6 ms·

Let me get this straight: - You own an asset worth 200,000-300,000 Euros - The required investment, which can be spread over up to ten years, is 20,000-30,000

by tfourb 4y ago

Let me get this straight: - You own an asset worth 200,000-300,000 Euros - The required investment, which can be spread over up to ten years, is 20,000-30,000 Euros - You would have to make parts of this investment anyway, because your windows are leaky and your radiators are breaking - You will recoup the costs over 5-10 years because you use less energy - 25-50% of this investment will be covered by subsidies, the government will also provide low-interest loans for much of the rest How is this an absurd demand to make of people who own a house?

atq2119 4y ago
Not to mention that 200k-300k is the absolute low end for a house. Around here you're lucky to get something for 5 times that.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  There is more than just whatever urbanised area you happen to live which gave you this rather myopic view. Even in the Netherlands - where housing is expensive - €300K will give you plenty of choice [1]. In the south of Sweden it will buy you a largish villa while in the north it buys you a large farm. [1] https://localfocus2.appspot.com/593e6715568f0 https://localfocus2.appspot.com/593e6715568f0 (click on municipality for an overview of prices)
waihtis 4y ago
For us in FIN, the bulk majority that will get hit worst are low-income rural households that aren't nearly worth 200,000k. In fact it will probably result in a lot of abandoned homes as it isn't worth investing 20k euros to renovate a 60-80k house, not that anyone is lending that money to these homes anyway. You have perfectly demonstrated how idiotic these blanket EU-level policies are as they take no consideration of local situations.
- tfourb 4y ago
  As I wrote above, the proposed (!) regulation would be based on the national housing stock. So if you are in Finnland, the energy efficiency of your house would be compared to other finish houses, not a house in Germany. Which is the definition of "considering local situations". Also, a quick check reveals that only about 14% of the Finish population lives in rural areas [1]. Even if every single one of those persons is a house owner and poor (unlikely, as those categories are to a certain extend mutually exclusive), it would be quite feasible for the Finish government to heavily subsidize the renovation of the entirety of the rural housing stock. Nothing in the proposed regulation would keep national governments from using policy making to implement the required goals in a socially acceptable way. Also, what do you propose would be the alternative? Improving the energy efficiency of the housing stock is in most countries among the most efficient ways to conserve energy. Other approaches to conserve energy or produce the required energy in a sustainable way cost considerably more per kw/h than bringing a 50 year old house to a modern energy standard. And of course given the prevalence of oil and natural gas based heating systems in old houses, you actually have to invest in a new heating source to switch away from CO2-emitting energy sources, anyway. EDIT: quick back of the envelope math suggests that it would cost the finish government 5% of the current annual budget for each of the coming ten years to invest 20.000 Euros into each of the approximately 250.000 rural houses (assuming an average occupancy of 3 people per house). Not a bad investment considering that it would be made up in a few years through energy savings. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?locations=FI https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?location...
  - waihtis 4y ago
    It doesn't matter if the energy efficiency rating is based on local standards when the costs aren't. Again, there is absolutely no sense blowing 20-30k on energy renovating a house that is worth 80k. If you don't think binding 5% of the entire country's budget for 10 years into upgrading old houses is an manic proposition I think we can safely agree there isn't a way for us to see this from the same angle and we can agree to disagree on this topic.
    - tfourb 4y ago

by tfourb 4y ago

atq2119 4y ago

Not to mention that 200k-300k is the absolute low end for a house. Around here you're lucky to get something for 5 times that.

the_third_wave 4y ago
There is more than just whatever urbanised area you happen to live which gave you this rather myopic view. Even in the Netherlands - where housing is expensive - €300K will give you plenty of choice [1]. In the south of Sweden it will buy you a largish villa while in the north it buys you a large farm. [1] https://localfocus2.appspot.com/593e6715568f0 https://localfocus2.appspot.com/593e6715568f0 (click on municipality for an overview of prices)

waihtis 4y ago

For us in FIN, the bulk majority that will get hit worst are low-income rural households that aren't nearly worth 200,000k. In fact it will probably result in a lot of abandoned homes as it isn't worth investing 20k euros to renovate a 60-80k house, not that anyone is lending that money to these homes anyway. You have perfectly demonstrated how idiotic these blanket EU-level policies are as they take no consideration of local situations.

tfourb 4y ago
As I wrote above, the proposed (!) regulation would be based on the national housing stock. So if you are in Finnland, the energy efficiency of your house would be compared to other finish houses, not a house in Germany. Which is the definition of "considering local situations". Also, a quick check reveals that only about 14% of the Finish population lives in rural areas [1]. Even if every single one of those persons is a house owner and poor (unlikely, as those categories are to a certain extend mutually exclusive), it would be quite feasible for the Finish government to heavily subsidize the renovation of the entirety of the rural housing stock. Nothing in the proposed regulation would keep national governments from using policy making to implement the required goals in a socially acceptable way. Also, what do you propose would be the alternative? Improving the energy efficiency of the housing stock is in most countries among the most efficient ways to conserve energy. Other approaches to conserve energy or produce the required energy in a sustainable way cost considerably more per kw/h than bringing a 50 year old house to a modern energy standard. And of course given the prevalence of oil and natural gas based heating systems in old houses, you actually have to invest in a new heating source to switch away from CO2-emitting energy sources, anyway. EDIT: quick back of the envelope math suggests that it would cost the finish government 5% of the current annual budget for each of the coming ten years to invest 20.000 Euros into each of the approximately 250.000 rural houses (assuming an average occupancy of 3 people per house). Not a bad investment considering that it would be made up in a few years through energy savings. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?locations=FI https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?location...
- waihtis 4y ago
  It doesn't matter if the energy efficiency rating is based on local standards when the costs aren't. Again, there is absolutely no sense blowing 20-30k on energy renovating a house that is worth 80k. If you don't think binding 5% of the entire country's budget for 10 years into upgrading old houses is an manic proposition I think we can safely agree there isn't a way for us to see this from the same angle and we can agree to disagree on this topic.
  - tfourb 4y ago