Chronicles in West Coast Socialism - the strict California Energy Building Codes have failed

[maxparrish]

Anyone familiar with California's frequent civic hostility to making residential building affordable (while the same civic officials claim to be frustrated and bewildered by the lack of affordable housing) may be able to relate one of pratfalls of love of regulatory "green" social planning - building codes for energy efficiency.

A recent study, by an economist who was employed by the Obama folks, has found some "surprising" results: 40 years of California's aggressive energy building codes has failed to deliver promised benefits.

Abstract

Construction codes that regulate the energy efficiency of new buildings have been a centerpiece
of US environmental policy for 40 years. California enacted the nation’s first energy building
codes in 1978, and they were projected to reduce residential energy use—and associated
pollution—by 80 percent. How effective have the building codes been? I take three approaches
to answering that question. First, I compare current electricity use by California homes of
different vintages constructed under different standards, controlling for home size, local weather,
and tenant characteristics. Second, I examine how electricity in California homes varies with
outdoor temperatures for buildings of different vintages. And third, I compare electricity use for
buildings of different vintages in California, which has stringent building energy codes, to
electricity use for buildings of different vintages in other states. All three approaches yield the
same answer: there is no evidence that homes constructed since California instituted its building
energy codes use less electricity today than homes built before the codes came into effect.

They have, naturally, succeeded in making building less affordable. Is California socialism great or what?

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/aml6/pdfs&zips/BuildingCodes.pdf

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't realize building codes meant socialism.

 

[maxparrish]

I didn't realize building codes meant socialism.

Unless such regulations are to prevent fraud or violence, they are. And they are used to dictates the purchase and consumption habits of society to the subjective liking of the planner, they are.

In any case, even if based on supposed goal of California's energy code, such regulations have failed to deliver.

 

[Axulus]

I didn't realize building codes meant socialism.

Call it what you want, but there is no dispute that building codes are an example of central planning which, in the case of CA energy efficiency codes, are a prime example of central planning/government failure based on the OP paper's analysis.

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't realize building codes meant socialism.

Call it what you want, but there is no dispute that building codes are an example of central planning which, in the case of CA energy efficiency codes, are a prime example of central planning/government failure based on the OP paper's analysis.

I didn't realize building codes meant central planning.

 

[Axulus]

Call it what you want, but there is no dispute that building codes are an example of central planning which, in the case of CA energy efficiency codes, are a prime example of central planning/government failure based on the OP paper's analysis.

I didn't realize building codes meant central planning.

A central authority plans and decrees that everyone within their jurisdiction must do X, Y, and Z and use materials A, B, and C when they construct something, no exceptions. Yes, central planning.

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't realize building codes meant central planning.

A central authority plans and decrees that everyone within their jurisdiction must do X, Y, and Z and use materials A, B, and C when they construct something, no exceptions. Yes, central planning.

None of the building codes where I live necessarily mandate the materials and usually they mandate minimum requirements. Nor do I think Hayek envisioned "building codes" as part of the Road to Serfdom.

I guess you learn something new everyday.

 

[bilby]

I didn't realize building codes meant socialism.

The very existence of governments is socialism, which is the most evilest thing ever ever, in the whole big wide world. The end.

 

[bilby]

I didn't realize building codes meant socialism.

Unless such regulations are to prevent fraud or violence, they are.

So it is completely unacceptable for the socialist dictators in the People's Democratic Socialist State of California to force the poor put-upon populace to take steps to ensure that their buildings don't fall down if there is an earthquake.

Instead, they should allow brilliant and super-heroic architects to build superb and completely unregulated buildings, and to occasionally rape people who bear a passing resemblance to Ayn Rand, because she's obviously secretly gagging for it and is turned on my powerful men who take what they want and are beholden to nobody.

And then they can all move to Colorado and let the commies crash trains into each other. Or something.

 

[Axulus]

Unless such regulations are to prevent fraud or violence, they are.

So it is completely unacceptable for the socialist dictators in the People's Democratic Socialist State of California to force the poor put-upon populace to take steps to ensure that their buildings don't fall down if there is an earthquake.

Instead, they should allow brilliant and super-heroic architects to build superb and completely unregulated buildings, and to occasionally rape people who bear a passing resemblance to Ayn Rand, because she's obviously secretly gagging for it and is turned on my powerful men who take what they want and are beholden to nobody.

And then they can all move to Colorado and let the commies crash trains into each other. Or something.

The central planners don't get _every_ decision they make wrong. Just that the incentives are in place for most of them to turn out badly. Not every building code reg is harmful. The energy efficiency ones in CA clearly are if the info in the OP research is to be believed.

