point of sale requirements, but none of the candidates, Marx, Barasch and Hedrick, even suggested that point of sale for retrofits, upgrades or even energy ratings was on the near horizon. Fortunately, none of the questions touched on how the City of San Luis Obispo plans to meet AB32 requirements. The plan (see their Climate Action Plan) seems to be "business as usual whenever possible", but just before 2020 a magic energy wise wand (yet to be invented) appears to transform the buildings and behavior of the population to achieve compliance. That's all off in the future. It's all about the current election--whether it's national or local. The idea of working backwards from 2020 to determine what needs to be done in 2012 to meet the AB32 standards, leaving room for economic cycles, unexpected events (good and bad), etc. doesn't receive much attention. The focus is how little can be done. What if AB 32 standards could be exceeded by a substantial margin to the benefit of the community, the individuals in it and the Earth? That's a question that won't be asked. Will the Happiest City in America remain so in 2020? We'll find out pretty soon. 2020 is just around the corner in government years (AB32 passed in 2006).

I promise next post will get back to the POSITIVELY GREEN mode! Elections get in the way of positively anything.

Light up ahead?

Business got crazy, been a while. Slight progress evident, along with a sobering realization that, at least in real estate, business as usual remains the prevailing strategy. Three new developments were pitched at the last MLS meeting---none of the speakers mentioned energy efficiency during their presentations. The buildings DO meet current high energy efficiency standards and may even exceed them, but that aspect is evidently not deemed worthy of mention.

The progress part of the last few weeks was the passing (3-2 vote) by the SLO County Board of Supervisors of the Green Building Ordinance that, among other things, requires remodel projects with a value of over $10,000 to comply with the constructions standards of the ordinance AND produce a HERS II rating for the residential structure at completion.

SLO has many older house with no insulation single pane windows, etc etc. It's often assumed those are small cottages---BUT there are some LARGE older homes in SLO. Those are heritage energy hogs. In addition to some historic character (if not actual designation), they also hold the promise of greatly improved energy efficiency. Incentives are needed to encourage energy efficiency upgrades.  Some of these large, older houses are used by Poly students at relatively high density. These houses represent the proverbial "low hanging fruit" of energy conservation. Are they targeted in any local efforts to comply with AB 32 requirements---nope. I wonder if anyone in the government sector really believes, or cares, whether the AB 32 requirements are met or not. Maybe it's just a job? As I've said before, I don't expect the needed changes to occur. 2020 isn't far off and AB 32 was passed in 2006.

Just this AM as I was waking up I had one of those moments of clarity--the struggle with climate change HAS NO FINISH LINE!! That sounds simple and obvious, but with the election rhetoric and partisan politics taking control of the media, that simple fact gets lost in the messages. In an auto race, it's OK to push the car beyond its limit to get to the finish line. People sometimes undertake great risks pursuing a bucket list--with the finish line posed by their own mortality in mind.

Climate Change isn't like that. THERE IS NO FINISH LINE, only continuation of a contest involving the future of the Earth as a quality habitat for living things. Most of our institutions operate in a tightly constrained world of the next election, next quarterly corporate report, next bonus, etc. There's a disconnect between laws of nature (not all even understood) and human laws, mostly crafted by those in power for their own benefit---short term benefit.

The positive perspective is that humans have the capability of deeper understanding than that evidenced by their institutions. Individuals still have considerable freedom to act in the best interests of the Earth.
Many environmental groups seek to put pressure on the institutions, lobbying government, protesting corporate actions, etc. Those efforts have great merit and achieve a degree of success, but seem to ignore the ominous timeline taking shape as climate data accumulates.

More and more scientists believe the next 4-5 years are critical in shaping the future path of Climate Change. Unless significant reduction of CO2 emissions is achieved in 4-5 years, the process of change may shift into an unpredictable realm described by tipping points, catastrophe cusps and other non-linear models.

The fastest, most predictable way to reduce CO2 emissions in a short period of time, without depending on new technology, governmental/corporate enlightenment and other fantasy scenarios is behavioral change by a large segment of the population. Behavior can change TODAY using current technology and a very modest learning curve. It need not involve major shifts in lifestyle or a decrease the quality of life. It's flexible--a buffet of choices presents itself daily. Slightly different choices can achieve a reduction in CO2 emissions. If enough people make those different choices, CO2 emission could be reduced 5% or 10%, or even more.

