arch2030 has done great work, but they must have no clout as a lobby, sadly.

I guess those states without any code REALLY don’t want one!

Section 2 is about the Building Sector. It seems most likely to succeed because the technologies and institutional processes are generally based on the diffuse relationships among building code officials, architects, innovative equipment suppliers, financial institutions, and investors. These relationships are largely within localized/regional businesses and local government jurisdictions; something less apt to be manipulated by Big Coal, Big Oil, etc. as it is done in the US Congress.

As for the remaining parts of the paper, the authors focus on technical options, which are largely hostage of our centralized, minority-driven political albatross, the US Senate.

With apologies to windmill advocates, I believe the options discussed in Sections 3 – 6 require considerable technical R&D and institutional analysis/restructuring; making expanded use of renewable and other energy sources far more uncertain and dependent on public sector research subsidies.

Subsidized research is subject to the whim of Congress and the President, and as such, is a risky endeavor in the face of national opposition by the Big Bads. These guys are almost always corporate-sponsored (they use stockholder funds) and they hire pricey spin experts with covert media access. Then they stealthy create smokescreens, blaming problems on the Bad Greens, and that well-founded, Beneficial Change is a negative for USA jobs.

Thanks