Dark Days for Energy Efficiency

Currently approximately 32% of Americans. [source]

Currently almost twice as many.
Unless you're saying that some people think that water walks on Bush, which I doubt because that's just silly.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Apr 27 2006, 01:41 AM) [snapback]245991[/snapback]</div>

Well, first of all, No Child Left Behind was/is a Bush initiative. So to limit "Bush bashing" but criticize NCLB seems odd.

Secondly, I work in the Educational Services department of a building controls company. Last year I wrote two classes addressing Energy Management and Effective Energy Usage. You can take my word for it or I can flood you with documents indicating that there are many companies implementing the energy efficiency techniques proposed and propelled by LEED, ASHRAE, Energy Star, and the myriad other energy consortiums. Those who implement the strategies see pay-back periods considerably shorter than they expected and profits driven by savings (unrealized expenses) exceeding their expectations. Unfortunately, the vast majority of our state-owned university customers, as well as schools and civil institutions are in no position to take advantage of the technology that exists.

But we all know that ROI involves investment. Not all companies are in the position to drop tens of thousands of dollars to buy the equipment needed plus the labor required to install it. If you personify those companies, it would go like this: "I know a guy who doesn't have much money. He would be able to save money if he bought a new car but he can't afford the new car so he continues to not have any money." If even half of the cost of implementing energy efficiency strategies were subsidized or even loaned by the government, more companies would be able to install the devices and start seeing real energy savings. Not only would they see a reduction in energy usage, we would too.

When I view energy efficiency, saving money is merely a by-product. When I think of the amount of gasoline I am not consuming in my Prius, that feeling of satisfaction overwhelms any concerns of pay-back. Most people are not directly paid to put their recyclables by the curb but yet they do it every week. Those facility managers who are purely money intended have every right to buy cheap and inefficient devices based purely on their purchase price and cost of installation. But they will lose money in the long-run based on wasted fuel. The money will hopefully be replenished next year but the energy is gone forever. No matter the fuel source, once you consume it, you can not consume it again. Developing hydropower is great, building slow-reacting nuclear plants would be good, increasing biofuel is really nice. No matter what fuel you use, conserving that fuel is always - let me repeat: always - a very good idea. Not only will it reduce our draw on petroleum today, it will lengthen the supply of tomorrow's fuel whatever that is. Installing LED stoplights (state of KY) last year reduces their draw of electricity forever.

If we're going to focus exclusively on government spending, then I the way I choose to approach it is pretty simple. I look at a dollar in my hand. I have a nearly limitless number of options how to spend that dollar: buy, invest, war, peace, promote, beat down. When we look at the number of dollars in our government hands and the options they choose to spend the money on, we either agree with them or we do not based upon how we would have spent that same dollar had it been in our own hands. Personally, I spend more to buy more efficient light bulbs, I spent my money buying a car that consumes less gasoline, and my company paid me to teach our employees how to reduce the amount of energy our customers consume (ISO 14001). When I look at my spending habits, I try to be proud of myself. When I see that our elected officials are going against what I stand for, I am annoyed and ashamed and democratically obligated to voice my opinion as loud as I can.