If and when technology and government achieve success, CO2 reductions can accelerate, but for the next 4-5 years, the people of the Earth need to take a lead role in mitigating Climate Change, because they have the ABILITY to make the needed behavioral changes NOW, and they COULD have the MOTIVATION to make those changes, and they COULD perceive the TRIGGER necessary to make those changes.

Incorporating those changes into an existing lifestyle CAN be a process of discovery, exploration and fun. The journey to becoming energy wise can be as enriching as the goal--helping Earth remain a quality home for living things. It's your home--your only home.

Next---more about ABILITY, MOTIVATION AND TRIGGER.

Positive! Positive!

Ok, I'm done (for the moment) with major posts focused on how houses are bought and sold in the US with respect to energy efficiency.

The intent of this blog is to stay in the cup is half full sector. SOOOO

Here's a great link to a story about net zero (and better) houses being built in New England--NOW!

http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/just-two-minisplits-heat-and-cool-whole-house?utm_source=email&utm_medium=eletter&utm_content=20120822-two-minisplits-heat-cool&utm_campaign=green-building-advisor-eletter

There's quite a bit of material in the article and links to the firm's website. Pretty amazing stuff and not in a mild climate by any stretch. Much of the technology is simple and could be adapted anywhere. 

How many people in your community can select from net zero homes when they decide to buy in a new subdivision, or even purchase a resale? If net zero houses were available, would they sell for a reasonable premium over "typical" houses? If not, why not? Should they sell for a premium at all? As long as energy efficiency in the existing housing stock is factored out of the decision process, Buyers and Seller are operating in the dark (perhaps literally in a few decades). Is that healthy environmentally and economically, given climate change? 

BTW European countries are building net zero homes in large numbers with some innovative technology. Some are better than net zero--electric cars can even recharge on the excess. 

Right Buyer, Right House Theory

The “Right House/Right Buyer” Theory

The real estate market operates most efficiently when a match is found between the RIGHT BUYER and the RIGHT HOUSE.  

Buyers are generally seeking the RIGHT HOUSE from among all those that are available for sale. That's the one house that best achieves an overall balance of practical, financial and psychological needs and wants. 

Sellers seek the RIGHT BUYER, the one person who prefers their house to any other house available for sale, and therefore feels they will fall short of best meeting their wants and needs if they are unable to complete the purchase. No one wants to settle for second best. 

When RIGHT HOUSE and RIGHT BUYER are matched, the Seller most likely receives top dollar from a Buyer who is highly motivated to complete the purchase and will likely remain happy with that purchase long after the transaction is completed.

In this era of short sales the RIGHT HOUSE/RIGHT BUYER theory takes on a somewhat different complexion. Buyers often purchase short sales or REOs because of a very attractive price, regardless of whether the house resonates strongly with their psychological needs. At a certain price, anything looks attractive. The theory still applies, but the financial aspects come to outweigh the other factors.

For Buyers concerned about energy efficiency finding the RIGHT HOUSE is a challenge. There is essentially no comparable information about energy efficiency available at this time, either from MLS systems or agents. Estimating energy efficiency from the scattered information that is available is nearly impossible, even for trained professionals. After tests are conducted and computer applications used to run the resulting data a rating, be it HERS II, BPI or some other index is assigned and comparisons are possible. Another complication is that poor energy efficiency ratings can be attributable to factors easily and/or cheaply corrected. A low energy rating isn't necessarily a huge detractor, if the report shows an obvious reason that's simple to correct. There may even be rebates for the correction.

The average Buyer or agent does not have the knowledge or expertise to compare diverse "green features"  (if input into the MLS at all) among similar homes to arrive at an estimate of relative energy efficiency. So what happens? A Buyer ends up purchasing a house that  they think is the RIGHT HOUSE, based on available information. If they had known the energy efficiencies of the houses on their short list, they might have chosen a different house. I guess there's a "if they don't know, it won't hurt 'em" argument to be made, but if the utility cost differential would cover a $20,000 or $30,000 loan amount, most Buyers are not going to make that argument. One the other hand, the real estate industry doesn't pay the utility bills every month or suffer lagging appreciation when energy efficiency becomes a more important consideration in future purchase decisions. 

