The announcement of a “model” international building code might understandably elicit yawns. However, the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is cause for Americans to bolt upright and pay close attention. The vain imaginings of corporate and NGO “stakeholders” who propose to completely dominate American housing construction in the name of saving the planet promise to drive up housing costs and mandate dangerous grid dependency that erases longstanding constitutional liberties.

The 2024 plan would dramatically expand regulations for both residential and commercial construction, possibly including both new and existing homes.

Building Codes That Demolish Liberties

According to the code’s executive summary, “concern is growing around the world about the impacts of climate change” and “consumers are seeking more energy efficient and sustainable homes.” This assertion excludes those who have concerns about overblown climate fearmongering and consumers accustomed to free market choices in an already overpriced housing market. Behind this shallow justification are special interest groups who feign to speak for all consumers, whose liberties are extinguished in favor of a compelled code rather than rules freely chosen by We the People.

The executive summary lists the expanded plans of control:

“The [2024] IECC will continue to be updated on a three-year cycle and each edition will increase efficiency over the prior edition; The code will include pathways leading to the achievement of zero energy buildings presently and by 2030; The code may include non-mandatory appendices incorporating energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction resources including for electric vehicle charging, electrification and embodied carbon; The code’s minimum efficiency requirements will be strengthened each edition based on a balancing test supported by energy efficiency advocates and the building industry and passed by both the U.S. House and Senate; The development committees will be informed by insight from a newly established Energy and Carbon Advisory Council made up of public and private sector leaders. Governments continue to have the ultimate say on whether to adopt or amend model codes.”

This outsourcing of vitally important regulatory authority is unusual, diminishes the role of voter “stakeholders,” appears to promulgate policies that enrich corporate interests and advance pseudo-scientific climate alarmism. The usual invocations of protections for “marginalized communities” are absent here, and these plans will escalate housing costs dramatically. Like Biden’s EPA noose-tightening of vehicle emissions standards, compulsory appliance manufacturing standards, and “wartime powers” to subsidize heat pumps, the IECC’s “three-year cycle” will doubtless transition “non-mandatory” provisions to the “shall” column.

Disenfranchised Homeowners

According to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), the 2024 rule-making process has shifted:

“In years past, the energy code was developed through a process in which the final decisions were determined by the votes of government officials.

“Beginning with the development of the 2024 IECC, the ICC board of directors changed the procedure so it now follows a standards development process where final decisions rest with consensus committee members who represent a wide range of stakeholders.”

The NAHB has a stakeholder seat at the policy table; the consumers who foot the bill are out in the proverbial cold, though they can post comments. The glowing “testimonials” of other profit-making or politically biased stakeholders sitting at this elitist table display an ideological smorgasbord of piranha-like feasting and even fishier propaganda. The American Society of Interior Designers (most all of whose products and services pollute more than they save) gushes that it “has complete confidence in the ICC consensus-based standards development process as a well-grounded framework that connects open and inclusive stakeholder participation.” The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) boasts “a long history of constructive collaboration to promote decarbonization … and efficiency of buildings … many of which are required or permitted in the family of I-codes, … [and] will continue to be unwavering advocates for adoption and enforcement in every state and jurisdiction in the nation.”

BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association) International has a special seat. RESNET (Residential Energy Services Network), whose website proclaims it is “Leading the Path to Net Zero Energy Homes,” has a seat at the table, from which it dictates that it will “ensure future editions of the IECC are developed using a consensus-based process that is fair, open, transparent, and based upon science.”

Forced Homelessness?

But where are the citizens who will be controlled in this “fair, open, transparent” cabal of profitmaking? The Solar Energy Industries Association chirps in neo-Marxist unison about “this new process to move new buildings toward zero net energy and zero net carbon with the full suite of options, including solar.” Any conflict of interest here? Another plug is from Nu-Wool Co., Inc., which “manufactures environmentally friendly cellulose insulation materials,” fattened, no doubt, by its virtue-profiteering.

But what of real wool? Actual sheep’s wool, long used to insulate homes, is presumably not permitted under this globalist building code. What of straw-bale homes? These are extremely efficient, can last for hundreds of years, and do not require chemicals and manufacturing facilities. What of existing construction, remote homesteads, or rusting 1960s trailers in which millions of Americans are forced to live because of skyrocketing food, vehicle, and energy prices? It appears that they are excluded from the table, the wool wrapped tightly around their eyes and handcuffing their basic rights.

Per the NAHB, the 2024 IECC is considering (and the following measures are quoted directly):

• Requiring on-site solar panels

• Requiring electric vehicle charging capability or readiness

• Increasing the stringency of insulation, windows, and building and duct tightness

• Requiring energy-recovery ventilators (ERVs)

• Imposing a penalty on houses larger than 5,000 square feet

The NAHB approvingly stated: “[T]he final decisions rest with consensus committees, not governmental voting members.” But the alleged consensus is of one ideological ilk. Jennifer Amann, a senior fellow at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, told Fox News Digital:

“The model building energy code before the International Code Council represents a consensus agreement among builders, building code officials, and energy efficiency advocates, It will cut energy waste in new homes, lower utility bills for homeowners, and reduce pollution.

“The International Code Council’s board should approve this commonsense proposal and not bend to special interests representing polluting industries.”

Are straw bales and sheep’s wool “polluting industries”? What of people who want to reside in an off-grid cabin and burn wood? Is the affordability, feasibility, or forced grid dependency of these provisions to be excluded from consideration in this “commonsense” totalitarianism? Perhaps Amann would similarly usurp Americans’ “special interests” to pursue homeownership as part of their “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” The IECC appears to be run by unelected profiteers, demolishing the American Dream in the name of building.

 

John Klar is an Attorney, farmer, and author. Mostly farmer… And Regular Contributor to GraniteGrok and VermontGrok.

The post New ‘Green’ Building Code to Dominate Housing Construction appeared first on Granite Grok.

One thing that did not get defunded after the George Floyd/BLM Summer of Love was cop shows. There is no shortage of police or detective dramas extolling the intellectual agility of some quirky investigator with a physical or social disability. Or a team of racially and sexually diverse members who adroitly unravel complex conspiracies ripe with misdirection.

Liberal scriptwriters, story-boarders, actors, directors, and producers make an above-average living telling positive tales of good versus evil in a workplace that is supposed to be systemically racist, and, in its own way, it is.

Recurring themes involving people of faith, militias, sovereign citizens, and even Republican politicians portray them as backward, boorish, mean, criminal, or just uncivilized. Corporate titans are evil abusers of a system they bribe to serve them even though (in the real world) many of them donate to BLM, have gender and diversity officers, and give almost exclusively to Liberal candidates and causes.

And maybe they watch cop shows where “The Department” could do a lot more for the community if not for flint-fingered cheapskates and budget cuts – without ever admitting the systemically racist city they pretend to represent has been run by Democrats since before Kennedy was assassinated.

We are talking about television fiction, which fits hand in glove with the fictitious end game of their political agenda. That one party, unhindered by natural rights or the constitution, can, in time, create a society more wealthy and free than any before seen on earth. The fact that no one who has tried has ever accomplished it is no reason to stop trying (or so they say). Nor are the results of those efforts a reflection of future efforts.

Crime, poverty, chaos, and despotism are necessary ends if the people can endure enough of them while their leaders—who live in luxury, free from having to think about how they’ll get through the day—work diligently to get them to the other side.

We do not know if there is another side, but we do know you’ll need at least 100 years to get there. 100 years of the police state treating everyone the way George Floyd is portrayed as having been treated. George was the product of decades of Democrat rule. He took up crime as a way to get by and drugs as a way to get along with that. It killed him, drugs killed him, and the Left blamed it on cops they don’t really hate.

You can’t get from here to utopia without a police state, and everyone paying attention knows it.

 

 

The post 100 Years of Being Treated Like George Floyd, For What? appeared first on Granite Grok.

There are a handful of systemic barriers to maintaining a healthy weight, but most involve cramming more food into your face than your system can handle. From to much food to food that’s bad for you, less of that is not a bad idea no matter what you weigh, but some public health experts are pushing in the other direction.

It is old-fashioned to think of weight as something to be managed with diet and exercise. What if it wasn’t? I worked with a cardiac nurse who says she eats more and weighs less after meeting with someone who is an expert on food and human health. Your primary care physician is probably not that expert, and they are not permitted to ask you about your weight,  at least not until you have a serious health complication caused by that weight.

Instead of connecting people to people who can help them with their diet, the next best step is drugs and surgery.

My diet was never great, but my work always included a level of activity that allowed me to eat nearly anything.  I burned it off so quickly that weight gain was never an issue. At some point, after both my job and I became less vigorous, I discovered that unknown to me, one of my hobbies was collecting plaque in my arteries. After an ambulance ride and two stents later, my diet got a lot better. I lost some extra pounds I didn’t need (though I was never even technically overweight), and at the age of sixty, I’m in a place I’d likely never have been had my body not shouted at me about it.

Staying in that place demands my attention, so the idea of everyone’s doctors being instructed to bail on the more traditional exercise, less food, and better food schemes for weight loss is disturbing. While cardiac issues might not be a foregone conclusion for the overweight and obese (unless they got jabbed twice or more), a host of other issues (around 200 of them) are more popular than ever. Type 2 diabetes is all the rage. If you have diabetes, you are at increased risk for heart disease, so that’s one way to get there from here. Is it too much to expect your patients to find the discipline to eat less or eat better and move more?

What are the odds they’ll be any more mindful of the need to take the medications you prescribe them, or are you even allowed to care?

Have you ever tried to take medication or injections regularly for the rest of your life? It’s not as easy as it sounds; it is also a lot more expensive, but that’s the new formula for weight loss success. Instead of adopting better habits, you need to remember to take the pills they prescribed you.

People in developed countries will no longer have severe or complex obesity in the future because of medical advances – but telling people to eat less and move more is not a treatment, a leading expert said yesterday.

