I go to home shows to see what is new and get ideas on what to do with my home.One of the sales people at a recent show I went to said he wanted to come to my house to give an estimate for ceiling insulation. So I made an appointment for him to come over. I have R-19 insulation in my ceiling which is probably normal for homes built 20 years ago. The new standard in my territory is R-49.
Supposedly, I would save 20-30% on my heating and air conditioning if I better insulated my attic.
Since I am a do-it-your-selfer, the cost to insulate my home with blow-in insulation to the recommended depth to get R-49 would cost me about $400.
20% off my gas bill would be $20 per month. In less than 2 years I would have saved what it costs me to upgrade my insulation. Any business would love that Return on Investment.
What gets me is that new homes are not insulated to the standards put forth by our government. Saving energy should be a change that is paramount to our national security.
Better insulating homes is a simple, low cost way to get started on that path.
8 comments:
"Saving energy should be a change that is paramount to our national security."
It sounds like some want the government to be out of control. If a private citizen wants to waste energy on his own dime, I guess we'll be sending them to the gulag for treason against the Motherland. We're talking about national security, after all.
Interestingly, progressives think national security means everything, with exception to national security. If one supports killing the bad guys, people like Herr Gore will erupt into a red-faced rage of fury, screaming about how the Republic is being betrayed.
However, if we change 232 years of tradition to let captured POWs sue our soldiers in court, then we're patriotic for promoting diversity and multiculturalism. If we change our foreign policy to appeasement, then we can pat ourselves on the back for our cultural tolerance when dark age religious fanatics have nuclear weapons. Folks like Bill Richardson want to change the Pentagon and stop research and development of new weapons systems, so our socialist allies in Europe can applaud America's change from assertiveness to meekness.
That's not considered betraying the country by our intelligentsia in Academia and the Media. Leaving our air conditioning on too long is. Washington, Grant, Patton and company must all be rolling in their graves.
Wow, how did insulating our homes better to conserve get you off on that tangent! Holy smokes!
If we insulate our homes better, a/c will run less and save energy...savings to both consumer and government. All around savings. Makes sense to me.
And if we save energy, more to waste on your side's wars. Then better security since more fuel to "protect" us. Why think so negatively? ;-)
Jasson, you really need to get a grip on yourself, dude. I have never encountered anyone else on the blogosphere (at least anyone who was reasonably sane and intelligent) go off on such tirades unrelated to the topic of the post at hand.
What's wrong with you? Did you have a crush on a girl who was a progressive liberal and she broke your heart, so now you are going to unleash your bile on liberals real and perceived everywhere?
Our esteemed host here is simply offering a common sense way to help cut energy costs. Do you think his suggestion is good or bad, and why? Is reducing our dependence on imported oil a good thing or a bad thing, and why? Guantanamo Bay doesn't have a fucking thing to do with it.
Jason:
I am glad that you agree that if we better insulate our homes we will import less oil, use less electricity, use less natural gas and become more energy independent.
Doing this with other energy saving ideas will release us from soaring national debt, release the control of our country by foreign governments that are holding our debt and give us control over our national security.
stardust--
The post above stated energy is a matter of national security. It is not. Moreover, those who say things like this don't care about national security in the plain meaning of the words.
In short, who private individuals should not be sent to jail for their private energy expenditures. Energy is NOT a matter of national security. If you agree that spending more than what progressives prefer on energy is not treason, then you logically must agree.
We don't have the right to force others to obey our mere feelings. It is not the advertising of cost-saving measures I object to-- I believe individuals, families, and businesses should be free to display their views. It is the government forcing people into a universal comprehensive plan that I find objectionable.
tommy--
"Do you think his suggestion is good or bad, and why?"
It depends on the individual consumer involved, along with the time and place. They can make the on-the-spot judgments whether such action means a profit or a loss. Unlike the progressives, I am not omniscient.
"Is reducing our dependence on imported oil a good thing or a bad thing"
I'm for free trade and energy interdependence. I'm also for the *consumer*. If there are comparative advantages to refining and drilling oil overseas, then that's what I support. SUV-liberals are the ones who complain the most about high oil prices, as if they have a right to have a gas-guzzler. Wants however are not rights.
"I am glad that you agree that if we better insulate our homes we will import less oil, use less electricity, use less natural gas and become more energy independent."
I disagree that energy independence is desirable. I also believe there is nothing sinful about energy consumption.
"Doing this with other energy saving ideas will release us from soaring national debt"
That's not true. Here's a chart of the federal budget -- and social(ist) security, Medicare, and Medicaid are set to explode. Remember the public debt is not the external deficit.
I agree that national debt is something to be worried about. We're heading down the path of Weimar Germany if we don't change course, and some (cough cough Obama) want to pile on taxes and spending at precisely the time we should reducing such levels. External debt is nothing to be worried about since accounting details are not determinants of prosperity -- the United States has been a debtor and a creditor nation at various periods in its history. If a country is a good place to invest, foreigners will want to get in on the action. That's a good thing.
Post a Comment