Once again, we are hit with the fundamentalist black and white thinking fallacy, because we point out the areas where the central planners get it wrong, it must mean we want to eliminate all building codes or all government. Get your head out of black and white land and enter the real world, which is grey and messy.

 

[Axulus]

A central authority plans and decrees that everyone within their jurisdiction must do X, Y, and Z and use materials A, B, and C when they construct something, no exceptions. Yes, central planning.

None of the building codes where I live necessarily mandate the materials and usually they mandate minimum requirements. Nor do I think Hayek envisioned "building codes" as part of the Road to Serfdom.

I guess you learn something new everyday.

Why would he not view the one-size fits all dictates in the form of building codes as part of the Road to Serfdom?

Central planners, in their rigidity and lack of specific knowledge, cause a lot of inefficiency. I know from personal experience being involved in a commercial building project.

 

[bilby]

Unless such regulations are to prevent fraud or violence, they are.

So it is completely unacceptable for the socialist dictators in the People's Democratic Socialist State of California to force the poor put-upon populace to take steps to ensure that their buildings don't fall down if there is an earthquake.

Instead, they should allow brilliant and super-heroic architects to build superb and completely unregulated buildings, and to occasionally rape people who bear a passing resemblance to Ayn Rand, because she's obviously secretly gagging for it and is turned on my powerful men who take what they want and are beholden to nobody.

And then they can all move to Colorado and let the commies crash trains into each other. Or something.

The central planners don't get _every_ decision they make wrong. Just that the incentives are in place for most of them to turn out badly. Not every building code reg is harmful. The energy efficiency ones in CA clearly are if the info in the OP research is to be believed.

Once again, we are hit with the fundamentalist black and white thinking fallacy, because we point out the areas where the central planners get it wrong, it must mean we want to eliminate all building codes or all government. Get your head out of black and white land and enter the real world, which is grey and messy.

That's an interesting response; I presume that it is directed at maxparrish, as there is not one thing in what I said to suggest black and white thinking on my part; indeed my post was a critique of his black and white approach. Unless he is of the bizarre opinion that earthquake regulations are enacted to prevent fraud or violence.

 

[Axulus]

Unless such regulations are to prevent fraud or violence, they are.

So it is completely unacceptable for the socialist dictators in the People's Democratic Socialist State of California to force the poor put-upon populace to take steps to ensure that their buildings don't fall down if there is an earthquake.

Instead, they should allow brilliant and super-heroic architects to build superb and completely unregulated buildings, and to occasionally rape people who bear a passing resemblance to Ayn Rand, because she's obviously secretly gagging for it and is turned on my powerful men who take what they want and are beholden to nobody.

And then they can all move to Colorado and let the commies crash trains into each other. Or something.

The central planners don't get _every_ decision they make wrong. Just that the incentives are in place for most of them to turn out badly. Not every building code reg is harmful. The energy efficiency ones in CA clearly are if the info in the OP research is to be believed.

Once again, we are hit with the fundamentalist black and white thinking fallacy, because we point out the areas where the central planners get it wrong, it must mean we want to eliminate all building codes or all government. Get your head out of black and white land and enter the real world, which is grey and messy.

That's an interesting response; I presume that it is directed at maxparrish, as there is not one thing in what I said to suggest black and white thinking on my part; indeed my post was a critique of his black and white approach. Unless he is of the bizarre opinion that earthquake regulations are enacted to prevent fraud or violence.

Not all forms socialism and central planning are harmful. I can't speak for Max, but if he is under the opinion that all forms of socialism and central planning are harmful, then I agree with you, although I have not seen him explicitly state so.

 

[bilby]

Unless such regulations are to prevent fraud or violence, they are.

So it is completely unacceptable for the socialist dictators in the People's Democratic Socialist State of California to force the poor put-upon populace to take steps to ensure that their buildings don't fall down if there is an earthquake.

Instead, they should allow brilliant and super-heroic architects to build superb and completely unregulated buildings, and to occasionally rape people who bear a passing resemblance to Ayn Rand, because she's obviously secretly gagging for it and is turned on my powerful men who take what they want and are beholden to nobody.

And then they can all move to Colorado and let the commies crash trains into each other. Or something.

The central planners don't get _every_ decision they make wrong. Just that the incentives are in place for most of them to turn out badly. Not every building code reg is harmful. The energy efficiency ones in CA clearly are if the info in the OP research is to be believed.

Once again, we are hit with the fundamentalist black and white thinking fallacy, because we point out the areas where the central planners get it wrong, it must mean we want to eliminate all building codes or all government. Get your head out of black and white land and enter the real world, which is grey and messy.