Professor Donal O’Shea told doctors they must change their messaging to obese patients

Professor Donal O’Shea told doctors they must change their messaging to obese patients. “Eat less, move more is not the treatment of obesity – get over it,” he said. “Prevention is different from treatment.”

Speaking at the annual meeting of the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO), Prof O’Shea said there are 198 determinants of obesity and they fall in to seven groups – five of which are outside people’s control. …

The only line patients feel is acceptable from doctors is: “Is it OK to discuss your weight today?” said Prof O’Shea, who runs the obesity service in Loughlinstown Hospital, Dublin, and is the HSE lead on obesity.

Doctors could say: “Where are you on your weight journey?”

And no, he’s not thinking about Ozempic. He is looking past that to bigger and better chemical treatments for the chronically overweight. These are choices that will likely be incredibly expensive – at least initially – with some unwanted side effects. Much like it is with many meds, the argument will be that the good outweighs the bad. Maybe don’t use the word outweighs. It’s insensitive. Whatever the words you use, one of the known side effects is enriching big pharma. The mRNA platform taught us that. Medically unnecessary complications are necessary to ensure compliance and profits.

Kickbacks don’t kick themselves back, right Tony Fauci?

Alternatively, we could point ourselves back toward a culture that values hard work, exercise, and a bit of dietary discipline over a quick fix that lets you keep eating pizza on the couch. If things go sideways, it’s a short trip from where we are back to those values. Learn to farm and fight or die—size matters, not.

And no, I’m not averse to solutions to obesity for people who have a rare genetic disposition or even ‘addicts’ who need some short-term help. Still, the majority of overweight folks are victims of bad advice from food experts in the government and regulations that make it cheaper to mlousy bad food than good, alongside a culture that lionizes excess at the expense of everything else. I like couches and pizza, but had I known I was an artery plaque hobbyist; I’d have made changes before my heart tried to kill me and saved myself a lot of money and bother on maintenance medication.

Deciding that obesity is a disease and not just a bad habit and that drugs and surgery are the better solution to this burgeoning health crisis smells more like marketing than medicine. Although to be fair, there is a reasonable argument that this is also true of how they treat heart disease.

 

The post Obesity: Eating Less is Out – Drugs and Surgery Are In appeared first on Granite Grok.

A thread (eleven in all) from Marco Rubio on X well worth reading. In my words, not his … we are a country, not an economy. This is heresy to free-market ideologues like the Koch-bots, who believe that the “free market” is the end, NOT the means to an end … that end being a stronger, more prosperous country for ALL Americans, not just for Wall Street and Big Tech and the corporatist/globalist class.

It seems my recent articles on industrial policy in @PostOpinions and @NationalAffairs have ruffled some feathers. @JonahDispatch @veroderugy @ericboehm87 @cpgrabow

A short on how free-market fundamentalists go off the rails. 1/11

— Senator Marco Rubio (@SenMarcoRubio) April 12, 2024

Unrolled Thread

It seems my recent articles on industrial policy in @PostOpinions and @NationalAffairs have ruffled some feathers. @JonahDispatch @veroderugy @ericboehm87 @cpgrabow

A short on how free-market fundamentalists go off the rails. 1/11 

First, as a re-cap, my argument is that markets are efficient, but don’t always work in the best interests of our country – especially when adversaries like China skew global markets in their favor with theft and subsidies. That’s not good for America. 2/11  None of the critics offer a solution to this. They seem not to be bothered by America’s dependence on Communist China for everything from our medicines to the electronics we use in our missiles. They also seem to think America’s industrial base, and our workers, are basically fine. 3/11  No, really. As one of my critics put it, the “supposed” decline of American industry “is an imagined problem.” Tell that to the millions of American workers who lost their jobs after free traders let China into the WTO. 4/11  But let’s address the criticisms. How is our industrial base really doing? Output has stagnated the past decade and a half. Productivity has declined. Employment has plummeted. And America’s share of the world market for key goods, from cars to steel, has cratered. If that’s health, I’d hate to see sickness. 5/11  The critics claim industrial policy can never work. One says “if anything can go wrong, it probably will.” If that were really the case, then Neil Armstrong never would have walked on the Moon. But industrial policy worked then, just as it has in many other cases the critics refuse to acknowledge. 6/11  Can industrial policy go wrong? Of course. But doing nothing means letting nationless corporations and foreign adversaries dictate the terms of our economy. Only the federal government has the ability – and duty – to check those forces. 7/11  All the Founders understood this. The first bill they passed was a tariff. Ronald Reagan understood it, too. He hiked tariffs to stop Japan from destroying the American auto industry via subsidized export dumping. 8/11  In the end, free-market fundamentalists are a lot like progressives, because they are more subservient to ideologies (free-trade ideology on the one hand, climate-change and DEI ideology on the other) than they are to the national interest. 9/11  Deindustrialization has wreaked havoc on the working class, made us less resilient, and corrupted our culture. I welcome debate on how best to strengthen our national security and economy. 10/11 

The post Marco Making The Fwee-Marketeers Big Mad appeared first on Granite Grok.