Rob Salmond – “4. “Isn’t there already a program for this?””[sic]:
Very limited in terms of entry? What? Because it is mainly households earning more than $140K that are uninsulated.
Or did you mean that it doesn’t have high uptake because it was only released in January and started advertising last month??
(As opposed to the old EECA grants which actually did have limited conditions)

I have installed insulation in every house I have bought or built. The benefits in comfort justify it but it also increases resale value.

I am appalled by the idea that people who have not insulated their houses should now have their insulation paid for by me! It means I am insulating houses twice.

The idea that it saves electricity is a tenuous. People enjoy greater comfort and put on fewer woolly jumpers.

Here is the correct policy. Government insulates its own properties just as I insulated mine.
Then councils put a note on the Lim Report advising if the property is NOT insulated (which will bring down the price) or if they are not sure use the LIM to advise people to check the state of the insulation.

If sellers knew that their properties would be discounted – or cause a loss of sale – many would put in the insulation in to promote their comfort while they own, and to enhace their sale value when they sell.

Same with rental properties.
Require anyone letting a house to advise potential tenants of the state of insulation.

Then just let the buyer beware. Information not regulation.

Another heads up. Helen Clark didn’t even last to lunchtime. She resigned her “leadership” positions that night. Serenaded by a collection of the sisterhood standing staunch behind her. A bit late for symbolism by then mind.

So what? You think we wont apportion blame to someone who shares some of our ideology? Perhaps Nick Smith would have done a good job cleaning up his own mess if he wasnt in opposition at the time.

No that’s not what I mean, I meant it in response to your comment about the Standard and some statement about being in the pocket of business. I’m sure Smith wasn’t, but he did do what business wanted and it was a bloody disaster!

Your defense that the problem was caused by someone else is worthless given that the criticism is that Labour were negligent in the “clean up” of the situation.

No, that’s not what they did Kimble, go back and read the Hunn report and then look again at the reform that followed.

Plus The Optimist is correct, if power prices and other fuel taxes were not so aggressive people would have more capital to invest into energy efficiency improvements. However human nature is human nature, if power were dirt cheap we would just turn up the heat pumps all year round. Why would we spend our money on insulation, the Labour party wants to spent it for us telling us we should have it.

(If the choice was between one or the other of those two, I would far rather see the insulation installed and paid for, for my $1 Billion, than simply recommended and extolled!)

There is also a philosophical question here: Is this a scheme to “help out our poorest and most vulnerable” by making their housing cheaper to heat? Or is it a scheme to reduce demand on the national electricity grid, thereby delaying the costs to the economy of expanding generation/transmission infrastructure?

It is very hard to argue against “No, you should pay if you want to have insulation in your own home.”

However if the reduction in energy consumption from the insulation programme can be estimated, then you can estimate the deferral of electricity generation/supply infrastructure expansion (paid for by your power bills as well as mine) and find a net present worth to those deferrals. Which you can compare to the net present worth of the insulation campaign and decide whether it’s worth doing from an national economy point of view.

Ceiling insulation: Retail price about $14.9 per square metre. Very easy to install – you just drag it up into the ceiling space. Most houses have a ceiling space although some have skillion roofs (sloping ceilings) which would require some demolition to gain access, probably making cost prohibitive.

Under floor insulation – Retail not sure though have seen $30 per square metre (installed) mentioned for Ex-pol. Not applicable to houses with concrete floors, and concrete floors are probably more prevalent than skillion roofs.

Wall insulation: There are spray-in systems e.g. Airfoam available in NZ. Uncertain of price although it must be cheaper than removing gib linings and installing batts. However your house ends up covered in little filled-in holes which need to be painted.

We might get a lot more done if we worried less about apportioning blame and more about things we can do now that will improve the situation..

(this comment directed at one-eyed supporters from all corners of the political spectrum)

Huh? The Green anti-coal policies are clearly to do with climate change. If you don’t think climate change is happening (or if you don’t think it’s a bad thing, or you don’t think there’s anything humans can do about it) then clearly you would think coal power is great.

The Green party disagree: they think that by acting now we can reduce the problems caused by climate change, and that if we don’t act now, we will face very serious problems in the future.

These are separate issues. Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn’t seek to help people save power out of spite because Green supporters oppose coal power?

So what? You think we wont apportion blame to someone who shares some of our ideology? Perhaps Nick Smith would have done a good job cleaning up his own mess if he wasnt in opposition at the time.

Your defense that the problem was caused by someone else is worthless given that the criticism is that Labour were negligent in the “clean up” of the situation.

They ignored the problem rather than addressing it.

Labour had the power to fix things. They didnt. They fucked up.

Yes the “invest now – save later” argument is used to justify all kinds of government programs, from enforcing minimum standards for schools or compulsory seatbelts to rehabilitation programs in prisons and subsiding prescriptions. I proudly support all those programs, as do both the Labour party and the National party.

One important difference between an insulation program and many others you list is that, from the point of view of the taxpayer, it is **only** about saving them money over the long term, and doesn’t cut down on their set of consumption choices in the process (unless you count the freedom to live in cold, damp, unhealthy conditions as a freedom worth fighting for). That makes it different from smoking bans, fatty food bans, contact sport bans, etc.

And the rest of your comment was simpleton sloganeering that avoided the substantive issues, so I’ll ignore it.

