Little-known international NGO finalizing building code forcing US homes to be green
An international organization that develops model codes and standards for new construction is quietly preparing an energy conservation code that opponents argue is a backdoor climate initiative and will lead to higher home prices.
The International Code Council (ICC) — a Washington, D.C.-based group that regularly issues more than a dozen codes regulating new construction and impacting billions of people worldwide — is expected to finalize its 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) early next week. While previous IECCs received little opposition, the 2024 version has been widely criticized for prioritizing climate initiatives over energy efficiency.
"They're incentivizing electrification and discriminating against the natural gas industry by excluding it from being part of the code," Karen Harbert, the president and CEO of the American Gas Association (AGA), told Fox News Digital in an interview. "That really is anticompetitive behavior."
"If you are about energy efficiency, you should say, ‘We are about energy efficiency however you get there’ — being fuel neutral. But in this case, they are prescribing the way to get there, and it only includes electrification."
AGA, whose members provide natural gas service to 180 million customers nationwide, has argued in recent months that the ICC developed its 2024 energy efficiency code with "serious lapses in due process" by not involving them. It further said the code would harm consumers and lead to higher costs.
The leading gas industry group, other energy industry associations, housing groups and the ICC's own Northeast regional branch filed appeals in late December and early January asking for a revision to the 2024 IECC. However, the ICC's appeals board recommended this month that those appeals be rejected, leaving the group's board of directors with the final decision. That's expected to come Monday.
Among the provisions opposed, the draft IECC, which has been in development for years, requires new one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses to install electrical infrastructure for home electric vehicle chargers. It also mandates that new homes are equipped with the electrical wiring needed for a solar panel system and all-electric appliances.
According to the AGA, those measures and other provisions were largely included in the IECC as part of an omnibus package in September 2022 after rejection through the normal process.
"The activists that are supporting an all-electrification agenda tried to come in through the policy front door, which was to ban natural gas in cities, and that got overturned in the Ninth Circuit," Harbert told Fox News Digital. "They tried to ban gas at the state level, and that's now being challenged. And they have tried to do it through regulation and have been unsuccessful."
"So, you go to a process that is very much under the radar, very wonky, very technical, but with the same objectives," she continued, referencing the IECC process. "You come in the front door, you come in the side door, now you're coming in the back door."
In addition to AGA, the American Public Gas Association, the appliance manufacturer trade group Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) and the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC) also filed appeals to the 2024 IECC.
"As long-standing supporters of the ICC codes and standards, we are concerned that this version of the IECC misses the mark," Paula Cino, NMHC's vice president for construction, development, land use and counsel, told Fox News Digital in a written statement.
"Without action from the ICC Board to cabin provisions that exceed the bounds of the code, this IECC would threaten housing affordability and weigh renters down with costs for unwanted or unusable technologies," she added.
In its December appeal filed jointly with BOMA, NMHC particularly criticized the IECC's electric vehicle charging provision and another provision requiring new homes to have so-called demand responsive controls for water heating equipment, allowing a third party to reduce a home's energy consumption in times of high demand. NMHC and BOMA argued that the 2024 IECC would place additional costs on Americans, including low-income families.
*******************************************************
Some PA Democrats Are Pushing Back Against Eco-Fundamentalism
In a sign of how far left the Democratic Party has veered, once-avowed progressives are now hesitant to embrace eco-fundamentalism—the dogmatic ideology that vilifies affordable energy, oversells “green” initiatives and advances ruinous policies.
Consider Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and John Fetterman (D-Pa.). They’re both loyal, party-line Pennsylvania Democrats. But they’re also politicians who know which way the wind is blowing with the American people. So they broke ranks with President Biden on his liquid natural gas (LNG) export ban.
“If this decision puts Pennsylvania energy jobs at risk, we will push the Biden Administration to reverse this decision,” they said.
Fetterman and Casey were joined by fellow Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) in opposing the ban, but not all liberals are on board. Their party-mates in Washington, D.C. would be wise to follow their example and moderate on energy policy, or they will soon discover that as Pennsylvania goes, so goes the nation.
The warnings appear to be falling on deaf ears among Democratic leaders. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s efforts to keep the state in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), along with Biden’s LNG ban, are among the most recent efforts to impose extremist energy policies.
