An interesting article
by David
R. Baker in today’s (January 26) San Francisco Chronicle discusses the 2009 California
Green Innovation Index, a report conducted by the public policy group Next 10
tracks. The report concludes that
California has benefitted economically as a result of several energy-efficient
programs, projects, and regulations implemented since the 1970s. Over 30 years ago, California’s state
government began requiring energy-efficient appliances and buildings, and since
then these requirements have morphed into an extensive energy-conscious program
that includes efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, cut
“carbon-footprints,” and promote a variety of smart energy technologies,
including renewables and onsite power systems. One of the beneficial offshoots of this
focus on energy efficiency is the growth in the business sector made possible by
reduced energy costs: Less money spent paying the energy bill freed up funds to
invest in research and development, and to expand and improve a variety of
commercial ventures.
Whenever
the discussion turns to modifying the way things are currently done, there’s
always someone in the back of the room who raises their hand and points out that
change costs money. “Who’s going to
fund these new projects?” the naysayer may ask. “Do you know how much solar panels
cost?” another queries. There’s
always the fear that stepping away from the status quo (in this case, a
fossil-fuel, centralized-grid power delivery system) will eviscerate the bottom
line. This new report seems to
undercut these financial arguments, but what do you think? Are the assumptions behind this report
sound? Can it be successfully
argued that increased efficiency can actually save money?
To
read the article in the San Francisco Chronicle, click here