Although most of the problems in today's society are complicated and controversial, there is one fix that should be undertaken nationwide: updating and refitting public buildings. Furthermore, this is a solution that can be done unilaterally by individual states, counties, or municipalities, because we all know the federal government is unlikely to get it done. Currently, public buildings are bleeding tax dollars away because of inefficient heating or cooling, improper insulation, outdated electrical and plumbing systems, and a host of other deficiencies. Simply put, refitting public buildings with state of the art architecture and infrastructure will save millions of dollars over the long term, create thousands of jobs in the short term, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is a proposal everyone should be on board with, regardless of political bent.
Because of the large deficit and debt, spending has become a dirty word in Washington, unless it is accompanied by "cuts." This is the primary impediment to smart reforms that would make government drastically more efficient. As any businessman knows, you've got to spend money to make money, and public policy is no different. Were the government run like a business, it would incur short term debts (especially considering the favorable borrowing rate) in order to trim costs in the long term. In fact, this is exactly what occurred with the stimulus packages passed by Bush and Obama. The stimulus bills incurred short term debts and averted a deep depression, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Therefore, it is logical to spend again in order to avert the second recession that is predicted to occur after the fiscal cliff.
Nevertheless, a large stimulus is not on the table, nor is it likely to make it through Washington's gridlock. The $50 billion dollar stimulus that Obama included in his latest proposal to Boehner and the GOP is not being taken seriously by conservatives, who view it as an overreaching bargaining chip rather than a pragmatic solution to underemployment. The stimulus I am proposing is even more modest, pays for itself within a few years, and creates jobs immediately.
There are thousands of public buildings across the nation, so in order to simplify the discussion, I'll only discuss hard numbers with respect to public schools. There are, of course, many things that could be done to improve the efficiency of all public buildings, but schools are the hearts of their communities and are the best place to start. The utility savings can be passed directly on to the students, whose schools are woefully underfunded, without sacrificing a dollar in educational spending.
First, simply bringing in engineers to public schools to analyze waste and suggest efficiency reforms can save thousands of dollars annually. The process is known as commissioning, which brings in private contractors to assess the school's energy use. For the average public school, commissioning saves $14,000 annually, with an initial cost ranging from $5,000 to $40,000, depending on the conditions of the school. Poorly constructed schools have a higher commissioning cost, and would likely lead to higher annual energy savings. Even assuming high initial cost and low average savings, the cost of commissioning is fully paid off in 3-4 years.
The previous example also stimulates the economy, by creating good, high-paying jobs that did not exist before. The next example is quite obvious, and does not require much of an initial investment from the schools: change your lightbulbs. Changing outdated incandescent lights to modern fluorescent lights saves thousands of dollars, at an average rate of $20 per lamp, per year. At that rate, the initial investment is paid back in 1-3 years.
Other quick and easy solutions include adding weather stripping to windows and doors, adding a second pane to windows to reduce energy loss, and painting the roofs of schools a lighter, more reflective color to reflect sunlight and reduce the need for cooling. Repainting the roofs of schools saves, on average, 15-20% of a school's cooling costs for the year. These last three suggestions can be done during routine maintenance. For example, if a window breaks or is scheduled to be replaced, insuring that it is replaced with a more energy efficient window is an easy way to slowly phase in the savings, without much of an initial investment. Similarly, if the roof is old and needs repairs or replacement, do so with reflective paint. The savings on the cooling bill will pay for the paint within the next few years.
I see no reason why we should not immediately and aggressively institute these reforms. The costs are so low compared to the major drivers of the deficit and debt, yet the benefits are very high with respect to those costs. Furthermore, these benefits compound upon themselves as time goes by: every year that passes causes inefficient construction to become more inefficient, thereby wasting more and more money. The sooner we act, the greater savings we gain. Refitting public schools creates jobs in the construction sector, which is still struggling after the housing bubble collapsed, as well as creates architecture and engineering jobs. The savings accrue nearly instantaneously, and the environmental impact of reducing our carbon footprint cannot be overstated. Students will attend schools that are properly heated and ventilated, and can take pride in knowing that their school is part of the solution, and not the problem, when it comes to global warming. Refitting schools is something that every school district should do - it saves them money - regardless of what occurs at the county, state, or federal level. It's a no-brainer, and the kind of common sense solution we really need.
No comments:
Post a Comment