I know I wind up many members on here because I dare to disbelieve in Global Warming (or climate change) caused by humans, but I DO believe in energy efficiency and moving away from dirty fuels. Just read the following UK article which has proved a fascinating insight into the differencies between the differeing US States. One thing that surprised me was that Californias tough energy efficiency rules have meant consumption per capita remaining flat in California for 30 years, while it has risen by 50% elsewhere in the US. Yet Californian residents seem to have a rather nice standard of living. So it proves that you can been greener AND still enjoy a good lifestyle. BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | US leads search for climate solutions
CA is certainly the greenest state in terms of regulation. They are not the first state to enact GHG cap and trade, but it appears the CA regulation will be a bit more extensive. The northeastern states cap started 2 years ago with RGGI, but that only covers power plants. The CA reg will also cover large industrial boilers/heaters, and will expand to transportation fuels in 2015. It's unclear how the AB32 regs will tie in with WCI.. but WCI has largely been reduced to CA, OR and WA due to political forces (Canadian provinces are also involved in WCI but I don't know much about that). CA does have a lot of agriculture, though, especially strawberries which generally utilize toxic chemicals as fumigants. California recently approved the use of methyl iodide on strawberry fields (this was a replacement for methyl bromide, an ozone depletor). And they tend to use more single-occupancy auto than some other areas of the country. NJ might actually be the greenest in terms of emissions (highest mass transit usage and density, plus strict emission regs similar to CA), but there's isn't any reliable data for state-level GHG emissions.. and even that approach is misleading since California supplies a good bit of the nation's food and those emissions should really be counted towards where the food is consumed. And there is the obvious downside that the cost of living in CA is the highest in the nation except for Hawaii. Whether part of this increased cost is due to environmental regulations is another debate..
Grumpy, I'd have to say (as a part time resident of California) that we are NOT the greenest ... but rather average with our waste and pollution. Sure ... we use hydroelectric, nuke, wind, geothermal, PV, promote energy star efficient appliances and CFL's etc ... but about 1/2 of our fuels (the dirty filthy half) come from "outsourcing". In fact a neighboring state is busy building a coal fired electric generating station that CA will heavily utilize. Off-shoring our polution IMO is hypocratical. We send out of country and out of state for paint jobs, chrome jobs, dirty fuels etc. We ought to be wiping the smug off our faces. Yes, there's a good intent, but a bad result. And since we are by far the largest state, our out-of-state filth is substantial.
While I don't know the answer in any case, it would depend to great extent on what metric you choose to use. Per capita emissions? Total state emissions? Regulatory environment? Clearly, since the 1960's California has taken the lead on many environmental issues, and deserve credit for taking that lead. That doesn't assume that citizens on average are any 'greener' than those elsewhere. It seems to be a question that is not really relevant. The bigger issue is who is taking the leadership, and in the words of the right, "stuffing regulations down our throats" that ultimately benefits all. California clearly has been a leader. Without California's lead, how long would we have waited for lead free gas? How long before a real attempt at limiting carbon? How long before CAFE standards?