Now consider a Seller, whose house really is the RIGHT HOUSE for a particular Buyer, but sees it passed over in favor of another house that is not the best choice, because of significantly lower energy efficiency, a fact unknown during the decision process. That Seller lost a RIGHT BUYER, a sale and probably the highest price he or she might receive. Obviously, some other Seller got that Buyer and probably received a higher purchase price than warranted had energy efficiency been known. 

What about the agents? They earned a commission regardless of energy efficiency. Most agents are genuinely concerned with finding that RIGHT BUYER/RIGHT HOUSE match. It really does feel good when it happens. The real estate industry is opposed to making energy efficiency part of the decision process in deference to a "business as usual works fine for us" mentality. Individual agents can make a difference, but not a very big one. Comparison requires similar information for most of the available properties--like we already have for lot size, living area, ocean views, bedroom/bath count, etc etc. Some agents might willingly pay the cost of a HERS II rating for each listing (less than cost of 6 weeks of print ads), but without other HERS II rated houses for comparison, the benefit of the cost would be limited. 

In summary, at present there is a de facto suppression of energy efficiency as a factor for Buyers to consider in choosing the RIGHT HOUSE. The real estate industry has decided that energy efficiency should not receive consideration because of point of sale doctrines, the possible stigmatization of energy hogs and the simple fact that business as usual is more comfortable. This policy also takes energy efficiency off the table when valuation is considered. 

The only stakeholder who benefits from such suppression is the Seller of a not so stigmatized house that is an energy hog, but doesn't appear to be (I term those - stealth hogs). The Sellers of stealth hogs actually benefit from present the prevailing treatment of energy efficiency. That's a curious focus for industry thinking because ALL Buyers and all other Sellers suffer the consequences. What about the planet Earth and the municipalities trying to meed Climate Action Plan required reductions in CO2 emissions? 

How great a cost is the benefit of "business as usual" really worth? As mentioned in the previous post, that discussion isn't happening. It could, if more stakeholders were willing to participate. The consumers should know the energy efficiency of the houses they are considering for purchase. They know the MPG rating of cars and that knowledge has had a huge impact on national fuel consumption. High MPG cars are worth more. Would the Prius even have survived without MPG ratings? 

It's More of Your Home

I decided to post again rather than write comments about It's Your Home. A few things got left on the editing floor in an attempt to shorten and simplify.

The matter of valuation and whether energy efficiency and total cost of home ownership is a factor used in determining fair market value is crucial. Before even getting any deeper into details we should understand what FAIR MARKET VALUE is---fortunately the US Supreme Court defined the term in 1973 and that definition is still widely accepted.

The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. United States v. Cartwright, 411 U. S. 546, 93 S. Ct. 1713, 1716-17, 36 L. Ed. 2d 528, 73-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 12,926 (1973) (quoting from U.S. Treasury regulations relating to Federal estate taxes, at 26 C.F.R. sec. 20.2031-1(b)).

Note the "and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts" part. That becomes a key issue with energy efficiency. Is energy efficiency a relevant fact in determining valuation, even if few Buyer and Sellers consider it? That's a "tree falling in a forest" question. Is there a sound? There is to planet Earth, but the real estate industry prefers to hear nothing. Do Buyers and Sellers hear the sound? Should they? 

I recently attended an all day course, primarily intended for appraisers, addressing how energy efficiency could best become a consistent part of the appraisal process. It was a very interesting (and tiring) day, but during the afternoon I realized that if the BUYER didn't fold energy efficiency into the price he or she agreed to pay and the SELLER didn't fold energy efficiency into the list price and make sure the marketing efforts featured that attribute, how the appraiser addresses energy efficiency isn't highly important. Market value is established at contract creation. If a house is highly energy efficient and the appraiser perceives that characteristic at all, but energy efficiency did not play a part in list price or contract price--- the appraiser merely has additional wiggle room in justifying that contract price. What happens at present is that many appraisers treat energy efficient upgrades as an indication of "high quality construction", rather than open the door to a new array of adjustments that haven't been established. Efforts to quantify energy efficiency upgrades in terms of value adjustments remain highly arbitrary, largely because Buyers and Sellers are rarely part of the equation and THEY set Fair Market Value, not appraisers. Appraisers use data from Buyer and Seller contract prices on comparable houses to estimate value of the subject property.

