Homebuyers prefer glitz to green

A new survey of consumers shows that "energy efficiency" isn't a very popular home improvement option:

Just 69% of the 504 consumers polled in August by Shelton Group, a Knoxville, Tenn., marketing firm, would favor one house over another based on energy efficiency, down from 86% a year ago.

However, the other survey results are more complicated:

Consumers want proof that an energy-efficient home will save them money in the long run in order to justify the generally higher cost of such a home, Shelton claims.

Of course they do. That's kind of the point of energy efficiency, isn't it?

As it stands, ‘energy-efficient’ is consistently equated to ‘more expensive’ in the minds of consumers for products across the board,” Shelton said.

Well, that's probably because no one talks about "payback periods." If light bulb A costs twice that of bulb B, I may choose B. And then discover two years later that bulb A would still be working while B has been replaced. Think ahead, people.

When asked what they would buy if given an extra $10,000 to build a new home, 26% of survey respondents chose granite countertops, compared with 24% who favored an energy-efficient HVAC system. Twenty-one percent chose “additional tile or hardwood,” the same percentage who favored “upgraded or additional energy-efficient kitchen appliances.” (emphasis original)

This just makes me sad. Granite countertops are the latest home improvement fad, like stainless steel appliances or track lighting. Just wait 10 years and let's see what ends up being more valuable: those stone countertops or a high-efficiency air conditioner that gives you more disposable income...

Election Roundup

There's little doubt among political pundits, or from political polls, that Democrats will take over the U.S. House of Representatives when the results are in next week. While it's a complicated math game of the 435 seats, the polls - which are more frequent in the tossup seats - show that Democrats could have as much as a 30-seat advantage when Congress reconvenes in January.

The Senate is much closer and all the more interesting for it. An MIT researcher put statistical analysis to the polls of the Senate seats up for election and found that it would be 50.3 Republicans and 49.7 Democrats. It all comes down to 4 states: NJ, VA, TN, and MO. Democrats are fairly likely to win in NJ, a feat which would put them at 49 seats. A pickup in any of the remaining three makes the Senate even (with Dick Cheney the tiebreaker) and if Dems get 2/3 of the seats in VA, TN, and MO (unlikely according to the polls), they'd have outright control of Congress. We'll see...

Finally, a little look at voter turnout. A George Mason University professor claims that we've been calculating voter turnout incorrectly for years, underestimating turnout by counting ineligible adults (immigrants and felons) as part of the voting age population when calculating turnout. His revised turnout figures show an approximate 5-point increase in national election turnout in 2004 (almost equal to the high points in the 1960s). However, his claim that the revised figures erase the therory of declining turnout doesn't hold water, since there were still substantial declines from the early 60s until the mid-90s. True, turnout has rebounded and the revised figures give a more accurate picture, but let's not be revisionists.

Note: One reason the numbers needed revision is the inordinate number of convicted felons who have lost their voting rights: an estimated 4.6 million in 2000, more than a third of which had completed their sentence.

Finally, state legislatures are also in the balance this election, and as they control Congressional redistricting, it will be interesting to see if Democrats take over in several states and if they start some Texas-style line-drawing.