Natwerk Designs - Should the rest of the USA follow California's lead in becoming more energy efficient?

Should the rest of the USA follow California's lead in becoming more energy efficient?

A detailed new economic analysis “Energy Efficiency, Innovation, and Job Creation in California” finds: "Over the past thirty-five years, innovative energy efficiency policies created 1.5 million additional fulltime jobs with a total payroll of over $45 billion. Looking forward, the report finds that if California improves energy efficiency by just 1 percent per year, proposed state climate policies will increase the Gross State Product (GSP) by approximately $76 billion, increase real household incomes by up to $48 billion and create as many as 403,000 new jobs." http://are.berkeley.edu/~dwrh/CERES_Web/Docs/UCB%20Energy%20Innovation%20and%20Job%20Creation%2010-20-08.pdf As a result of these energy efficiency policies, California also uses 40% less electricity per person than the rest of America. http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/20/green-policies-in-california-created-15-million-jobs/ Do you think the rest of the country should follow California's lead on energy efficiency?

Public Comments

No. California is obscenely in debt, financially insolvent, and to a significant degree uses less energy because of a temperate climate. Perhaps California should start using only the water that it produces instead of sucking entire rivers dry.
Sounds like a no-brainer, doesn't it? Good question.
blimey dana i was just reading about that http://www.grist.org/news/ yes, the whole developed world should be looking to green development and a new 'green deal' to see us through the looming recession and into the new sustainable steady state economy. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/a-green-new-deal-can-save-the-worlds-economy-says-un-958696.html
They created 403 thousand fantasy jobs and lost how many? I like energy efficiency. I moved into a home in Southern California and found that my house was extremely poorly insulated. I paid 200 dollars and lots of sore knees insulating my attic and putting in attic fans. Since then, not only is my house much more comfortable, it has more than paid for itself in lower energy. There are certainly some things that make sense. These are relatively easily put into building codes. Most of the rest of the country already knew about insulation since it is too cold and or hot elsewhere. Regarding the rest of the suggestions, some make sense. It is implementation of them that needs to be conducted in a reasonable and cost effective way. I don't think California has done that much to be proud of. They can't stop spending and wasting everyone's money.
With a 7.7 percent unemployment rate as of August 2008, I would have to question whether or not the 1.5 million full-time jobs that you cite really mean anything. If you drill back through the Bureau of Labor Statistics data, you will find that Cali experienced much better times in terms of employment. The 1.5 million jobs allegedly gained in the 'energy efficiency' sector came at the expense of how many other non-energy efficiency jobs?? At this point in time, I don't want to live in a State that has almost 8 percent unemployment. Please enlighten me.
Whatever new jobs have been created in California more than offset by its devastating high unemployment rate. Californians use less energy per person,also includes those that are idled by the lack of jobs. Additionally, the greatest amount of the population lives in a climate friendly environment with little demand for eating and cooling. Its like asking if every state should should build a Hoover Dam.
I think if you want to make a difference you should adopt a strategy such as Texas. State Windpower Population Texas 5.6 Gigawatts 23 Million California 2.4 Gigawatts 33 Million Practice what you preach, per captita Texas outshines California big time in renewable energy production, which is more important than conservation.
Dana------ California is BROKE, and looking for a Federal bail-out.
NO ! I under stand how misery loves company .
Considering the cost of living ranges from moderate to excessive. Very few people can afford home ownership, less then 2% in LA. The median price of a home in CAL exceeds a half a mill compared to 213,000 in places of higher employment such as Atlanta and the cost of living is well below average. But as whole the ACEEE which started the rankings in 2006 does show energy reductions.There's also the issue of unemployment as opposed to job seekers, underemployed or those that can't register. I really don't have much faith in gov statistics, they always leave out pertinent facts for the benefit of political association. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_home_price
Absolutely. Alternative energy is both great for economic, as well as environmental purposes.
Yes, they should. It will probably happen as soon as Bush gets out of the way.
yes why wouldn't anybody want to do that?
Ixnay on "green jobs" - all publicly funded job creation comes at the expense of private sector job creation - it's like drawing water from one end of the bathtub and pouring it into the other: no net gain. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/green_jobs.html
Yes, efficiency is good for the economy but not necessarily for the environment. If you do not switch away from polluting technologies like fossil fuels (including fossil fuel power that is imported from other states as California does) then Jevons paradox presents the very real risk that your efficiency improvements will actually make things worse for the environment. Of course increased wealth does tend to make more people more environmentally conscious since they can afford to care about the planet and the more money society has the more likely society is going to be to deal with its problems effectively.