When he was running for office, Shapiro declared that RGGI was not “real action” and added that it likely wouldn’t address climate change. But as governor, he has become its champion.
Biden and Shapiro are singing from the same eco-fundamentalist hymnal. Their siren song would cripple American energy production and independence. Though an easy pitch to blue states, these purported carbon-reduction schemes are harder to sell in energy-producing purple states such as Pennsylvania, as Shapiro knows perfectly well.
RGGI, like the LNG ban, is not popular in the Keystone state. This multi-state compact taxes carbon-emitting companies and doles out the extracted funds from successful energy businesses in corporate welfare to renewable energy businesses and conservation organizations.
A Commonwealth Court recently struck down Pennsylvania’s entry into RGGI, calling the carbon tax illegal. Much to the chagrin of the 71 percent of Pennsylvania voters who oppose the program, Shapiro appealed the decision and prolonged the RGGI’s unwelcomed presence in Pennsylvania, which will now come before the state’s Supreme Court.
Before RGGI, Pennsylvania had already significantly reduced carbon emissions through the introduction of natural gas. In fact, the state’s carbon-reduction efforts had already been exceeding RGGI member states. From 2007 to 2019, RGGI states cut emissions by 37 percent. Comparatively, Pennsylvania cut more, reducing emissions by 40 percent. Since 1970, Pennsylvania’s carbon dioxide emissions have dropped 30 percent, whereas national emissions have increased by 15 percent.
Increased production and extraction of natural gas, which emits half as much carbon dioxide as coal, drastically reduced emissions in Pennsylvania. The most precipitous drop in emissions occurred following the 2005 shale boom.
Pennsylvania did this all without RGGI.
Ultimately, RGGI doesn’t decrease emissions—it merely exports them. Comparing energy consumption of RGGI and non-RGGI-member states in the Eastern Interconnection, a 2021 study found decreased emissions in the RGGI states but increased emissions in non-RGGI states—a phenomenon experts refer to as “leakage.” By reducing consumption and production in member states, RGGI’s leakage incentivizes neighboring states to pick up the slack.
RGGI states rely heavily on importing their electricity. Based on total consumption, three of the top-five net-importing states—Massachusetts, Maryland, and Delaware—are RGGI states.
Pennsylvania, on the other hand, is an energy juggernaut, home to abundant natural gas reserves, a well-established history of coal production, and a robust nuclear industry. This full-bodied statewide production inspired one pundit to call the Keystone State “the Saudi Arabia of North American energy supply.”
Energy production is the lifeblood of Pennsylvania’s economy. Energy production supports more than 423,000 jobs and contributes more than $75 billion annually to the commonwealth’s economy. Cutting into Pennsylvania’s energy sector threatens the livelihoods of hard-working Pennsylvanians and the communities where energy extraction is the leading employer.
Moreover, increased energy costs translate into increased utility bills, placing an undue burden on consumers already struggling with the higher cost of living. Virginia, also now a purple state, is in the process of leaving RGGI due to increased rates caused by the program’s caps. Needing $370 million in allowances to offset its above-cap emissions, Dominion Energy, headquartered in Richmond, added a surcharge to its monthly billing to make up the difference, passing the cost of RGGI along to Virginia residents.
As Virginia exits RGGI, Pennsylvania and other states must follow suit. Senators Casey and Fetterman would do well to make their opposition to Biden’s LNG export ban consistent by opposing RGGI. Governor Shapiro should stop trying to have it both ways on RGGI, and should clarify his policy toward Pennsylvania’s energy sector by dropping his appeal of the Commonwealth Court’s decision.
As the second-largest energy-producing state and the eighth-highest net exporter, Pennsylvania is a microcosm of our country’s growing momentum toward energy independence. In 2019, American energy exports exceeded imports for the first time since 1952, providing diplomatic leverage to the U.S. and freeing our reliance on foreign despots and cartels. From Ukraine to the Middle East, the escalating specter of global conflict and intensifying chaos abroad make our need for energy independence more urgent than ever.
From RGGI to LNG bans, destructive “green” initiatives—and their quixotic quest for carbon neutrality—undermine our national momentum toward energy independence. Instead of one-size-fits-all carbon-reduction plans, state legislatures should embrace and strengthen our country’s position as an international leader in energy production.
