I saw an editorial written originally for the Washington Post, which was re-printed in the Evansville Courier & Press. The editorial was entitled, "States taking green steps." It discussed the measures that several states are taking to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Although expensive to make such changes, many of the changes are actually fairly simple to implement and the cost can be re-couped over time. For instance, Virginia plans to purchase 5% of its energy from wind farms in West Virginia (which I thought was an even bigger boost for coal-reliant West Virginia). Virginia also plans to invest more in solar panels. Once this energy is obtained in a reliable fashion from these renewable sources, it should eliminate certain costs, such as disposing of power plant waste. Although the editorial doesn't really delve into this aspect of the issue, I would guess that over time, renewable energy will save states money, as the energy once accessed efficiently and with the right infrastructure is pollution-free. The editorial does discuss how Virginia will pass out energy-efficient light bulbs and plant more trees to combat global warming. Further, Virginia will make its public buildings more energy-efficient, such that they will save electricity expenses down the road. Interestingly, the article notes that "buildings alone are responsible for at least 38% of greenhouse emissions in the United States." I was uncertain as to whether this counted all of the emissions produced by power plants in generating electricity to power buildings. At any rate, it is clear that if more and more states simply buy more renewable energy, plant some trees and modify buildings such that they are more energy-efficient, our country's greenhouse gas emissions could be cut fairly dramatically without us feeling much of a pinch. This sounds like the way to go. So, why have the majority of states still been dragging their feet? If California and New York can do this, why not every state in the union???