I would not apologize in any way for being 'behind.' Jumping on the bandwagon just because everyone else seems to be, or racing to accept the latest fashion, is a concept that is completely absent from EVERY political philosophy I've ever studied.
Milton Friedman commented that "zoning always works great where it's not needed, and always breakes down where it is." IMO, the same can be said of these 'energy' and 'green' codes.
The acceptance of T-8/T-5 lighting proves the point. Once there was something that offered REAL improvements over whatever was already being used, it was quickly embraced by the market - without the slightest nudge from any think-tank wonk.
By comparison, observe the continuing fuss over CFL's.
There is nothing like a high power bill to spur interest in conservation. The problems arise when the energy choices are made by someone apart from whoever get stuck with the bill. Simply replacing one disinterested party with another is not going to help.
