Having travel this great land from coast to coast it has been my observation that the green movement is stronger in the west and weaker in the east.
This country is divided in it's natural resources also. People in the west are more concerned with water and it's conservation due to the understanding that this resource has seasonal limitations.
There is more interest in solar energy in the west, due to the abundence of sunshine.
There is greater understanding of the benifits of a healthy lifestyle including the consumption of organic foods.
When there are financial incentives and limits upon natural resources human nature looks for other opportunities.
When there are greater incentives then the east will respond with greater solutions.

I'm a little confused. I understand that toilets are in houses, but are they really a real estate issue? Perhaps a "Building" or "Home" section?
PGS,
It does seem somewhat true that the green movement is stronger in the West. And on many levels, your statement is true. But there's currently a robust, green movement among "Hollywood" (at least PR-wise), which gives the West a lot of exposure. Also, one needs to be strongly conservation-minded when one builds a community in the desert.

Fellow Huggers

I purchased a plastic bowl that was large enough to fit in my bathroom sink. When the bowl is full of water I pour it into the toilet tank. The water from the sink is just enough to run the toilet , so I have turned the feeder line to the tank off. My water bill went down by half.

The payback time for this investment was about a week.

p

Not only that, but the article, which is by someone who should know better, goes on to tout a toilet with an electric seat heater and electric lid-lifter as "eco-friendly". WHa?? Yes, lazy use of coal-fired electricity is *totally* eco-friendly.

I would not say the west was greener than the east. As a proud NJ resident living in a bastion of liberalism, I may have a distorted view though.

Both groups do what is necessary and plausible.

NYC has much more public transportation available. About 6 million passengers per day use the subway in NYC, to 300,000 in LA. 20 times more riders to about twice the population. NYC is also served by 5 electric train services to LA's 2 diesel.

There is much more space out west to build highways and have urban sprawl. NYC has twice the people in about the same amount of space, and you need a tunnel or a bridge to get into it. No way to spread out, so efficient transportation is needed. Not just space, but now energy.

I have plenty more examples of already integrated "green" ideas over here.

And honestly, living somewhere where you have to live in constant fear of the water running out isn't very smart.

Admittedly the resource of the sun is better harvested in the sunny, wide open spaces of the western desert. If you consider nuclear energy to be green, then NJ makes about half its power from that, and hydro is also used in some places in the east.

I think it is more hip to be green out west. It seem like some things that are common in one place can be a novel idea others.

I am not saying that one region is better than another. I am trying to convey the opposite. To judge something on one set of characteristics if foolish. Just because noise is made about something, doesn't mean others haven't been doing it for 100 years (electric transportation is a good example. Just because you have cars in california doesn't mean the PRR didn't put in all electric service before WWI.)