If Buyers and Sellers are not now in possession of reasonable knowledge concerning energy efficiency as a relevant fact in determining fair market value, how might that change? Does it need to change? The real estate industry seems to perceive energy efficiency as a complication that might delay escrow closings, cause Sellers to incur additional costs of sale, stigmatize properties with poor energy efficiency, increase liability for agents by imposing a new knowledge base, etc, etc. That perceived load of responsibility and risk comes without any additional compensation. Predictably, the real estate industry has rolled out their long standing, one size fits all doctrine of "no point of sale mandates, not ever, no how". Business as usual, as long as possible may sound extreme, but much of corporate America is on that same page regarding climate change. That raises another very interesting question. If the real estate industry won't support point of sale energy upgrades or point of sale energy ratings, what level of participation in greening the housing supply will it agree to? If they won't do THAT, what will they do?

If you read my previous post you know that I'm enthusiastic about achieving small changes in behavior among large numbers of people to effect significant reductions in CO2 emissions over a very short time. For that change to occur we need ABILITY, MOTIVATION and a TRIGGER. So far, one or more of those elements is missing where housing is concerned.

The small steps are easily within the ABILITY of almost everyone, but what about MOTIVATION? Change is hard. Change is uncomfortable. It's easier to do business as usual or continue with the present lifestyle, particularly when your trade associations fight hard in the lobbying arena and with PAC money to insure change isn't necessary. However, there is a cost/benefit balance at play here. How much cost in potential inconvenience, increased costs at time of sale and higher liability offsets the benefits to Buyers, Sellers and planet Earth if energy efficiency becomes a part of fair market value? Discussion of that cost/benefit balance is not happening.

Who might introduce the TRIGGER into this setting--not even a trigger to commit to reducing CO2 emissions, but a trigger to address the costs and benefits of doing nothing? Doing nothing is always an option. Problem is (the old ecologist is talking now) the environment changes constantly. As it changes, sustaining a "do nothing" position initiates a random walk through the realm of adaptivity. A strategy of stasis (business as usual) may prove more or less beneficial, depending on the current state of the environment. It's a simple strategy, but it's not responsive to changes in the environment, be they ecological or economic.

I'm not optimistic that the real estate industry will provide the trigger to open discussion. The Climate Action Plans now in place in most communities offered a potential trigger, but most municipalities postponed using that trigger in deference to lobbying by the real estate community and good old fashioned political expediency. Most of the present Climate Action Plans will fail to meet AB 32 requirements unless modified significantly, but short term victories are the driving force in the current political and business world. Not so, for global climate change.

The City of San Luis Obispo CAP includes a crucial passage near the end of the Executive Summary, "The majority of the GHG reduction strategies in the CAP are based on voluntary behavior from the community. The most vital step towards achieving the reduction target is public outreach and education.
A well informed community is empowered to make alternative decisions, or in many cases, to continue environmentally sound practices already taking place in SLO. The City will work with the County, State and other regional organizations to develop a comprehensive education program targeting energy-efficiency, renewables, alternative transportation and other CAP community wide objectives."

Is organized real estate the "go to" authority on housing (and other real property) in all it's diverse environmental and economic aspects or is it a service business driven by sales metrics? The answer is soon to be revealed.

Meanwhile back in the real world, the consumers, those Buyers and Sellers seeking the RIGHT BUYER/RIGHT HOUSE match (see related post), may represent a more sensitive trigger. If they start ASKING for the services associated with making energy efficiency part of the purchase process and start ASKING why those services aren't available if they receive a negative or evasive response, change will happen.

1. How will you assist me in purchasing a house with high energy efficiency that also meets my other wants and needs from among those houses now available for sale?

2. I want list my house for sale. How will you assist me in receiving maximum value for its array of attributes, including its energy efficiency? 

