Some big changes can be viewed of as investments. Not investments where you give money to a financial institution. No, investment where you purchase something big that gives a financial return through lower fuel bills or equivalent. You could call it ecological economics.

A common response to this sort of investing is something like “I’m not going to live long enough in this house to get a benefit so I will not bother”. Let’s think about this. First from an integral ecological perspective then from a purely economic perspective.

Integral Ecology. Doing something when we will not benefit much, if it is the right thing, is a charitable act. After all, do we really own anything in this world or are we really just custodians?

Pure Economics. The argument often overlooks the increase in value of the asset as a result of doing the positive change. There are mixed stories in the media about things like the value of the property after solar photovoltaic panels are installed. Clearly there are times when the value could be affected negatively and these could be as a result of system ownership being with a third party, panel aesthetics, actual system benefit, lack of paperwork for building and electrical approvals and so on. However there are many good examples where the property value is enhanced by the system. As climate change becomes more evident and the need to act becomes more crucial over the next few years, the pressure on governments to impose carbon taxes may enhance further the asset value of low carbon properties.

Can you see a home project as an investment and not as a cost?