Copen-bloggin’: Building Codes, Sexier Than You Think

Thomas Nordli of Rockwool shows off Danish insulation.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Energy efficiency is not particularly exciting. But it is among the best hopes for a quick fix on emissions in the US, and it’s another area where Denmark has made significant progress. Improved building codes lowered the overall cost of heating Danish buildings 20 percent between 1975 and 2001, even though the amount of space that needed to be heated in homes and buildings expanded by 30 percent over the same period of time, according to the Danish Energy Authority.

It’s not like we don’t now about the value of improved efficiency in the US. The McKinsey study on the value of greater efficiency has been cited repeatedly in recent months. It includes a litany of potential benefits that could come by simply making our building stock less wasteful. Energy use in buildings accounts for 40 percent of our fossil fuel use and, thus, 40 percent of our emissions. More than half of that is used on heating and cooling, and much of that leaks out thanks to woefully inefficient construction.

The McKinsey report found that investing in energy efficiency measures for the nation’s buildings has the potential to reduce energy consumption 23 percent by 2020, save up to $130 billion a year, cut emissions of 1.1 gigatons, and create 900,000 new jobs. That would put us well on our way to the carbon dioxide emissions reductions being discussed in Congress, for one, and would save Americans a heck of a lot of money. What’s not to like?

Well, for one, energy companies don’t like it, because they’re in the business of selling power—the more of it, the better. (Let me again direct you to Bradford Plumer’s excellent piece about our screwed up utility and regulatory system.) And for another, the US seems to have a sincere inability to look at costs in the long term. Even if improving the insulation of your home pays for itself very quickly through reduced heating bills, there’s not a great willingness among the American public to expend the cash, without a push from the government. In Denmark, they’ve gradually ratcheted up the building codes over the past 30 years.

We visited the headquarters of Rockwool today, a Danish insulation company. So of course, their goal was to sell us on insulation—particularly the kind they create, which is made by melting down rocks and spinning the molten rock into a substance not unlike cotton candy. It’s much like the fiberglass insulation the dominates the market in the US, but less pink, more sound proof, and also, fire-resistant. This type only accounts for about 5 percent of the insulation in the US, but more than 80 percent of the insulation in Denmark .

The visit was interesting, and of course was intended to convert us into evangelists for insulation. I didn’t need to be sold on that idea: insulation is key to energy efficiency, and we don’t use it nearly well enough in the US. But one thing that struck me was a point that Rockwool spokesman Thomas Nordli made in his presentation. He noted that there are regular check-ups on car emissions, both in the US and Denmark. Every few years, you’re required to get your car checked to make sure it’s not exceeding emissions limits or leaking any dangerous substances. Why don’t we have similar standards for our building stock?

Denmark is apparently considering adopting some measures of this sort. But in the US, just some basic guidelines for efficiency included in the House energy and climate bill provoked Republicans to claim that a “global warming gestapo” would storm your home and force you to be more efficient. The horror!

Fortunately, the House bill did pass, with some significant improvements for efficiency. By 2030, it would save consumers an average of $486 per household, create more than 600,000 jobs, reduce emissions by more than 500 million metric tons, and prevent the need for an additional 419 medium-sized coal-fired power plants, according to a study by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. Much of that comes from energy efficiency requirements for utilities, but there are also major gains from improved building codes, funding for retrofits, and improved appliance efficiency standards.

The building code provisions alone, however, could generate a net saving of $2.91 billion for consumers each year by 2020, and avoid 35.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. So while energy efficiency and building codes may not sound particularly sexy, they are an easy way of cutting back emissions while making energy consumers happy.

Kate Sheppard is blogging this week from Denmark. The trip for U.S.-based journalists was arranged by the Climate Consortium Denmark.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate