Is Blue the next Green....

[webbie]

Ah, the politics of energy. A topic which I have thought about often. Is it really true that certain parts of the country care less about energy efficiency and other parts care more? Does the thought of someone from TX or SC driving around in a big (empty) pickup and going home to a house with air conditioning on full blast have any basis in reality.

Heck if I know....but sometimes it seems so.

Well, to add to that perception, here is a recent study from the ACEEE, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

(broken link removed)

This study grades the states with a scorecard as to how they are leading the way in efficiency.

Without further ado, the results:

1. Vermont, Connecticut, and California (tie)
4. Massachusetts
5. Oregon
6. Washington
7. New York
8. New Jersey
9. Rhode Island, Minnesota (tie)

Hmmm, interesting. Those states are all considered "blue", and some of the leaders (ma, ca, vt) are usually the laughing stock of the conservatives due to their "socialist" policies.

And don't think the number were too close -
"The top ten states earn scores between 20 and 33 out of a possible 44 points, and the next fifteen states’ scores trail fairly moderately behind: all score more than 10 points, up to 17.5 points. The bottom 26 states, however, seriously lag behind the other states, scoring between 0.5 and 10 points.'

Wow, that's a big difference......some states are 10X as high as the "losers".

The study ranks a number of items, such as:
1. Spending on Utility and Public Benefits Energy Efficiency Programs
2. Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS)
3. Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
4. Building Energy Codes
5. Transportation Policies
6. Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards
7. Tax Incentives
8. State Lead by Example and Research & Development

When it comes to politics, it appears that "conservatism" does not mean conserving!

 

[wahoowad]

Funny, I'm seeing a LOT of people from these states moving South. Maybe the policies are more from socialist governments and not necessarily representative of the people. If they were you'd think they would stay up there instead of moving down here. And, to top it off, these "conservation minded" folk build new houses out in the country at the expense of farmland and woodland. Then they file lawsuits and complain because the farmer has stinky cows.

 

[webbie]

I know one that moved south also!

But Mass. population has remained pretty steady for quite awhile, so I doubt that really figures in. Although, I think you are correct in that when we move, we tend to adopt the life style in the new place....not the cow part, but if I moved to Hilton Head, I've have to put the air conditioning on for a lot of the year!

Obviously, these studies do not pertain to each individual - but they do provide a picture of STATES that are leading in the new "efficient" economy. To take it down to each person who moves down south would be like me saying "Oh, those damn southerners are using computers and software built by people in California...and using them to complain about me complaining about them!"

You get the picture! We are all guilty in terms of failing to pursue the "war on inefficiency" with enough vigor. As an interesting note, at the GOP Prez debate the other night, virtually ALL of the candidates....without being asked....talked up the idea of a new economy based on efficiency and renewables.

In a political sense, that means they are trying to take that issue from the Greens/Blues. Personally, that is fine with me....as long as the actual result is the same. I don't care who leads it, but we need a "war on poor efficiency" in order to take our country forward.

Personally, I am proud that my current and former states are in the top ten. But it is not really a competition. It is an ongoing effort.

 

[BrotherBart]

"In a political sense, that means they are trying to take that issue from the Greens/Blues. Personally, that is fine with me....as long as the actual result is the same. I don’t care who leads it, but we need a “war on poor efficiency” in order to take our country forward."

And the year that a campaign issue/promise didn't evaporate the day after the election was when exactly?

 

[Eric Johnson]

I think it's a fact. I don't know about a North/South thing, but political orientation seems to be directly related to energy use and interest in conservation. Our friend castiron and a few others on this board may be exceptions, but in my experience, "liberals" like me tend to like things like mountain bikes, cross country skiing, fuel-efficient imported cars, windsurfing, canoes, etc., while "conservatives" tend to go more for things like snowmobiles, Hummers, speedboats and the like.

For whatever ideological reasons, Republican politicians tend to oppose tougher emissions and fuel economy standards, while Democratic legislators tend to favor them.

So it doesn't surprise me that a "blue" state like New York is in the top ten, while a "red" state like Texas winds up at or near the bottom of the list. What intrigues me is that many Texans are probably proud of it!

 

[Rhone]

Without further ado, the results:

1. Vermont, Connecticut, and California (tie)
4. Massachusetts
5. Oregon
6. Washington
7. New York
8. New Jersey
9. Rhode Island, Minnesota (tie)

Hmmm, interesting. Those states are all considered “blue”, and some of the leaders (ma, ca, vt) are usually the laughing stock of the conservatives due to their “socialist” policies.

I think it has to do more with rich vs. poor. Looking at this site (broken link removed to http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank29.html) you mention

Connecticut which ranks 1st, Mass is 2nd, New Jersey 3rd, New York 5th, Minnesota 8th, Washington 11th, California 12th, Rhode Island 16th, Vermont 19th, Oregon 36th. Talking about Blue and Red states, interesting how the richest people in the nation are Democrat and the poorest are Republican? I've always argued Democrats are the richest people and it's pretty hard to argue when the Democrat blue states dominate the top half and the Republican Red states dominate the lower income half. The Democrats living in the top blue states can afford hybrids, and insulation, and afford new appliances that are energy efficient, and afford to pass laws onto their ilk forcing them to be more energy efficient they, and their people can afford it. The Republicans who are statistically the poor living in the bottom ranked states would probably love to afford a new Hybrid, or new efficient appliances but they're driving beater-uppers and trying to make a living and can't afford such luxuries.

Vermont I was pretty surprised to see it ranked 19th I thought it more like around 30. Vermont is high because it advertises clean air, and tries to be "green" and "environmental" for tourism reasons, and tries to attract the what I call Nut and Crunches. I'm happy to see it looks like they're successful in attracting and doing what they advertise. California, the air doesn't move so they have to be clean, Blue or Red state.

 

[Eric Johnson]

I think forced conservation, specifically raising fuel economy standards, would result in lower gas prices over time, and automotive competition on the level playing field would tend to keep vehicle prices under control. So that would help lower-income people. But the Republicans oppose that. I don't know why.

Much better scrutiny of the oil industry would no doubt result in lower energy costs, since we're obviously all being taken to the cleaners by Big Oil with their huge profits and "unreliable" refineries. But I bet Republican legislators oppose that, too.

Finally, I was struck by the argument made by the Big Three U.S. automakers yesterday when they testified in Washington. They complained that higher fuel economy standards would, among other things, put them at a "competitive disadvantage." Say what? The only way that could put them at a "competitive disadvantage" would be if they haven't put as much R&D into making fuel efficient vehicles as their foreign competitors. And I fail to see how that's relevant, especially in a free market. Betcha see some Republican politicians carrying the water for them on that one, too.

 

[webbie]

Rhone, I think it is much more complicated than rich vs. poor, although I did notice that the winning states were relatively well off.....

BUT, here are some points that we should pay attention to:

As you say, VT and even Ca are not in the top ten of wealthiest, but are #1 in green.

NH is one of the wealthiest, but does not make the green list. This is because the state is much less blue - and more libertarian, which would work against energy efficiency in general. In other words, if you have money - and can pay the energy bills or for a big truck, a NH resident is likely to do just that.

Then there is the factor of whether making more money means you are richer. In Ma. or CT or CA, property prices are so high that it costs 2x to 3x as much for the same amount of square feet as in Kansas or Texas, etc. - also higher taxation in some of these place, with the end result being that the consumer does not always have more $$ in his or her pocket just because the state is high in income.

I have lived and traveled extensively in the south, and I can assure you that McMansions are sprouting up on a level we have not seen here in New England. Some of the reason that certain states show very low income is the great disparity among the population from the richest to the poorest - SC probably being a good example of this. Vast numbers of very wealthy residents (and they do not buy Priuses or small houses), and also vast numbers of REALLY REALLY dirt poor folks, who do buy double-wides and pickup trucks (with large loans).

Then there is the education factor. Some of the more efficient states have more educated populaces.

Taking my little corner of the world as an example, the three or four counties around me in Western Ma. are quite poor. Nothing like the Boston area. Yet there is a lot of effort and industry geared toward sustainability, from local farms to public transportation, to walkable downtowns, etc. --- There are also a lot of Priuses on the road, as well as veggie-oil powered cars, bicycles, etc. - Lot of bike paths.

People in different places make different decisions as to what they do with their money. In South Florida, there is a VAST amount of money and wealthy people, but a Bentley or a new S-Class Mercedes is the vehicle of choice. There is no thought whatsoever of saving energy down there (as a general rule).

NY State is another place with a vast poor population, both urban and rural. Yet they score high, with our own Eric being an example of someone who lives off the bounty of the earth (wood/garden, etc.).

 

[BrotherBart]

In the six hundred miles between Fort Worth and El Paso the only way to conserve energy is to fry your breakfast on the sidewalk.

No firewood and a garden does not stand a chance in hell.

 

[begreen]

Yeah BB, but one helluva solar potential. Actually I have a friend with folks in Ropes, TX (near Lubbock). They have trees and a garden. Civilization does manage to exist in some harsh places.

 

[BrotherBart]

Yeah BB, but one helluva solar potential. Actually I have a friend with folks in Ropes, TX (near Lubbock). They have trees and a garden. Civilization does manage to exist in some harsh places.

I used to live in Lubbock. They will have a garden as long as that rapidly depleting aquifer holds up. When you fly into Lubbock from the East you can look down as the plane starts the decend and see a field with one lone tree in it. Only one for miles. There is a fence all around it and it looks like they take very good care of that tree.

PS: Being up on the Caprock Lubbock isn't as arid as it is a hundred miles South of there. Heck they sometimes get up to twenty inches of rain in a year.

 

[begreen]

Yes, the decreasing aquifer is a serious issue. Ropes's population decreased to half in the past 35 years. My friend's folks have retired from farming. I sure couldn't live there, but then again, the only place I could probably survive in Texas is Austin.