> The architect said to me that we'll never fully recoup our costs of putting the hat on the house. To which I replied that we don't always to things for economic reasons, and just do them because they are the right thing to do.
I am so frustrated with this analysis and sentiment when it comes to environmental investment. I understand that looking at it with a financial lens can and should be done to inform what we do, and it would be great if a project just paid for itself, but you look at all the other things we spend money on and the same calculus is not used.
People don't buy the cheapest car, house, clothing, or food they could possibly get by with, or analyze the marginal cost of moving up or down the possible price tiers available to them with only the financial payback as a guide. Yet we constantly hear the refrain that you shouldn't spend a given amount of money on solar, house improvements, appliances, etc. that might be better for the environment if the payback isn't somehow positive with a 10-20 year payback period.
I've constantly had to work with contractors to let them know that I still want to pay for the marginal costs associated with investment even knowing that the marginal financial benefit is smaller. For instance, with solar panels in less than ideal locations, tri-pane windows, etc. I have disposable income, and I think the world is trouble for the 8+ billion humans inhabiting it, so I think it's worthwhile that I would spend some of that to make it marginally better even if that means I don't have a positive financial return.
Hi, we’re Gravie. We improve the way employers offer health benefits and provide employees coverage they can actually use. We’re looking for a Senior Platform Engineer to support our application infrastructure as we grow. Our ideal candidate is a highly motivated, goal-oriented, team-focused engineer with a passion for automating systems and infrastructure.
I am so frustrated with this analysis and sentiment when it comes to environmental investment. I understand that looking at it with a financial lens can and should be done to inform what we do, and it would be great if a project just paid for itself, but you look at all the other things we spend money on and the same calculus is not used.
People don't buy the cheapest car, house, clothing, or food they could possibly get by with, or analyze the marginal cost of moving up or down the possible price tiers available to them with only the financial payback as a guide. Yet we constantly hear the refrain that you shouldn't spend a given amount of money on solar, house improvements, appliances, etc. that might be better for the environment if the payback isn't somehow positive with a 10-20 year payback period.
I've constantly had to work with contractors to let them know that I still want to pay for the marginal costs associated with investment even knowing that the marginal financial benefit is smaller. For instance, with solar panels in less than ideal locations, tri-pane windows, etc. I have disposable income, and I think the world is trouble for the 8+ billion humans inhabiting it, so I think it's worthwhile that I would spend some of that to make it marginally better even if that means I don't have a positive financial return.