The stimulus package approved in February contains items aimed at making everyone an environmentalist. Well, let’s say practical environmentalist. By offering tax incentives for a variety of home greening initiatives, Congress managed to both raise and lower my spirits around environmental issues: it’s great that people will have reason to save energy and live more efficiently, but I hate that the reason has to be money before anyone pays attention.
As reported in the New York Times, the green measures homeowners can take and get paid for it include home-shell improvements like better windows and insulation all the way up through solar cells on rooftops and buying a hybrid vehicle. Overall, individual tax payers can earn up to $1,500 in tax credits for these types of initiatives.
This will, undoubtedly, spur some people to take environmentally friendly action. Maybe I’m naive (okay, I am definitely naive), but I imagine a time when people realize that taking those actions is important even when money is not involved. The government’s capacity to reward or penalize for various things by offering tax credits or not only perpetuates the issue, by allowing people to think about the environment purely in financial terms. Obviously, I am for the tax credits from a practical standpoint; I want things to be greener, and money is how that gets done. But I don’t have to like it.
Profit versus pollution
I was recently reporting a story about wind farm construction, and spoke with someone trying to bring wind power to Coal River Mountain in West Virginia. The problem is that the landowners could make more money by allowing coal companies to use mountaintop removal techniques to mine out the mountain’s coal, and until that economic balance shifts then they are unlikely to embrace the wind farm idea. If wind were more profitable, suddenly they would become a champion of renewable energy. What a sad world it is when money can take two stark opposites—blowing up a mountain versus some clean and quiet wind turbines—and make them all but equal.
Of course, it is impossible to say whether people who claim those tax credits for greening their residences would have gone the environmentally friendly route anyway, with no financial incentive. I’m sure some would. But others undoubtedly wouldn’t. The planet doesn’t care who makes money for being green, but obviously, we always will.
Images courtesy of muenzer and Jen SFO-BCN on flickr via a Creative Commons license
Ugh. This is very true – I'm finding out first hand, as I'm currently marketing a LEED Platinum home that I built here in Portland, OR (a town supposedly full of eco-conscience consumers).
What particularily irks me is that people don't bother to look at the value of the home – I'm selling at $200/Sq.Ft. which is pretty average for the neighborhood – but because it's "SO green" they think they're paying a price premium, and shy away. Nevermind the lower utility bills, etc.
Now I understand why other builders are still building as cheap/low quality as possible and green washing their marketing (Energy Star Windows! – I don't even think you can get windows that aren't energy star certified anymore).
Sorry, long rant.