As the dust from the recent U.S. presidential election begins to settle, it’s ironic that the 29th United Nations Climate Change Conference is underway in Azerbaijan. President-elect Donald Trump has already announced plans to pull the U.S. out of the 2015 Paris Agreement for the second time. Can he follow through on that promise, and what impact would it have on us all? Could this be a blow to global climate efforts?
There will be loud concerns about the potential setbacks if other nations follow suit and revert to fossil-fuel-driven economies. We’ll hear warnings about the direct and lasting effects on our planet. However, if we are to believe Mr. Trump’s claims, the entire climate issue is exaggerated. But doesn’t today’s world provide enough evidence of the reality and urgency of climate change? One can’t help but wonder how Mr. Trump’s grandchildren will view his choices in the years ahead. After all, it’s our children and grandchildren who will ultimately pay the price if we prioritise short-term gains over long-term resilience.
As Mahatma Gandhi put it, “There is only one force bigger than Mother Nature, and that is Father Greed.” In the face of today’s climate challenges, these words resonate even more strongly, reminding us that choosing profit over planet could have irreversible consequences.
So, should we be worried? Well, perhaps not as much as we might think. When President Trump previously removed the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, he claimed “I represent the people of Pittsburgh, not the people of Paris.” Yet, the people of Pittsburgh responded: “No, you don’t speak for us; we want the Paris Agreement and what it stands for.”
One of the strengths of the U.S. lies in the autonomy of its states, each governing its own environmental policies within federal guidelines. The more controversial the federal stance on climate, the more it strengthens the resolve of those who support climate action, especially young voters with a strong voice and an increasing presence at the polls. Ironically, this could actually drive climate policy forward in the long term.
Another question lingers over the U.S. economy: will it step aside as China seizes new opportunities in the expanding clean energy market? China currently manufactures nearly 78% of the world’s solar panels, leading a booming industry. Clean energy is the future, and nations that hold on too long to old technologies like fossil fuels may see themselves fade into irrelevance – just ask the dinosaurs.
But what about us? I’ve been advising for some time now that building homes to the current building code standards is shortsighted. The “Building for Climate Change” program is steadily increasing building standards, which means that a new house built to today’s code may soon fall short of impending upgrades. But if those standards never advance? Our clients still benefit, living in homes that offer comfortable temperatures year-round, improved health for their families, and notable energy savings.
As our clients often say, “They would never go back to living in a home built to the present building code”.
And there’s one more thing to consider: the true cost of a new home includes both the initial build cost and its ongoing running cost. When you put them both together you have the true cost of the home. Many are surprised to find that within 2-3 years, an energy-efficient home becomes the more economical choice due to lower utility costs. From then on, the financial benefits continue to grow compared to homes built to lower standards.
And with an energy crisis, water shortages, increasing wildfires, and insurance premiums on the rise – if you can even get insured – energy-efficient homes aren’t just about saving money; they’re a safeguard against an increasingly uncertain future. For those who invest in these homes, the benefits are only set to increase as environmental pressures grow.
