• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

GA piney woods getting green

jim baird

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
490
Location
Comer, GA
State legislature has adopted National Green Building Standard with amendments.

My tenuous grasp so far tells me localties can choose "cafeteria" style on aspects/degrees of compliance.

This will likely be a tough sell with new permits down about 90% from a cpl of yrs ago.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the reply, Dave.

Somehow I missed the page you referenced.

My e-mail to DCA finally got a response that invited me to call and talk on phone.

Funny, isn't it, how everybody wants to talk on the phone. Talk is so cheap, but the written word is like tracks in the mud, and may be unearthed by future generations with whisk brooms to reveal how "the ancients" got along.

My review, so far, of what is being proposed finds many of the items to be "goofy" for lack of a better word.

The stipulation of 3rd party "special green inspector", laden with expensive insurance, whose bills are to be paid by property owners, looks especially onerous to me, except for the obvious boon to insurance peddlers (a group that dwells near the top of my list of culprits in our rapidly unravelling economic system).

It looks to me like state level politicians wanting credit for "going green" while unloading the political onus onto each locality.
 
Well, at least they made it optinal. I love Georgia! Having moved here from California 7 years ago....I know something about unnecessary, mandatory regulations.

GPE
 
ABSTRACT: ANNALS OF ENVIRONMENTALISM about energy efficiency and the Jevons Paradox.

Britain in the middle of the nineteenth century was the world’s leading military, industrial, and mercantile power. In 1865, a twenty-nine-year-old Englishman named William Stanley Jevons published a book, “The Coal Question,” in which he argued that the bonanza couldn’t last. Britain’s affluence and global hegemony, he wrote, depended on its endowment of coal, which the country was rapidly depleting. He added that such an outcome could not be delayed through increased “economy” in the use of coal—what we refer to today as energy efficiency. He concluded, in italics, “It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.” Jevons might be little discussed today, except by historians of economics, if it weren’t for the scholarship of another English economist, Len Brookes.

During the nineteen-seventies oil crisis, Brookes argued that devising ways to produce goods with less oil—an obvious response to higher prices—would merely accommodate the new prices, causing energy consumption to be higher than it would have been if no effort to increase efficiency had been made; only later did he discover that Jevons had anticipated him by more than a century. Nowadays, this effect is usually referred to as “rebound”—or, in cases where increased consumption more than cancels out any energy savings, as “backfire.” In 2000, the journal Energy Policy devoted an entire issue to rebound. It was edited by Lee Schipper. Schipper believes that the Jevons paradox has limited applicability today.

Jevons wasn’t wrong about nineteenth-century Britain, he said; but the young and rapidly growing industrial world that Jevons lived in no longer exists. Most economists and efficiency experts, after studying modern energy use, have come to similar conclusions. But troublesome questions have lingered, and the existence of large-scale rebound effects is not so easy to dismiss. Discusses the history of refrigeration in relation to the Jevons Paradox. The steadily declining cost of refrigeration has made almost all elements of food production more cost-effective and energy-efficient. But there are environmental downsides. Most of the electricity that powers the world’s refrigerators is generated by burning fossil fuel. Since the mid-nineteen-seventies, per-capita food waste in the United States has increased by half, so that we now throw away forty per cent of all the edible food we produce. According to a 2009 study, more than a quarter of U.S. freshwater use goes into producing food that is later discarded. Also discusses the improved efficiency of air-conditioners. In the United States, we now use roughly as much electricity to cool buildings as we did for all purposes in 1955. The problem with efficiency gains is that we inevitably reinvest them in additional consumption. Paving roads reduces rolling friction, thereby boosting miles per gallon, but it also makes distant destinations seem closer, thereby enabling people to live in sprawling, energy-gobbling subdivisions far from where they work and shop.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/20/101220fa_fact_owen#ixzz19Qqo1zsU
 
Top