評論
打印
Financing energy efficiency
能源效率融資
Money for nothing
錢不是萬能的
Green loans are proving less popular among homeowners than expected
事實證明綠色貸款在房主中并不如預期受歡迎
RETROFITTING houses to use less energy should be a no-brainer for homeowners. Over time, money spent on ways to reduce heat loss from draughty houses should produce a handsome return in lower fuel bills. In practice, many are cautious. Some improvements, such as solid-wall insulation and solar panels, can take over 25 years to cover their initial cost. Few owners are willing to wait that long: by then many are likely to have sold up and moved on.
對于大多數(shù)房主來說為了節(jié)能而翻新房屋是一件再簡單不過的事了。房主把錢花在運用某些方法上使透風的房子能夠減少熱損失，隨著時間的推移，這些錢應該會因為低額的燃料費而產(chǎn)生豐厚的回報。但是事實上，大多數(shù)屋主還是很謹慎的。像換上絕緣墻、太陽能電池板這樣的翻新措施往往要花上超過25年的時間才能回本。大多數(shù)房主都不愿意這么做，因為到那時很多人可能已經(jīng)把房子賣掉了或者已經(jīng)搬走了。
Several governments have started finance schemes designed to address this problem. Since 2008 PACE programmes have offered American homeowners loans to finance improvements, repaid through higher local taxes on the property, whoever it belongs to. In Britain, the Green Deal offers loans over a 25-year period, with repayments added to energy bills. Countries including France and Canada have similar initiatives.
一些政府已經(jīng)為解決此問題而開始了融資計劃。2008年以來，“清潔能源財產(chǎn)評估”計劃已經(jīng)為很多美國房主提供了低息貸款，以資助他們進行房屋設施的翻新改善。這種貸款通過對該房屋征收更高的地方稅而得以償還。在英國，“綠色協(xié)議”會提供超過25年期的貸款，該貸款通過追加能源賬單而得以償還。包括法國、加拿大在內(nèi)的國家也采取了類似的舉措。
In theory, these schemes should boost investment in common energy-saving measures, such as extra insulation and new boilers, as the first owner does not have to pay all the costs upfront. But enrolment rates have disappointed, according to Sean Kidney at the Climate Bonds Initiative, a think-tank. In Britain, just 1% of those assessed for the Green Deal have signed up. In Berkeley, California, home of the first PACE scheme, the take-up rate is similarly paltry.
按理說，這些方案應該會促進在節(jié)能措施上的投資，比如在購買額外的絕緣設備和新的熱水器的時候，首次購買者不必預先支付所有費用。但是根據(jù)來自氣候債券倡議智囊團的肖恩·基德尼所說，這些方案的采納率令人失望。在英國，僅有1%同意簽署了“綠色協(xié)議”。在“清潔能源財產(chǎn)評估”計劃出臺的地方，也就是加利福尼亞州的伯克利，該方案的采納率也是非常得低。
Homeowners are unimpressed chiefly because the interest rates on the loans look high. The Green Deal charges 7%; some PACE schemes a hefty 8%. As these rates are fixed for decades, they will inevitably look unattractive when short-term interest rates are low.
房主不愿意采納這些方案的主要原因是看似頗高的貸款利率。“綠色協(xié)議”提供的貸款利率為7%，“清潔能源財產(chǎn)評估”計劃提供的貸款利率更是達到了相對較高的8%。盡管這些利率將保持幾十年不變，但是在短期利率較低的時候，就像現(xiàn)在，這些利率就不可避免地看上去毫無吸引力。
Many people also doubt they will save enough on their energy bills to cover the repayments. For instance, claims in Britain that installing loft insulation can cut energy bills by 20% have been dented by a government study that found it reduced gas consumption by only 1.7% on average. Others fear that green loans may reduce the value of their home. In America, firms that underwrite mortgages are hostile to PACE loans.
許多人也會懷疑自己是否能節(jié)省下足夠的能源費用來支付貸款在英國，有人宣稱，安裝閣樓絕緣材料能砍掉20%的能源費用，但一項政府研究打擊了這一斷言，該研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，該材料平均僅能降低1.7%的天然氣消耗。而其他人則擔心綠色貸款會使自己的房屋貶值。在美國，抵押貸款的承銷公司堅決反對“清潔能源財產(chǎn)評估”計劃提供貸款。
Green loans have not been a flop everywhere. Around 250,000 households in Germany sign up for them each year. They do so because they need pay only 1% interest on them each year, thanks to an annual public subsidy of 1.5 billion. Whether that is an efficient use of taxpayers’ money is another question.
然而，綠色貸款也不是在哪兒都遭遇窘境。在德國，每年都有近25萬戶人家會簽署綠色貸款協(xié)議。他們這樣做的原因是每年他們只需要為此支付1%的利息，因為每年政府都會發(fā)放15億歐元（約21億美元）的公共財政補貼。然而這是否是有效利用納稅人的錢又成了另一個問題。
