My house was built in 1923. It cost me $7000 to upgrade my mechanical system. I will never pay that back in energy savings before the system is out of date and needs to be replaced again. I believe the price reflects the amount of energy that went into making the new system, so if I can’t save over $7000 in it’s lifespan, is it green? I did the upgrade for personal comfort. I guess I am saying going green is rarely what people think it is, even when retrofitting, although retrofitting is far better than new building. To invest in green technology, you must have a personal interest in the topic. It will rarely save you money unless the government subsidizes it.

It’s also important to note that many of the numbers given, such as the 38% from Johnson Controls, are often based on fuzzy math in my opinion, much like global warming numbers. I would guess that number came in an absolutely perfect test environment. I guess my opinion is that we should let the market decide. Get the government to stop subsidizing ‘green’ technology and allow people to determine what is better for their budget. My comments may go in circles, but that’s because it really is a case by case basis and the government is often trying to provide a common answer for everyone.

Plus, the long-term savings should end up helping the tax payer in the long run. In central Ohio, the Groveport-Madison school district could really use that. They’re hurting on their budget, and the people in the district won’t pass a levy. They simply can’t afford it.

So making the schools more efficient would hopefully free up some cash so that they can bring back their sports programs (it’s so bad that they had to cut nearly all extra-curriculars).

a healthy dose of cynicism and a regard for smaller government comes to mind.

p.e.e.r.s. expands a decade old clinton backed program called e.s.p.c.
(Energy Saving Performance Contracts) to ‘retrofit’ government buildings
through 4 billion in loan grants to contractors; half of which would be tax-payer dollars
‘supposedly’ returned to the tax-payer over ten years vis~a~vis the energy savings.

a better idea would have been to turn those buildings into parking lots and let the
previously employed look for real work. now that’s cost-effective with a positive return.

if anyones’ still with me let’s consider the cost of ‘retrofittting’ the schools. did you ever
notice how the statists always reference those entities that are near and dear when
they want our money?

i attended two public schools that were built at the end of the 19th century. yeah they
were drafty and cold in the winter but i learned a little math, so let’s do it.

i’m guessing if it costs me ten to twenty grand to ‘retrofit’ my house it would cost about
5 times as much to ‘green’ up a school. let’s say 100 grand. and ’cause this is a fed
initiative we’d have to include ‘all’ the schools, right? that’s almost 100 thousand buildings
which brings the price tag to 100 billion, a long way from the original proposal of 4b but
look how many kids will be warm, and the tax-payers will only be ripped-off for another 50b
if clinton and the coalition of corporations, labor unions, universities and local governments
undertake the other half.

~just for the heck of it let’s break that money down into jobs ‘created’.

one million dollars will pay one person a 50,000 dollar per annum wage for twenty years.
that’s enough to raise a family and start the kid’s college fund. that’s what we used to call
‘middle class’, and that was my family five years ago.

one hundred billion would fund one hundred thousand folks like me, for twenty years.
awesome, right? the problem is who pays the hundred billion? i will not vote for, entertain
nor regard with compassion or decorum anyone who advocates the support of borrowed
foreign money or the transfer of wealth from the 49% who actually work for a living.

in a nutshell mike; If it is one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest ways to save money,
then let the private sector do it…b