This should not be a partisan issue—it is an American issue.
*******************************************************
Everything Reminds Me Of Tim: Biography Of Tim Ball
Since the inception of the climate scare a lot of us skeptics have been elderly and we are dying out. I am 80 so it may be my time soon. Tim lived to 84
John O'Sullivan
New biography of one of the world’s best skeptical climatologists, Dr Tim Ball, has just been released. Written by Tim’s widow, Marty, it provides unique personal insights into the life and work of a most accomplished critic of the junk science of man-made global warming.
Nobody has done as much – for as long and at such great cost – to expose the lies and misapprehensions over the most enduring and organised crime syndicate in modern history. Tim Ball obtained his PhD in the field of climatology in London in 1983 and had no qualms disavowing himself of nonsense scare stories being peddled by university colleagues over alleged ‘dangerous’ human CO2 emissions.
Over the subsequent 40 years the tenacious but avuncular Dr Ball produced countless scientific articles, lectures, seminars, books and radio and TV interviews in his mission to offer balance to the official doomsday narrative.
In early 2010 it was my honor and pleasure to count Tim as a dear friend and colleague when he joined our nascent international team of climate researchers who collaborated in writing the world’s first and only full-volume debunk of the science behind it all – ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory‘ (2010).
Thanks to Tim’s input Father Time and the scientific method has vindicated our book despite the vitriol and ridicule flung at us. Our research and analyes is proven entirely accurate in revealing that not only is carbon dioxide not our climate’s control knob, but this trace atmospheric gas serves only to COOL, and not warm anything.
Such is the extent to which midwittery, group think and corruption has poisoned the intellectual well of academic thought that even now, countless famed scholars still dare not openly admit they had it wrong and CO2 is innocent.
Dr Ball was a humble, hard-working but inspirational thought leader whose mantra throughout the hard-fought and often bitter climate debate was to remain civil – ‘disagree, but without being disagreeable.’
https://principia-scientific.com/everything-reminds-me-of-tim-biography-of-tim-ball/
*******************************************Australian Alps snow cover to fare worst in the world under climate change, German study finds
And pigs might fly. Prophecies are worthless. The best snow in our general area is in New Zealand, anyway
A grim picture has been painted of the future of the Australian Alps, with research predicting snow cover days may fall by 78 per cent by the end of the century.
Worldwide, 13 per cent of ski areas are predicted to lose all natural snow cover by 2100.
Researchers from the University of Bayreuth in Germany have today published a study in the journal PLOS One, prompting calls from academics to reinforce an urgent need to address climate change.
The study puts Australia's rate of decline as the highest when compared to six other major skiing regions in the world, including New Zealand, Europe and Japan.
"I'm not surprised by the findings of this report, to be honest," Climatologist and Australian National University Professor Janette Lindesay said.
"There's no doubt that we're heading for an even warmer future."
The study found one in eight ski areas across the globe, or 13 per cent of winter ski slopes, were predicted to lose all natural snow cover this century under a high emissions scenario.
High emissions referred to one of three climate change scenarios based on the Shared Socio-economic Pathways model laid out in the study, alongside "low" and "very high".
Study co-author Dr Veronika Mitterwallner said her team focused on the "high emission" projection to summarise their findings because they considered it the most current and realistic scenario of the three.
Despite this, the study found annual snow cover days across all seven "major mountain areas with downhill skiing will significantly decrease worldwide" across all three scenarios.
Professor Lindesay said it reinforced a need to ramp up efforts to tackle climate change and lessen potential damage to alpine environments.
"The scenarios are effectively storylines … taking into account possible future carbon dioxide emissions, socio-economic circumstances, population growth and possible policy responses to global heating," she said.
"The best thing we can do is get emissions down to net zero as fast as we possibly can."
The study predicts snow resorts may need to move or expand into less populated mountain areas at higher elevations to combat the effects of climate change.
But University of Canberra based geomorphologist Phil Campbell said that would not necessarily work in Australia where ski resorts were at a lower altitude compared to other countries.
"One of the problems in Australia is that we're fairly low in our ski resorts, which are already at the very top of our mountains," he said.
"We're not going to have the same ability as many other countries do to be able to relocate our ski resorts.
"The same goes for endangered plant species as well, because there's nowhere for them to retreat to."
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment