Johnathan Holmes’ series of 4 Corners programs on energy issues have consistently been informative summaries of the state of things, and by the looks of the transcript, he’s done it again with his latest piece on household energy efficiency.
One idea I hadn’t heard before is to take advantage of the fact that people are most likely to improve housing energy efficiency either immediately before or after purchase, by placing a big hint and a financial incentive in front of them at that moment:
JONATHAN HOLMES: As the ACT does now, says Taper, every state government should insist on an energy audit before a house can be sold. But there should be a real incentive for the purchaser to take it seriously, either before they’ve bought the house or for a limited period afterwards.
BRUCE TAPER, DIRECTOR, KINESIS: If it’s an efficient house they know that they get a stamp duty rebate, ie they get a portion off their stamp duty. If it’s not, they know they’ve got two years to renovate or retrofit that house and make a claim to get that same percentage of stamp duty back.
So you’ve set the market in train to know that if I choose to do that there is some support and it’s bundled up with the transaction in purchasing a home.
The possibilities, and limitations, of energy efficiency as a tool to tackle greenhouse are revealed neatly by difference between Australia and California’s energy consumption changes:
JONATHAN HOLMES: In the past 30 years, in California and Australia, houses have got bigger, electronic appliances mushroomed. Australian household electricity consumption per head of population has more than doubled in that time. California’s has grown by just 20 per cent.
Energy efficiency is great, but we aren’t likely to conserve our way out of this problem.
UPDATE: Nanni on John Quiggin’s RSMG blog links to a graph that neatly demonstrates that many energy efficiency opportunities are the “low-hanging fruit” of cutting emissions.
I read the transcript,and I cant find how the ABC can justify itself,by such programmes. The TV is a big user of watts etc.,and the humans on any type of TV are invariable overpaid …..Pears is an expert,but, he annoys me endlessly,because,not everyone who bloody well wants to build ,buy or lease or rent houses,needs an energy audit. Poverty is the most substantial auditing process than the gimmicks of the still employed educational cloister. I find the magazine he writes in regularly,just so much …………………Like the ABC, these people will talk forever,insult people with their Boofhead programmes,and assume forever everything they do equals value for money….And that is why it is so confusing to be Green orientated,the bloody money for professional services stinks..and stinks badly. Every superior nong because they have found a way of saving money goes on about others not. Surely if the Federal government and policies were working,then a retailer wouldnt be selling these air conditioners because of some checking and testing at entrance point. The same overpaid nongs,should be asking is it possible to reconfigure the air-conditioning systems as sold to be more reliable less wattage using,and or,find some other way of allowing people to use these things,because the laws of the land allow people to purchase these machines. Ban cigarettes too.It is probably likely the air-conditioners are turned on to watch and listen to overpaid nongs. Veging out after putting in the days work,where overpaid nongs rule the roost.Ber gurp.
Yes I like the new purchase incentive idea. Long term we may not be able to conserve our way out, but there are massive savings to be made in both consumption and greenhouse by doing just that. If we worked hard at conservation it may give us some breathing space.
BTW, I was gonna post on an energy related item today too Robert but I think this link is now properly placed here. It’s on NSW’s grid problem and the power the minister is giving himself in deciding who gets to pay less.
A recipe for corruption. All hail the new Australia, where actually making hard long term decisions is trumped by the short term political capital of “saving jobs”.
It was a very interesting program.
In our profit-driven society, it seems to me that in property markets as competitive as those in Australia’s capital cities, sellers and landlords could, if for no other reason (though I wish they would be for environmental ones), work this all to their advantage. If I was in the market to buy a house, and had however many properties to look at, I’d most definitely be attracted to one that sold itself as being energy efficient in whatever way, be it a rainwater tank, option to use grey water for certain things, solar panels, intelligent design. I’d be equally interested in those features in a rental property too.
But, depressing as it is, it all comes down to attitude. Some people - not all - want huge TVs, airconditioning all over the house, a car per person (admittedly some people have no option but to drive) and every gadget under the sun, and then make a profit to boot.
So, Robert, I agree with you - we probably won’t conserve our way out of this problem. Of course this program isn’t the first to use them as a case study, but California shows that with political will and commitment really good things can be done and people don’t have to go without. Sadly, our current leadership just doesn’t have the vision or the guts.
Sounding almost Thatcherite there, Phil
Don’t get me wrong - I’d welcome an Aussie Full Monty. Protectionism is boring. Bring on the free-market emasculation! 
Seriously though, I agree that the problem with ballooning energy demand lies in regulation and technology, not ‘education’. So Holmes’ denunciation of the latest Federal initiative (which could also be read as a denunciation of that stupid ABC eco-house challenge ripoff ‘Carbon Cops’) at the end of the program was bang on:
Also, fwiw the graph Nanni links to is produced by Swedish nuclear power station owner Vattenfall.
“- we probably won’t conserve our way out of this problem.”
True, but… Energy efficiency (conservation) is the single biggest, easiest and cheapest strategy we have available. I have been following this issue for years now, and every single major report I have seen on it (including from those notorious lefties, the US Dept of Defence), recommends energy efficiency as the highest priority. The technical and economic argument about the value of energy efficiency is over. Frankly it is a no-brainer, and any further delay on implimenting strong compulsory efficiency measures across the board is criminally negligent.
Hilker: it’s not a no-brainer.
Some people, for whatever reason, will prefer to power their enormous air conditioners off solar power. You might think it’s stupid, I might think it’s stupid, but it’s none of our business as long as carbon emissions are cut.
Robert, you know as well as we all do that solar ain’t gonna power 1 million air conditioners running rampant for a long while yet. Compulsory efficiency measures have a big place in the solution here.
Well at least we can get them to run the most energy efficient a/c systems possible, and design the houses so they need the minimum cooling possible. But from the 4 corners coverage it sounds like the ratings systems need some independent auditing so people can make informed decisions.
wbb: as I said last time this debate came up, at the moment developers and home buyers treat energy efficiency regulations as something to game. If the price of energy goes up enough that it hurts, we might actually get more energy efficient homes built rather than cynical exercises in box-ticking.