3 ms·

Incentivise is by way of a carbon tax. Ask the question: How much carbon is this house going to use to heat and run over the next 10 years? Base this on bedroo

Incentivise is by way of a carbon tax. Ask the question: How much carbon is this house going to use to heat and run over the next 10 years? Base this on bedrooms, location, offset pre-installed solar and ASHP/GSHP and bingo, you have an incentive to design and build green.

zemvpferreira 4y ago
OK, but in that case let's also tax carbon emmitted during/embodied in construction. You might find that for many cases building 'green' might not make sense. I live in a very moderate climate and the amount of people speccing triple-pane windows, complex ventilation and tremendously expensive insulation is mind-boggling. You can literally live with a couple of windows open all year and be comfortable here. Fetishism abounds.
- oliwarner 4y ago
  Is Lisbon moderate? I've spent a little time spread all around the year in Cascais and while the absolute temperatures aren't often extreme, the humidity for five months of the year is off the scale. In a traditional house in winter, you fight a battle against mold. I know people who've lost entire wardrobes to it. They tried heating the following year but found most of the heat goes straight through the solid walls. HVAC was the only meaningful option open to them but again, with such breezy construction, it barely touches the sides in winter. A modern, "fully-sealed" design sidesteps all of this. Insulated walls and a little solar —both bizarrely absent in most buildings, even new builds— would go a long way. I'm not saying that there's no an opportunity to overspec these things, but the status quo, the spec 90% of buildings are being made to, is barely any better than the buildings going up 30 years ago. But to answer your lead, yes. Materials' fabrication costs should be factored into their 10y efficiency.

3 ms·

Incentivise is by way of a carbon tax. Ask the question: How much carbon is this house going to use to heat and run over the next 10 years? Base this on bedroo

by oliwarner 4y ago

zemvpferreira 4y ago
OK, but in that case let's also tax carbon emmitted during/embodied in construction. You might find that for many cases building 'green' might not make sense. I live in a very moderate climate and the amount of people speccing triple-pane windows, complex ventilation and tremendously expensive insulation is mind-boggling. You can literally live with a couple of windows open all year and be comfortable here. Fetishism abounds.
- oliwarner 4y ago
  Is Lisbon moderate? I've spent a little time spread all around the year in Cascais and while the absolute temperatures aren't often extreme, the humidity for five months of the year is off the scale. In a traditional house in winter, you fight a battle against mold. I know people who've lost entire wardrobes to it. They tried heating the following year but found most of the heat goes straight through the solid walls. HVAC was the only meaningful option open to them but again, with such breezy construction, it barely touches the sides in winter. A modern, "fully-sealed" design sidesteps all of this. Insulated walls and a little solar —both bizarrely absent in most buildings, even new builds— would go a long way. I'm not saying that there's no an opportunity to overspec these things, but the status quo, the spec 90% of buildings are being made to, is barely any better than the buildings going up 30 years ago. But to answer your lead, yes. Materials' fabrication costs should be factored into their 10y efficiency.