Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by sfvisser | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

sfvisser

> I own several buildings

> expense in the low five figures

> So what are people complaining about, exactly?

This is an incredible take.

Many people don’t have the luxury to just spend five figures on a mandatory house renovation.

View on HN

Let me get this straight:

- You own an asset worth 200,000-300,000 Euros

- The required investment, which can be spread over up to ten years, is 20,000-30,000 Euros

- You would have to make parts of this investment anyway, because your windows are leaky and your radiators are breaking

- You will recoup the costs over 5-10 years because you use less energy

- 25-50% of this investment will be covered by subsidies, the government will also provide low-interest loans for much of the rest

How is this an absurd demand to make of people who own a house?

Not to mention that 200k-300k is the absolute low end for a house. Around here you're lucky to get something for 5 times that.

There is more than just whatever urbanised area you happen to live which gave you this rather myopic view. Even in the Netherlands - where housing is expensive - €300K will give you plenty of choice [1]. In the south of Sweden it will buy you a largish villa while in the north it buys you a large farm.

[1] https://localfocus2.appspot.com/593e6715568f0 (click on municipality for an overview of prices)

For us in FIN, the bulk majority that will get hit worst are low-income rural households that aren't nearly worth 200,000k. In fact it will probably result in a lot of abandoned homes as it isn't worth investing 20k euros to renovate a 60-80k house, not that anyone is lending that money to these homes anyway.

You have perfectly demonstrated how idiotic these blanket EU-level policies are as they take no consideration of local situations.

As I wrote above, the proposed (!) regulation would be based on the national housing stock. So if you are in Finnland, the energy efficiency of your house would be compared to other finish houses, not a house in Germany. Which is the definition of "considering local situations".

Also, a quick check reveals that only about 14% of the Finish population lives in rural areas [1]. Even if every single one of those persons is a house owner and poor (unlikely, as those categories are to a certain extend mutually exclusive), it would be quite feasible for the Finish government to heavily subsidize the renovation of the entirety of the rural housing stock. Nothing in the proposed regulation would keep national governments from using policy making to implement the required goals in a socially acceptable way.

Also, what do you propose would be the alternative? Improving the energy efficiency of the housing stock is in most countries among the most efficient ways to conserve energy. Other approaches to conserve energy or produce the required energy in a sustainable way cost considerably more per kw/h than bringing a 50 year old house to a modern energy standard. And of course given the prevalence of oil and natural gas based heating systems in old houses, you actually have to invest in a new heating source to switch away from CO2-emitting energy sources, anyway.

EDIT: quick back of the envelope math suggests that it would cost the finish government 5% of the current annual budget for each of the coming ten years to invest 20.000 Euros into each of the approximately 250.000 rural houses (assuming an average occupancy of 3 people per house). Not a bad investment considering that it would be made up in a few years through energy savings.

[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?location...

It doesn't matter if the energy efficiency rating is based on local standards when the costs aren't. Again, there is absolutely no sense blowing 20-30k on energy renovating a house that is worth 80k.

If you don't think binding 5% of the entire country's budget for 10 years into upgrading old houses is an manic proposition I think we can safely agree there isn't a way for us to see this from the same angle and we can agree to disagree on this topic.

Spending 5% of the government budget for ten years on measures that reduce energy consumption by 20-30% for a third of the housing stock forever is a bargain. The 20-30k figure was based on my experience with German houses, I have no idea how much it would cost for the typical old finish house to come up to standard. Based on the very few rural finish houses I've seen I would guess it is less, because they would probably tend to be smaller, but that is pure speculation.

Also, of course it is worth investing 20k over 10 years into a 80k house in many circumstances. Why wouldn't it be? Yes, some people won't be able to afford this out of pocket (though I maintain that this group is smaller than you'd think). But again, the government could (and should) support this group, making it financially feasible.

It will be heavily subsidized. Nobody will get into trouble for not being able to afford insulation. That's not how the law in European countries works.

Just to underline how property law works in many EU countries: I have a tenant who is actively destroying the apartment he lives in. It is still practically impossible to dissolve my rent agreement with him, because the courts see it as likely that he would end up homeless.

There is simply no conceivable reality in which our current system of laws would force a cash-strapped, 80 year old house owner out of his property simply because they can't follow up on EU energy regulations. We have plenty of legal safeguards to weigh social outcomes against the impact of laws and regulations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com