One of the things I sometimes ask couples who are arguing about money is what money means to each of them.
At first they look at me rather blankly. When I give them some examples of what people believe about money they get it! And then they discover that they have different meanings about money. The penny drops.
Money means a variety of things to us: Security, freedom, responsibility, fear (of not having enough), power, and more.
When it comes to being a "business man" I have tended to avoid anything that would remind me (and others) of greed, manipulation, etc. as I do not see myself as being one to use others.
Fair enough.
Unfortunately this fear has created a relationship with money that has not served me. Instead of courageously inviting people to use their money wisely on energy-efficient products and services, I've tended to sit back and wait for them to make a decision on insufficient information.
This has not served them, me, nor the planet. As people do tend to use their money on things that are familiar and regular (e.g. coffee) most people fail to make the investment in their own energy security, comfort, and sustainability.
By holding myself back, trying to avoid looking like I'm the classic "salesman" I have essentially robbed them of the opportunity to think outside of their habits, comforts, etc., and thus to miss a vital opportunity.
I realised a couple of weeks ago that unless I attract a lot more money into my business and life I will fail to bring about the changes to the world, our home, that I passionately desire.
It is possible to be respectful and powerful at the same time. That time has come.
The planet and its people depend on it.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
EcoEnergy incentives cancelled (again)
As I had anticipated the Conservative Harper government (Canada) has again cancelled the home energy audit program. As of April Fools day 2010 all new audits will no longer attract federal funding. (Some provinces will continue their programs.)
It seems that the program was too effective at reducing unneeded energy costs for homeowners, and the pollution such waste creates.
Imagine if the education system was ended because people were getting better educated!
Of course there would come a time in which most people realised that the biggest incentive to updating their home or business energy-wise is to invest in making the needed changes. Then governments would have done their job in initiating this trend. But we're not there, not quite yet.
It is worthy of note that both the provincial and federal governments are spending increasing amounts of money into subsidizing the oil and gas industries, calling this "green" because of unproven technologies such as carbon sequestration, as well as building more highways (way more than cycling paths, public transportation, etc.).
Those who suffer the higher costs of rising energy prices (electricity in B.C. is supposed to increase 30% over the next three years), unless they are low-income folk, can only blame themselves for not looking ahead and acting now.
The lack of vision at the federal and provincial levels isn't helping.
Those reading this blog will likely be providing leadership in these regards by updating their homes, improving their transportation, and encouraging others to do the same.
Here's to these wise souls!
It seems that the program was too effective at reducing unneeded energy costs for homeowners, and the pollution such waste creates.
Imagine if the education system was ended because people were getting better educated!
Of course there would come a time in which most people realised that the biggest incentive to updating their home or business energy-wise is to invest in making the needed changes. Then governments would have done their job in initiating this trend. But we're not there, not quite yet.
It is worthy of note that both the provincial and federal governments are spending increasing amounts of money into subsidizing the oil and gas industries, calling this "green" because of unproven technologies such as carbon sequestration, as well as building more highways (way more than cycling paths, public transportation, etc.).
Those who suffer the higher costs of rising energy prices (electricity in B.C. is supposed to increase 30% over the next three years), unless they are low-income folk, can only blame themselves for not looking ahead and acting now.
The lack of vision at the federal and provincial levels isn't helping.
Those reading this blog will likely be providing leadership in these regards by updating their homes, improving their transportation, and encouraging others to do the same.
Here's to these wise souls!
Green shifting the HST
While the vast majority of B.C. residents (and likely Ontario's, too) are opposed to the HST (Harmonized Sales Tax, a.k.a the Hated Sales Tax) there is a reason why, in principal, it is appreciated by green-minded folk.
The HST, if it is done correctly, can reduce unneeded spending and shift it to expenditures that are helpful for the planet, jobs, the long-term future of the economy, our kids, etc.
Very sadly the B.C. government, through poor planning or worse, is actually taking us in the opposite direction through the HST. How? The HST will reduce the price on motor vehicle fuels and home heating energy (the two biggest contributors to greenhouse gases, pollution, a dim future, etc.) and adding taxation on to things such as bicycles, green home/building renovation, renewable energy products, and the like!
When the BCSEA (BC Sustainable Energy Association) spoke to people at the Tax Policy Division, they learned that by keeping the subsidy, BC was forgoing $300 million a year in transport-related revenue, and $200 million a year in buildings-related revenue, money which could be used to fund the urgently-needed transition to sustainable transport and buildings.
I understand the Tax Policy Division is brewing a campaign to build public support for ending the 7% heating and transport fuels sales tax subsidy, using the $500 million a year income to create a Sustainable Transportation Transition Fund for transit, cycling, ridesharing, etc, and a Sustainable Buildings Transition Fund for energy efficiency retrofits, and free insulation for people on low incomes, etc. The restored LiveSmartBC budget for energy efficient buildings is a paltry $35 million over three years; ending the subsidy would supply $200 million a year for efficient buildings.
Ordinary people, faced with a 7% increase in the price of heat and fuel, could then use one of new funded programs to reduce their costs by 15-20%. This way, everyone wins - taxpayers and the environment.
This is what is called a "win-win" solution for those who are not lazy or prefer to complain, as those who act on this "tax shift" opportunity will be rewarded handsomely! As will the planet and our collective future.
Letters to newspapers, e-mailing friends, etc. all help a lot.
Using taxation powers to bring about positive change only makes sense.
The HST, if it is done correctly, can reduce unneeded spending and shift it to expenditures that are helpful for the planet, jobs, the long-term future of the economy, our kids, etc.
Very sadly the B.C. government, through poor planning or worse, is actually taking us in the opposite direction through the HST. How? The HST will reduce the price on motor vehicle fuels and home heating energy (the two biggest contributors to greenhouse gases, pollution, a dim future, etc.) and adding taxation on to things such as bicycles, green home/building renovation, renewable energy products, and the like!
When the BCSEA (BC Sustainable Energy Association) spoke to people at the Tax Policy Division, they learned that by keeping the subsidy, BC was forgoing $300 million a year in transport-related revenue, and $200 million a year in buildings-related revenue, money which could be used to fund the urgently-needed transition to sustainable transport and buildings.
I understand the Tax Policy Division is brewing a campaign to build public support for ending the 7% heating and transport fuels sales tax subsidy, using the $500 million a year income to create a Sustainable Transportation Transition Fund for transit, cycling, ridesharing, etc, and a Sustainable Buildings Transition Fund for energy efficiency retrofits, and free insulation for people on low incomes, etc. The restored LiveSmartBC budget for energy efficient buildings is a paltry $35 million over three years; ending the subsidy would supply $200 million a year for efficient buildings.
Ordinary people, faced with a 7% increase in the price of heat and fuel, could then use one of new funded programs to reduce their costs by 15-20%. This way, everyone wins - taxpayers and the environment.
This is what is called a "win-win" solution for those who are not lazy or prefer to complain, as those who act on this "tax shift" opportunity will be rewarded handsomely! As will the planet and our collective future.
If you wish to push for this change, I suggest that you write to
Hon Colin Hanson
PO Box 9048
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC
V8W 9E2
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC
V8W 9E2
Phone: 250 387-3751
Fax: 250 387-5594
Fax: 250 387-5594
Letters to newspapers, e-mailing friends, etc. all help a lot.
Using taxation powers to bring about positive change only makes sense.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Environmentalists & economists: being useful or useless?
The Nanaimo Daily News has sometimes put the "environmentalist" label on me. If they mean by this that I care about the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and the future of employment (if not humanity), then I think they are right.
Too often, though, that "environmentalist" label, especially when used by the commercial mass media, suggests that such persons are unconcerned about "the economy", are anti-corporate, naive to how the world actually runs, etc. Many environmentalists counter by saying that economists are out of touch with reality since a finite planet cannot possibly support an infinitely expanding economy.
I am a pragmatist. I know that employment cannot be supported when businesses and governments continue to support short-term profit margins at the expense of the future, policies that degrade the planet and undercut the very foundation of economies and work, and that continue to develop non-renewable energy. I am reminded of the man who wanted to fly and who did so by jumping off a high building. On his descent he was heard saying "so far so good!"
So while I fail to see how current economic models will serve us much longer, I am also critical of "environmentalists" who fail to walk the talk. If they have such a good message to give, are they showing us the way to sustainability? Or are they more interested in complaining, protesting and being victims?
Not long ago I was invited by an environmental student body to display my energy and water-saving devices at an event they were hosting. This made sense, as my company's products offer concrete measures that can help to "save the planet" as well as our pocketbooks. Very few of them bothered to come around to see what was being displayed. None of them bought a $15 "pop flush" device that could save up to 50% of the water their toilet uses, a device they could have taken with them to their next home (if they so wished).
Sadly this is not unusual. I have seen this scenario repeated in many ways and in different locals.
Thus I conclude that as many economists display a very small grasp of the longer term consequences of their policies and theories, so many environmentalists fail to champion positive ways of getting ourselves out of the mess we've created.
While there are plenty economists and environmentalists who are pragmatic, do offer a more positive vision for our collective future, and who "walk the talk", their numbers are not great enough to make the changes we need to make.
This, it seems, it is up to us "normal" human beings to make the difference. We who wish to embrace a positive, practical, sustainable future, and who are willing to talk by doing.
Maybe we are the true "environmentalists" and "economists."
Too often, though, that "environmentalist" label, especially when used by the commercial mass media, suggests that such persons are unconcerned about "the economy", are anti-corporate, naive to how the world actually runs, etc. Many environmentalists counter by saying that economists are out of touch with reality since a finite planet cannot possibly support an infinitely expanding economy.
I am a pragmatist. I know that employment cannot be supported when businesses and governments continue to support short-term profit margins at the expense of the future, policies that degrade the planet and undercut the very foundation of economies and work, and that continue to develop non-renewable energy. I am reminded of the man who wanted to fly and who did so by jumping off a high building. On his descent he was heard saying "so far so good!"
So while I fail to see how current economic models will serve us much longer, I am also critical of "environmentalists" who fail to walk the talk. If they have such a good message to give, are they showing us the way to sustainability? Or are they more interested in complaining, protesting and being victims?
Not long ago I was invited by an environmental student body to display my energy and water-saving devices at an event they were hosting. This made sense, as my company's products offer concrete measures that can help to "save the planet" as well as our pocketbooks. Very few of them bothered to come around to see what was being displayed. None of them bought a $15 "pop flush" device that could save up to 50% of the water their toilet uses, a device they could have taken with them to their next home (if they so wished).
Sadly this is not unusual. I have seen this scenario repeated in many ways and in different locals.
Thus I conclude that as many economists display a very small grasp of the longer term consequences of their policies and theories, so many environmentalists fail to champion positive ways of getting ourselves out of the mess we've created.
While there are plenty economists and environmentalists who are pragmatic, do offer a more positive vision for our collective future, and who "walk the talk", their numbers are not great enough to make the changes we need to make.
This, it seems, it is up to us "normal" human beings to make the difference. We who wish to embrace a positive, practical, sustainable future, and who are willing to talk by doing.
Maybe we are the true "environmentalists" and "economists."
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Heat pump follies
While it took only about 25 years for homeowners (and others) to begin to appreciate the benefits of heat pumps to heat and cool their buildings, not all is well in this industry.
First the advantages: heat pumps move heat, not create it. Unlike one's baseboard heater, heat pumps simply concentrate and move heat from outdoors to the indoors. This exactly how refrigerators work: they remove the heat from inside the fridge and put this heat into the kitchen. Moving heat is usually 2 - 3 times more efficient than is creating it (out of electricity, natural gas or oil). And the efficiency of heat pump technology keeps on improving. This is the good news.
The bad news is that there are lots of companies installing these units without the full certification required by plumbers and heating specialists. In addition, many of these companies try to undercut their competitor's prices by installing inferior equipment, pumps that are undersized, lacking sufficient ducting (heat pumps need more duct work than do the mid-efficient furnaces they often replace), and are often noisier. Too often, too, these units need more maintenance and/or earlier replacement.
Cheaper is certainly not better!
There is one additional area that bears mentioning: North American's are so sold on forced air heating (and cooling) systems that we are too quick to go to heat pump technologies, even when more efficient heating and cooling systems are available! Too often the government-sanctioned Energy Advisors tell homeowners who already have hydronic (water-based) heating systems to replace these with air-air heat pumps. Air is an insulator, and requires a lot more energy to push it around than does water. In addition air easily leaks out of buildings (expect to have between 3 and 14 full air exchanges every hour!). Water is totally contained, and is a far superior energy-transferring medium than is air. So by going to a forced air system the homeowner is taking a huge step backward!
More good news: slowly but surely air to water heat pumps are finally moving into the Canadian market. While they can not get the water as hot as the old furnaces do, it is possible to modify the hydronic system, and the building envelope, to make them work -especially on our mild coastal area. A qualified (and experienced) plumber and envelope specialist can make this happen.
One last word on the subject: the most efficient way of transmitting hydronic (water) heat is via radiators or in-floor heating. Unfortunately most windows are mostly clear to radiant heat and so they quickly transmit that heat directly into the outdoors! This is why I sell the Inflector radiant see-through window coverings, as the aluminum in the product reflects that radiant heat (from whatever the source) right back into the room, while absorbing the solar heat in the heating season (and reflecting the excess heat back outside in the summer). The best of all worlds.
First the advantages: heat pumps move heat, not create it. Unlike one's baseboard heater, heat pumps simply concentrate and move heat from outdoors to the indoors. This exactly how refrigerators work: they remove the heat from inside the fridge and put this heat into the kitchen. Moving heat is usually 2 - 3 times more efficient than is creating it (out of electricity, natural gas or oil). And the efficiency of heat pump technology keeps on improving. This is the good news.
The bad news is that there are lots of companies installing these units without the full certification required by plumbers and heating specialists. In addition, many of these companies try to undercut their competitor's prices by installing inferior equipment, pumps that are undersized, lacking sufficient ducting (heat pumps need more duct work than do the mid-efficient furnaces they often replace), and are often noisier. Too often, too, these units need more maintenance and/or earlier replacement.
Cheaper is certainly not better!
There is one additional area that bears mentioning: North American's are so sold on forced air heating (and cooling) systems that we are too quick to go to heat pump technologies, even when more efficient heating and cooling systems are available! Too often the government-sanctioned Energy Advisors tell homeowners who already have hydronic (water-based) heating systems to replace these with air-air heat pumps. Air is an insulator, and requires a lot more energy to push it around than does water. In addition air easily leaks out of buildings (expect to have between 3 and 14 full air exchanges every hour!). Water is totally contained, and is a far superior energy-transferring medium than is air. So by going to a forced air system the homeowner is taking a huge step backward!
More good news: slowly but surely air to water heat pumps are finally moving into the Canadian market. While they can not get the water as hot as the old furnaces do, it is possible to modify the hydronic system, and the building envelope, to make them work -especially on our mild coastal area. A qualified (and experienced) plumber and envelope specialist can make this happen.
One last word on the subject: the most efficient way of transmitting hydronic (water) heat is via radiators or in-floor heating. Unfortunately most windows are mostly clear to radiant heat and so they quickly transmit that heat directly into the outdoors! This is why I sell the Inflector radiant see-through window coverings, as the aluminum in the product reflects that radiant heat (from whatever the source) right back into the room, while absorbing the solar heat in the heating season (and reflecting the excess heat back outside in the summer). The best of all worlds.
Monday, October 12, 2009
A satisfied client
As I continue to learn more about developing my sustainable energy business, a type of business that is new, I am gradually coming to understand some of the ways it can be of service.
About a week ago I went to the home of a woman who is about to have her follow-up energy audit completed. She wanted to make sure that she had covered the bases, and also wanted me to install a fireplace draft stopper. This device alone will likely save her 15 - 25% on her heating bill, and will add to the comfort of her home.
I was saddened when I learned from her that she had purchased a cheaper heat pump that barely met the minimum energy rating required for her energy audit. (In fact the new requirements push many models off of the list.) Had she consulted with me (costing her $25) she could have had a superior product installed for little or no more money than she had paid.
By knowing many who are in the business of installing energy-efficient equipment I know how to find the best value for my clients.
The other benefit for my clients is that if she had had any difficulty with that unit or the company who installed it I could have gone to bat for her. I still can! If companies know that I am looking over their shoulder to see if they do good work and give good value for their customers they are more likely to perform well. I informally call this aspect of my business "an energy insurance program." I increase the likelihood of the client getting good service when it comes to their energy-improving products and services.
Knowing who is good, coupled with accountability in the business world, means that my clients can lower their home or business energy consumption for a reasonable price and have some security in the end-product.
Poorer products and companies will eventually fail; I'd rather that my clients not extend the lives of such!
About a week ago I went to the home of a woman who is about to have her follow-up energy audit completed. She wanted to make sure that she had covered the bases, and also wanted me to install a fireplace draft stopper. This device alone will likely save her 15 - 25% on her heating bill, and will add to the comfort of her home.
I was saddened when I learned from her that she had purchased a cheaper heat pump that barely met the minimum energy rating required for her energy audit. (In fact the new requirements push many models off of the list.) Had she consulted with me (costing her $25) she could have had a superior product installed for little or no more money than she had paid.
By knowing many who are in the business of installing energy-efficient equipment I know how to find the best value for my clients.
The other benefit for my clients is that if she had had any difficulty with that unit or the company who installed it I could have gone to bat for her. I still can! If companies know that I am looking over their shoulder to see if they do good work and give good value for their customers they are more likely to perform well. I informally call this aspect of my business "an energy insurance program." I increase the likelihood of the client getting good service when it comes to their energy-improving products and services.
Knowing who is good, coupled with accountability in the business world, means that my clients can lower their home or business energy consumption for a reasonable price and have some security in the end-product.
Poorer products and companies will eventually fail; I'd rather that my clients not extend the lives of such!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Saving energy
The heating season has begun. Our furnaces, baseboard heaters, heat pumps and wood stoves are now doing their thing.
What amazes me are the number of people who, when examining how to reduce their ever-increasing energy bills, focus almost solely on reducing the cost of providing the heat, rather than on how to reduce heat losses.
This is a statement about our culture, of course. A culture that fails to appreciate the bigger picture by focusing on individual components (such as heat sources). Yet this narrow focus is the primary cause of most that ails us.
It is a well-known fact that reducing energy usage is usually much cheaper than is changing the heat source. Putting multiple layers of insulation on an electric hot water tank (ideally including some underneath it) makes that tank nearly as efficient as a highly efficient water-on-demand heater. The insulation costs less than $100; a new gas-fired on-demand water heater costs hundreds of dollars.
Examples are unlimited. An inflatable $80 chimney draft stopper can save up to 30% of the cost of heating. Draft-proofing one’s home typically costs less than $100 in materials yet can save both comfort and considerable heating bills. Adding insulation to the hot water lines is an extremely inexpensive method of cutting costs, since water requires a great deal of energy to heat. Changing light bulbs is a well-known example, even though they save very little power in the bigger picture. Replacing (or unplugging) older fridges, drying clothes on a rack or clothesline instead of a mechanical drier, cutting the power at the power-bar to electronics (especially T.V.’s and computers) when not in use, replacing thermostats with EnergyStar rated ones, setting back the heat at night-time (except heat pumps and in-floor systems), wearing more layers and/or getting exercise rather than turning up the heat, and other practises will save hundreds of dollars of energy for very little cost.
Of course some of these mean changing one’s life-style to some degree. This is about as easy as changing a politician’s views on taxation. The difference is that we are in control of ourselves, not others.
By becoming more of a “conserver society” we can make significant differences to the planet and to our own pocket-books. Our grandparents, especially those who are now in their 70’s and up, were raised in this way and so have a great deal of wisdom to share with us.
Perhaps it is time we paid more attention to them.
What amazes me are the number of people who, when examining how to reduce their ever-increasing energy bills, focus almost solely on reducing the cost of providing the heat, rather than on how to reduce heat losses.
This is a statement about our culture, of course. A culture that fails to appreciate the bigger picture by focusing on individual components (such as heat sources). Yet this narrow focus is the primary cause of most that ails us.
It is a well-known fact that reducing energy usage is usually much cheaper than is changing the heat source. Putting multiple layers of insulation on an electric hot water tank (ideally including some underneath it) makes that tank nearly as efficient as a highly efficient water-on-demand heater. The insulation costs less than $100; a new gas-fired on-demand water heater costs hundreds of dollars.
Examples are unlimited. An inflatable $80 chimney draft stopper can save up to 30% of the cost of heating. Draft-proofing one’s home typically costs less than $100 in materials yet can save both comfort and considerable heating bills. Adding insulation to the hot water lines is an extremely inexpensive method of cutting costs, since water requires a great deal of energy to heat. Changing light bulbs is a well-known example, even though they save very little power in the bigger picture. Replacing (or unplugging) older fridges, drying clothes on a rack or clothesline instead of a mechanical drier, cutting the power at the power-bar to electronics (especially T.V.’s and computers) when not in use, replacing thermostats with EnergyStar rated ones, setting back the heat at night-time (except heat pumps and in-floor systems), wearing more layers and/or getting exercise rather than turning up the heat, and other practises will save hundreds of dollars of energy for very little cost.
Of course some of these mean changing one’s life-style to some degree. This is about as easy as changing a politician’s views on taxation. The difference is that we are in control of ourselves, not others.
By becoming more of a “conserver society” we can make significant differences to the planet and to our own pocket-books. Our grandparents, especially those who are now in their 70’s and up, were raised in this way and so have a great deal of wisdom to share with us.
Perhaps it is time we paid more attention to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
