Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-20-2008, 01:49 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,656,174 times
Reputation: 13635

Advertisements

Saw this interesting article today describing all of the positive economic impacts energy conservation has had in the state over the last 35 years. It's nice to see that we are doing something right...

"California has saved about $56 billion in electricity costs and created 1.5 million jobs over 35 years by using energy more efficiently than other states, according to a new study."

"The average Californian now uses about 40 percent less electricity than the average American. That means the $56 billion that Californians would have spent on electricity between 1972 and 2006 could be spent on goods and services that create more jobs than energy, most of which is imported from other states and countries, according to the study."

SignOnSanDiego.com > News > State -- Report: California saves money by saving energy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-20-2008, 01:55 PM
 
Location: South Bay
7,226 posts, read 22,197,011 times
Reputation: 3626
maybe because as a whole, we have much better weather than the rest of the country. if we had the head and humidity in the summer and the cold, snow winters, that the northeast has, we'd probably be well over the average. you have to put this in perspective. i think the report is misleading.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 01:56 PM
 
Location: RSM
5,113 posts, read 19,764,799 times
Reputation: 1927
Im sure we also are leaders in water conservation(at least in so cal) as we've always had to combat our lack of water resources
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 01:57 PM
 
21,621 posts, read 31,207,908 times
Reputation: 9776
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRinSM View Post
maybe because as a whole, we have much better weather than the rest of the country. if we had the head and humidity in the summer and the cold, snow winters, that the northeast has, we'd probably be well over the average. you have to put this in perspective. i think the report is misleading.
Same here. Also the COL out there almost forces people to conserve.

A very misleading report indeed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 02:06 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,656,174 times
Reputation: 13635
I don't see how this report is "misleading". If we had done nothing over the past 35 years we would be using more energy overall. We would probably still use less energy than other states b/c of our climate but we are using even less b/c of our conservation efforts. Our climate is not the only reason we use less energy.

Also the cost of living in many northeast cities is just as bad as CA when you factor in higher taxes and housing costs just as high, yet they are still using more energy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 02:16 PM
 
21,621 posts, read 31,207,908 times
Reputation: 9776
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Also the cost of living in many northeast cities is just as bad as CA when you factor in higher taxes and housing costs just as high, yet they are still using more energy.
True, NY/CT/NJ is similar in cost but we also have very cold winters out here where the heat is constantly on. Gas in CA is also about 20-30 cents more than it is in the most expensive parts of the Northeast (with a few exceptions) so with prices being that high, people have no choice but to conserve. With that, yes Californians do use less energy but not by choice is all I'm saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 02:34 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,656,174 times
Reputation: 13635
Higher prices do force people to conserve and I think that is part of the reason CA has a "culture" of conservation. I think that is more of a positive than negative though, it punishes people for wasteful habits.

But I think overall CA has a culture of conservation. Water has always been a major issue in CA and periodic droughts/water shortages have been part of our history. Also with recycling, CA has been a major leader with this effort and many of our cities have the highest recycling rates in the country. The Bay Area I believe recycles more of their waste than any other region in the country. With a lot of people using the same resources we have learned to adapt by conserving and to me that's a good thing overall and others elsewhere should take note since our resources become more scarce every year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 08:21 PM
 
Location: los angeles
5,032 posts, read 12,610,547 times
Reputation: 1508
Interesting report that illustrates the state's leadership on "green" issues. The Bush administration has intentionally held back California for years in implementing stronger conservation & energy policies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 08:38 PM
 
Location: Las Flores, Orange County, CA
26,329 posts, read 93,761,592 times
Reputation: 17831
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRinSM View Post
maybe because as a whole, we have much better weather than the rest of the country. if we had the head and humidity in the summer and the cold, snow winters, that the northeast has, we'd probably be well over the average. you have to put this in perspective. i think the report is misleading.
The metric for comparison (if anyone feels like digging this up) is "cooling degree days" and "heating degree days" which are day-degrees over/under 65F. A place like DC or St Louis is very hot in summer and cold in winter. Lots of CDD and HDD. California (like near the coast) has low CDD and HDD.


Also, the report mentioned "in the past 35 years" (or something like that); Which state has the biggest growth in the past 35 years? It stands to reason that California would have a higher proportion of newer, energy efficient homes. For every one new, energy star home built in Illinois, there might have been 20 built in California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 09:51 AM
 
Location: North Jersey, NJ
142 posts, read 212,311 times
Reputation: 25
It's might be because of the heat and A/C.

In California, especially Southern parts of the state does not need any A/C or Heat on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top