Do you think we should scrap (or privatise, rather) the public health system? Because if not, you should have reasons to support this idea. (or, at the very least, if you oppose it you need to say why you think the cost will outweigh any health benefits)

I hear and read often that the key to economic improvement is to identify and remove inefficiencies. This is a clear-cut inefficiency: many people in winter spend more than they need to on electricity or gas to (in effect) slightly heat the air outside their home. What a waste! It’s effectively a tax on poor people (if they weren’t poor, they could buy a house and insulate it themselves) — except it’s worse than a tax, because the money is just wasted literally on thin air.

Perhaps, as an alternative, we could pass a law requiring all landlords to state the energy effiency of properties they’re letting in any advertisements. Maybe then the market would start to sort the issue out. Would you support that? Or do you have any other ideas for more efficiently using our power?

So Green policies that promote the replacement of cheap coal sourced electricity with expensive windmill sourced electricity will lead to cold houses and sick people?

That argument can also be used to create:

1. private consumption laws; no smoking, fatty foods, alcohol
2. oppressive parenting laws; no smacking, only official forms of discipline allowed, must educate your child in a manner approved by the state
3. health and safety laws; no more contact sports, max 35kph speed limits everywhere

Basically, because government takes tax off you to pay for things, anything that could possibly reduce the potential cost to you could be done under the guise of saving you money.

Its bullshit of course.

And the very idea that Labour wants to “save you money” is laughable.

As for the argument that “there is nothing to say that you cant attack leaky homes AND insulation problems”… well, leaky homes are undeniably more deserving of attention, but Labour doesnt want that debacle to be mentioned at all. They have created an issue to detract from a similar issue that they never addressed while they had the power to do so.

Here I respond to some of the criticisms of the website and policy leveled in the comments:

1. Whaleoil: the website itself “breaks almost every rule of [taxpayer] funding”

This is crap. Here is a brief fisking. On his site, Whale says there are four problems. First, he says the site has only a dubious parliamentary purpose. Wrong. Petitioning parliament, which the website gathers support for, is integral to our parliamentary process. Second, Whale says it breaks the rules about soliciting money because it links to another web page that solicits money. Wrong. The Labour page that this site links to does not solicit money, and in fact the entire labour.org.nz website (as far as I can see) does not solicit money or membership. Third, Whale says the website “may be misleading” because he doesn’t like the arguments and stats it cites. Apparently everything needs proper citation in order to avoid being “misleading.” This coming from Whaleoil! By this standard, all political websites are misleading. Silly argument. Last, he says the healthy homes website breaks the law because it fails to provide contact details. Of course it does link to a web site with contact details for Labour. If Whale is happy to count linking as part of the same web enterprise in the second point above, he should be happy to do it here as well. So he is wrong on that count, too. That leaves Whale’s crusade hinging solely on the issue of the relative sizes of the crest and party logo in the footer. Better save some space on page one and call out the army on that one!

2. “Why should I pay for my neighbour to have his house insulated?” (various)

Good question. Easy answer. If you pay for your neighbour’s house to be insulated, the people in that house get healthier (Howden-Chapman et al 2007). That means (a) they are better able to help you fund state services by working, being productive, and paying tax, thus decreasing the burden on you; and (b) they use fewer healthcare resources, which are paid for with your tax dollars. So investing this money in your neighbour’s welfare today saves you money over the long term. That is why it is a good investment for you.

3. “Why shouldn’t the market just reward homeowners and landlords who insulate their homes with higher sales and rental prices? Why doesn’t the market clear this all up?” (various)

Because buyers and renters (particularly renters) cannot see or experience insulation in their walk-throughs of properties before they decide whether or not to invest. To be sure, a careful **buyer** might find this out on a particularly invasive building inspection, but there is no way a renter would know. So the market failure here is in the form of asymmetric information – the owner knows about insulation, but the renter / buyer does not. For a good exploration of these kinds of markets, see George Akerloff’s famous paper on the market for lemons (it is about used cars).

Moreover, the market incentives in this situation are perverse, especially in rental situations. In these situations, the landlord faces costs to insulating that he/she can’t reasonably hope to recoup through increased revenue, therefore receiving no benefit. Instead, all the health benefits accrue to the tenant, but the tenant can’t realistically shop around for these benefits because he/she can’t see them at purchase time. And, as I understand it, a big part of the insulation problem in New Zealand is with renter-occupied dwellings.

Those are two reasons why the market doesn’t clear in this case.

4. “Isn’t there already a program for this?”

Yes, but it is very restricted in terms of entry and limited in terms of scope and that is why nobody is using it.

5. “Isn’t leaky homes a bigger problem?” (Aaron B)

Maybe. But nothing says you can’t attack both problems at once. Indeed, fixing leaky homes does more good if you fix the insulation problem while you are at it.

6. Haven’t Labour left their run on this too late?” (Murray)

If you mean to say “didn’t Labour already lose” then you are of course right and thanks so much for the novel insight. If you mean “isn’t Labour too late to make an impression with this before the next election” then you are overconfident and wrong.

I notice that Repton just said some of this stuff. I agree with Repton, and good effort to him/her. chfr’s reply makes the amusing mistake of accusing someone of ranting and then… ranting! Hooray for him/her?!

Finally, a disclaimer: I had nothing at all to do with this creating this website.