Maybe I should clarify my comments. Really what I was intending to say is that building codes do get thrown around a lot, in some respects, as a good regulatory mechanism. Obviously, that opinion is not shared. The point I really wanted to make is that, actually, for existing buildings, building codes do very little, because you don't trigger code reviews in an existing building very often, unless you're doing a major renovation.
Given that 75% plus of what will be the building stock over the next 30 years exists today, building codes, while they're a tool to address new construction, are not necessarily going to do very much in terms of the vast majority of buildings that are out there. I would recommend other policy tools. Building codes get a lot of attention and I think they're an important forward-looking mechanism, but in terms of tackling the problem we have today, I don't think we should put too much emphasis on how much difference they're going to make.
I do think it's important for building codes.... They set a floor on the market. The way I always look at incentives is that they are really great for enticing the leaders in the market, but you need some regulatory sticks to compel some of the laggards to do the right thing. I think that's where building codes can come in, but as I said, certainly for existing buildings—which is where I spend the vast majority of my time—building codes aren't going to make much of a difference at all.