Ability + Motivation + Trigger = CHANGE!

It's Your Home

This document really started life in 2009 as a brochure prepared on behalf of the Green House Effects Committee of the San Luis Obispo Association of REALTORS® for an Earth Day event (BTW, I was at the first Earth Day while at Arizona State University). I updated the content while serving on the 2012 Green House Effects Committee and did further editing for this post. As the years pass little traction is apparent, but AB 32 compliance signals a change is coming, even if  the real estate industry doesn't like change. It's a long post, but with a little patience, your home search may take a new path. There is a version for tenants too. I'll post that soon.

It’s Your Home!

The Green Reality of 2012

Logically, the real estate market should function to allow Sellers to receive full value for all the favorable attributes of their property, including energy efficiency. Buyers who place a high value on energy efficiency, and are willing to compensate Sellers for that characteristic, want to identify properties best meeting their green goals to better make informed decisions concerning which house is really the RIGHT HOUSE. When it comes to energy efficiency, the green reality of 2012 includes a U.S. real estate market that falls short of serving the best interests of most Sellers, all Buyers and, ultimately, the Earth.

How Does Green Feel?

Could purchase decisions, listing procedures and the overall real estate sales process better represent the interests of most Buyers and Sellers where energy efficiency is concerned? What additional information is needed, how can it be delivered and where might it fit in the decision process?

Despite today’s technology, the search for a new house still focuses on traditional attributes including living area, bedrooms/baths, age, style, yard size, views and other obvious features. Those basics are covered in detail by MLS data and, in recent years, on many public websites. The intuitive “feel” arising from assorted cues beyond the conventional data also plays a major part in the final decision.  What about energy efficiency? Many MLS systems include "green features" in the optional fields, but translating features into the costs of home ownership and future appreciation remains problematical.

Thoughtful Buyers must seek to break free of the existing data and current industry practices to make wise decisions that incorporate energy efficiency into valuation and their final decision on the RIGHT HOUSE. The challenge centers on the fact that energy efficiency is not apparent from looking at the house, reading a home inspection, reviewing an appraisal or even knowing what green features the Seller added. 

Smart Green Start

Jumping in the car (high MPG, we hope) to drive around town looking at addresses pulled from a real estate website may not be the ideal first step in finding your next house. Preliminary research can save time and produce an outcome offering sustained satisfaction on multiple levels.

How Green Is Your Location, Location, Location?

Before even looking at specific houses there are geographic considerations that strongly influence energy use and overall housing expense. Check distance from work, shopping, recreation, family, friends, school and entertainment when comparing neighborhoods. The monthly cost of living in a house also carries a cost in time, money and carbon emissions expended getting to and from it. Cheaper housing in a location that adds transportation mileage may not mean cheaper overall monthly costs. Use web based mapping to measure distances, asses traffic, then check out bike paths and pubic transit routes. Take a drive during commuting time to get a real world view of what that trip is like. Doing this up front helps avoid compromising your green commitment and budget for an appealing house that has significant energy costs built into it’s location. 

Size Does Matter, Lifestyle Too!

All else being equal, the larger the home, the larger the energy costs and the greater the embodied energy contained in the home. So how much space do you really need? Surveys show Buyers of all ages are downsizing (now called RIGHT SIZING). Mini mansions in which a couple occupies a 3500+ sqft house, but uses only 800 sqft of it are falling from favor. Parcel size is also a factor. Larger yards typically use more water, plus they require more maintenance and chemicals. Does your gardener drive a hybrid and how far does she travel to do you yard? Energy efficient landscaping is a solution, but the cost of installation depends on parcel size. Lifestyle matters too. Having a modestly sized, energy efficient house doesn’t always mean low energy use. Electrical appliances, hot tubs, lighting, etc. can cause an energy efficient house to morph into a hungry energy hog. 

Here Comes the Sun (and Wind)!

