I think a key issue is that generally the person designing a house isn't the same person who will be paying the energy bills in 30 years time.
Few people will pay a lot extra for a better insulated house.
The end result is that the cheapest insulation allowed by law is used rather than something that costs more today but saves a lot in the long run.
I wonder if a solution to this problem might take the form of "We'll sell you the house, and promise to pay half the energy bill for the next 50 years". Obviously there are issues with that... is there a better way to align incentives?
> I think a key issue is that generally the person designing a house isn't the same person who will be paying the energy bills in 30 years time.
Those who build homes must typically be planning on staying at least a few years in them though, say 10? Insulation is pretty cheap compared to running an AC in a poorly insulated home. Also it's not just a cost issue, it's more about comfort. Sleeping in a cool space without an AC blasting is worth something too.
The person designing the building codes though is the person responsible for the energy use and supply of the country, it's CO2 emissions and so on. So slowly getting more efficient building codes seems like it should be universal.
I think the assumption is that with regulations, the government can force builders and buyers to accept the higher standards and the associated higher cost in return for the common-good.
Few people will pay a lot extra for a better insulated house.
The end result is that the cheapest insulation allowed by law is used rather than something that costs more today but saves a lot in the long run.
I wonder if a solution to this problem might take the form of "We'll sell you the house, and promise to pay half the energy bill for the next 50 years". Obviously there are issues with that... is there a better way to align incentives?