That's an interesting response; I presume that it is directed at maxparrish, as there is not one thing in what I said to suggest black and white thinking on my part; indeed my post was a critique of his black and white approach. Unless he is of the bizarre opinion that earthquake regulations are enacted to prevent fraud or violence.

Not all forms socialism and central planning are harmful. I can't speak for Max, but if he is under the opinion that all forms of socialism and central planning are harmful, then I agree with you, although I have not seen him explicitly state so.

He certainly implies (above) that all forms of regulation, unless such regulations are to prevent fraud or violence, are harmful (or at least, that they are socialism, which he seems to use as a pejorative term).

 

[Bomb#20]

I didn't realize building codes meant socialism.

Unless such regulations are to prevent fraud or violence, they are. And they are used to dictates the purchase and consumption habits of society to the subjective liking of the planner, they are.

"Socialism" means collective ownership of the means of production. A building code ain't it unless the code tells you what buildings to build and what the buildings have to be used for. You might get a rhetorical advantage by labeling other things you oppose "socialism" when you're talking to a Tea Party audience, but that isn't your audience here. So I don't see what good you can accomplish for your cause by trying to cheapen the term. It just makes you look like a careless thinker.

 

[ksen]

I didn't realize building codes meant central planning.

A central authority plans and decrees that everyone within their jurisdiction must do X, Y, and Z and use materials A, B, and C when they construct something, no exceptions. Yes, central planning.

You mean just like in businesses?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I didn't realize building codes meant socialism.

Unless such regulations are to prevent fraud or violence, they are. And they are used to dictates the purchase and consumption habits of society to the subjective liking of the planner, they are.

In any case, even if based on supposed goal of California's energy code, such regulations have failed to deliver.

I don't think you understand what socialism means. These energy laws has to do with environmentalism. Which is not socialism. They have nothing to do with fixing inherent inequalities in the market. Which would be socialism

 

[maxparrish]

(Red colored text are my comments within text of a quote)

Unless such regulations are to prevent fraud or violence, they are. And they are used to dictates the purchase and consumption habits of society to the subjective liking of the planner, they are.

"Socialism" means collective ownership of the means of production. A building code ain't it unless the code tells you what buildings to build and what the buildings have to be used for. [Those, and planning codes, do just that] You might get a rhetorical advantage by labeling other things you oppose "socialism" when you're talking to a Tea Party audience, but that isn't your audience here. So I don't see what good you can accomplish for your cause by trying to cheapen the term. It just makes you look like a careless thinker.

At one time I would have agreed with you. But for better or ill, terms change (or "cheapen"). Just Google "what is the meaning of socialism" and you will see a variety of formal and informal meanings. For example, the first meaning supplied by google is "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Clearly the socialist assumption of the right of the community to regulate (dictate) the design and construction of residential and commercial buildings FOR ANY "collective" REASON they please is an expression of that belief. Moreover, underscoring the "socialist" meaning are google's synonyms: "leftism, welfarism; radicalism, progressivism, social democracy; communism," etc. IE... all these are a part of the chronicles of left coast socialism.

Mind you, I am not saying all forms of socialism (or welfarism, collectivism, progressivism, etc.) are the same in their political-economic scope or intensity. But I am saying that all these forms are rooted in a common ideological faith - that 'state' , 'society', and 'community' are essentially synonymous and pre-eminent...(ergo socialist).

(PS you might also note that many forum defenders of Nordic systems also call them a form of socialism. In other words, the terms meaning has become more generic and less specific to merely "owning the means of production".)

 

[Togo]

No one ever bloody reads these documents further than the title, do they?

from page 4, the section entitled What These Findings do not Mean

Because I recognize the potential for controversy, let me be clear about what this paper does not say. Nothing in here should be taken as evidence that energy-efficient building codes are bad policies

The author isn't arguing the energy efficient buildings are bad, or don't work, he's arguing that states with such policies are overstating the energy actually saved. He acknolwedges that energy efficient buildings use less energy (duh), but he's saying that:

1) having an energy efficient house increases the propensity to use energy
2) Building codes are not adhered to in practice

It's worth noting that energy useage in homes has increased over time in much of the western world. Homes are made warmer in cold times and hotter in cold times than used to be the case. The author's study doesn't mention that as an effect.

 

[maxparrish]

Unless such regulations are to prevent fraud or violence, they are. And they are used to dictates the purchase and consumption habits of society to the subjective liking of the planner, they are.

In any case, even if based on supposed goal of California's energy code, such regulations have failed to deliver.

I don't think you understand what socialism means. These energy laws has to do with environmentalism. Which is not socialism. They have nothing to do with fixing inherent inequalities in the market. Which would be socialism

Modern usage of socialism can be far broader. See my post above.