The orientation of the house to the annual solar path has a great deal of influence on energy use and how the house “feels”. Windows,  landscaping and interior design should compliment that solar path over the course of the day and year. Solar path analysis is often associated with new construction using passive solar design or in the evaluation of solar panel feasibility, but ALL houses posses passive solar characteristics. Buyers often overlook solar path in choosing the best house among top candidates, even though it’s a factor often impractical to correct after the purchase. Beyond energy, there are aesthetics to consider. If your dreams include morning coffee as dawn unfolds or savoring sunny afternoon BBQs, your ideal house should play its role with ample style. There are now nifty web applications that allow you to see the solar path over any house any day of the year (see links below). 

Wind patterns affect ventilation, landscaping, indoor air quality and HVAC use. With new rooftop turbine technology wind can also produce reasonable ROI, if wind velocities are sufficient. Coastal regions have extremely variable wind patterns. Visit specific neighborhoods at different times of the day, ask bicyclists, runners, hang gliders and neighbors for their personal observations. A mile one way or another can make a big difference. 

Water and Electricity Do Mix  

Aside from occasional help from gravity, water is moved where it’s needed by electricity. So is waste water. When you limit water use, you’re saving water, but you’re also saving electricity--twice if the water reaches the community waste water system. Low flow toilets, xeriscape and good sense save you money, shrink carbon emissions and conserve precious water.  

Older Can Be Wiser

Older homes can be prime candidates for an energy efficient purchase. They may lack the technology of more recent construction, but they are often located near downtown employment centers, tend to be smaller in size and are often on smaller town lots. They can also have a better solar path than those sleek newer houses on artfully curving streets. How can Buyers pay for the upgrades and retrofits needed to increase energy efficiency and enhance value in older homes? 

Green Financing

Programs are available that allow the borrower to finance renovation costs, including energy retrofits and upgrades into the purchase mortgage. FHA 203K and Energy Efficient Mortgages can even be combined. It’s possible that looking beyond cosmetic deficiencies can reveal the wisest available choice for your next house. When complete, the green renovation quickly creates equity. These mortgages also require before and after energy audits providing documentation of success that can add value when you sell. Rebate programs and tax incentives are also available. Thanks to government response to AB32, SB375 and the 2020 carbon emission deadline, houses with high energy efficiency should experience appreciation that is far above average. You could be left  chasing that green wave or riding it. 

How Green? 

Energy ratings, such as BPI or HERS II, evaluate the systems of the house that determine energy efficiency and help to assess health and safety performance. In addition to recommendations for correcting problems, these reports identify which upgrades are most cost effective in improving energy efficiency (the oft described “low hanging fruit”). This provides a road map for future owners and, thanks to our mild climate, often includes surprises. Unfortunately, energy rating reports are not widely available for houses now on the market. The cost is relatively modest (typically $300-$500) and partial rebates are available, but only apply after a particular house is under contract. The most efficient approach would be for home inspections and energy ratings to be performed at the same time by the same professionals. Occasionally homes with green certifications from LEEDS or Energy Star simplify choosing an energy efficient home. It’s wise to make sure those houses are still performing as they did when certified.

Conclusion

Energy efficiency is an attribute of all houses. Buyers can easily compare size, style, location, views and many other attributes, but the present real estate marketing environment makes it challenging to compare the energy efficiency of similar houses. The factors determining energy  are complex, making a standardized rating index essential. Energy ratings exist (HERS II, BPI), but are seldom used. Comparison during the decision process is extremely rare. When ratings are preformed, it’s after the purchase decision has already been made. How would you like it if energy labels on automobiles, appliances and other consumer goods were gone with the only ratings performed at the Buyer’s expense, after the purchase? 

Does the present treatment of energy efficiency by organized real estate maximize Buyer and Seller satisfaction, while decreasing carbon emissions and cutting energy costs?  Does it assign value to houses based on the present and future true total costs of home ownership? The answer is obvious. The real estate industry and its trade associations have made their position clear. Change is only likely to come from the consumer side. Begin by asking questions about energy efficiency when you start considering a purchase. It's important that your bests interests are considered from the outset of the process. It is not unreasonable to express concern about the true costs of home ownership for each of the properties you consider.  Similarly, it's not unreasonable for Sellers to expect the RIGHT BUYER to be aware of the full array of benefits available with their home. 

