The New York Times’ editorial board has a new rule: Buy lumber.
The paper says this because it believes lumber is the least-expensive form of energy to generate.
If you don’t have the energy to build a house, you’ll be better off buying a house and putting it in a wood-burning fireplace, rather than the traditional home insulation.
The new rule is aimed at helping homeowners who live in communities that aren’t insulated from natural gas or electricity.
It’s the latest effort by the paper to encourage homeowners to take advantage of the energy-saving technologies that are gaining traction.
The editorial board, which is made up of editors from all of the major newspapers, says the “new rules are a way to encourage homebuyers to consider energy efficiency as part of the choice when buying a home.”
The paper doesn’t mention any specific home building materials, but it did offer some tips on how to make the most of a home’s energy savings.
For example, it says to look for products that can produce power from wood and biomass, which have been around for decades.
It also suggests that buyers of wood-framed homes and appliances that produce heat from wood or solar panels should consider the value of a wood chimney or fireplace.
For some people, it may be easier to put a wood fire in the fireplace rather than a solar panel, the paper says.
And while some homes are already getting a lot of energy from solar panels, many are not.
“Most homeowners who are getting a little bit more efficiency from their home are putting that energy into a wood fireplace,” said Michael O’Sullivan, the chief marketing officer for The Woodhouse Company, a home-building company based in New York City.
The rule could also encourage more homeowners to buy energy-efficient appliances.
“People are getting really excited about the fact that it’s energy efficient,” said Andrew Leong, an energy expert at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a Washington think tank.
“It’s not as if we’re at a tipping point.”
Some experts have also questioned whether a rule that is aimed squarely at homeowners could help other households in the long term.
The United States has an estimated carbon footprint of over 300,000 metric tons, or about 13,400 cars, for every 100 Americans, according to the International Energy Agency.
“There is an argument to be made that a rule about energy efficiency would actually make more sense in the short term, but that argument will be undermined in the decades ahead if we don’t take a long-term approach to this issue,” said Leong.
“The energy efficiency rule will likely have little impact on the overall level of energy use and carbon emissions.”
The Energy Department has also said that energy efficiency rules will only have a marginal impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
But the U.S. is already one of the most energy-dependent countries in the world, according the United Nations.
And even if the U-shaped rule doesn’t have a direct impact on emissions, the energy efficiency industry says it could help reduce energy bills.
“If the U is going to be the new green house, it will have to be built with a little more green,” said Scott Brown, director of the Energy Efficiency Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
“We don’t know what will happen.
But if it can reduce your bill by 15 percent or 20 percent, you’re going to see a big improvement.”
The U.N. estimates that energy-efficiency programs could save consumers between $3.8 billion and $5.2 billion a year.
“For homes with a budget of $1,000 or less, the average cost of energy efficiency programs is $40,” said Mark R. Karpowitz, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“Even if it means you’re paying a bit more than $50 a month, that’s a significant improvement.”
For more stories on energy and the environment, follow APs Environment coverage on Facebook and Twitter.