Reducing energy use saves money and helps future generations that are dependent on what we do today for the quality of their lives tomorrow. Rather than depend on big programs instituted by governments, corporations and organizations, each individual should make reasonable changes to their behavior that reduce energy use. Those changes can happen quickly with no additional technology. If billions of people make small changes to lower their personal energy use, CO2 emissions will drop, improving the future of life on Earth. Most small changes involve little or no inconvenience or change in lifestyle. Just try some (links below)!   

The Next Step Toward Green?

Here are a few Green Links to educate, inspire and provide opportunities to wildly exceed your expectations in the challenging quest for a your ideal next home and a more energy efficient life. Most of these sites allow you to “follow” on Twitter, “like” on Facebook to provide a stream of  information to help green your future. There is room for many more links, so if YOU have a favorite, please post it in a comment and I'll add it to the list.

http://suncalc.net/#/35.238,-120.621,12/2012.04.23/07:39

http://www.passivesolarenergy.info/

http://greenhomeguide.com/ 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/    

http://www.slogreenbuild.org/

http://green.car.org/

http://www.semmesco.com/default.shtml

http://www.slorealtors.org/greenhouseeffect.html

Brief background

Why am I passionate about the future of planet Earth, even though I have no children and won't live long enough to see the outcome of changes proposed in this blog?

It's a long story that started as I grew up in Los Angeles in the early 50's. My father taught business classes at USC, so I had the opportunity to spend time at the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, the La Brea Tar Pits, the sea shore, nearby mountains, etc. As a child, my mother lived on a small farm in southern Illinois and deeply enjoyed nature. She was born in 1920 and experienced the dust bowl era first hand. Looking back on my early years, I think what impressed me most about the museums, exhibits and travels was the Earth's wide diversity of environments and the magnitude of change they exhibit over time. The laws of nature loomed large as I gazed a the fossilized remains of extinct creatures.

Later, I spent 20 years at Arizona State University receiving a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in Zoology while specializing in the ecology and systematics of marine and freshwater micro-crustaceans. Still later I made an ironic shift into the business world and a real estate career, after moving to the Central Coast of California in the mid 80's.

I still think like a scientist, but discovered that way of thinking can be a big obstacle in addressing Climate Change, particularly within the context of real estate, agents and the public they represent. Fortunately, the Grist piece appeared in a perfectly timed tweet just as a friend and I were sorting out the frustration of extremely thin support for the needed changes in lifestyle among organizations, governments and a major portion of the population. Timing is everything -- in real estate and reducing CO2 emissions!

Next post will focus on the original paper behind David Roberts' Grist piece (Climate and moral judgement, Ezra M. Markowitz and Azim F. Shariff, Nature Climate Change, Vol 2, April 2012). I'll comment on what's there, what isn't, then further suggest how their work might point outreach efforts in more productive directions.

WHY this?

I spun this from my Real Estate Technology blog for a couple of reasons. First, I started working so much on Climate Change issues that I didn't post much to the other blog. Second, I recently progressed in learning how to involve more people in making behavioral changes that are beneficial to themselves and the planet.

When meeting with various "green" committees, groups and attending presentation, I experience Ground Hog Day movie moments. The same people are preaching the same stuff to the same choir--very effectively, from a position of serene comfort sustained by the appreciative nodding of heads in total agreement. This version of Ground Hog Day has been playing for several years with little change in content or audience. If we follow that same path, the relatively small percentage of people who "get it" aren't going to create the needed reduction in CO2 emissions.

Change is uncomfortable. Even something supremely attractive triggers change because people become uncomfortable with their present condition. If you're comfortable, you're not changing. More importantly, you aren't very receptive to heightened awareness that might open a door to positive change. The odd thing is that although change is always uncomfortable, it does not always involve a negative experience. Over half the time change is positive, yet we still resist.

The planet Earth needs a big change in CO2 emissions over the next very few years. That isn't happening quickly enough because efforts to speed change, at least thus far, lack psychological resonance with most of the population. That makes me uncomfortable--so I'm changing my approach.

Please read the content of this recent and pivotal Grist piece to understand why MORE information on warming, drought, melting glaciers, pine beetles, fires, etc., etc., isn't likely to get us where we need to be as a society or a species. The scientific perspective is important, but not to the mass of people who can achieve the necessary change in CO2 emissions within the window of opportunity.