I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis.

Obama has absolutely waffled on this since, say, 1996, when he claimed to support “legalizing same-sex marriages.” But during the 2008 presidential race his position was that 1) he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman, 2) individual states could legalize gay marriage if they so chose, and 3) Californians should vote against Proposition 8. He also opposed “similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.” There’s not much difference between Obama and Cheney on this, except that Cheney didn’t oppose Proposition 8 (he didn’t support it, either). Both men, when in power, have gritted their teeth and waited for states to sort the matter out.

The National Conference of State Legislatures, in conjunction with the University of Maryland and the Center for Integrative Environmental Research, is releasing reports that also show that economic and environmental interests are aligning in other states.

The studies lay out the rising economic costs of global warming on states’ agriculture, water resources, public health, tourism, transportation, forestry and infrastructure. In some states, cutting greenhouse gas emissions has reduced these costs and fostered economic growth.

The conference recommends that all states pursue tougher environmental regulations because a state’s economy is invariably linked to the economies of its neighbors.

Among the states featured in the new reports are North Carolina, Tennessee, North Dakota and Pennsylvania (pdf here). (Cost-analysis reports for Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey and Ohio were released in July at the conference’s Legislative Summit in New Orleans.)

As in California, energy-efficiency policies are the most cost-effective options for states seeking to reduce greenhouse gases, according to the reports. Minnesota, for instance, saw a return of $3 in economic gains for every dollar spent on its energy-efficiency programs. Other states are considering legislation that would require new buildings to meet certain efficiency standards, while renovations of existing ones would have to meet green standards. You can read the cost reports for 12 states here.

The policy recommendations of the National Conference of State Legislatures will probably encounter some resistance from industry forces. But if California’s example shows anything, it’s that industry can benefit from tougher environmental protections.

But a new economic study released today crunches some numbers and finds that environmental and economic interests are often aligned.

In California, government policies promoting energy efficiency created about 1.5 million jobs and saved consumers about $56 billion in energy costs from 1977 to 2007, says economist David Roland-Holst of the UC Berkeley Center for Energy, Resources and Economic Sustainability, who conducted the study.

California was way ahead of most states in embracing energy-efficiency policies. These policies, adopted as early as 1978, have stimulated certain sectors of the state’s economy, according to the study.

Specifically, from 1977 to 2007, employee compensation in the state’s service sector increased by $17.8 billion,  in wholesale and retail trade by $11.2 billion, in the financial and insurance sectors by $7.3 billion and in the light industrial sector by $1.2 billion — all because of the energy efficiency policies. Workers in the electric power industry were the exception — their compensation dropped by $1.6 billion.

When there’s less demand for electricity because of greater efficiencies, the study explains, consumers have more money to spend on other things and employers respond to the increased demand by creating more jobs.

Then there are the environmental of curbing climate change and reducing our dependency on foreign oil, which power generating plants. As Roland-Host told the AP, “If the country can follow California’s example, it will have a dramatic effect on our future emissions and energy independence.”

Ten northeastern states are capping their industrial CO2 emissions at 188 million tons and holding auctions for power plants to trade pollution allowances.

This is a historic event because it associates emitting CO2 with a price. The ten states are hoping that once the Northeastern, Midwestern and Western initiatives all take off, greenhouse emissions will start looking like acid rain pollutants, which were successfully regulated through their own cap-and-trade system, the Acid Rain Program.

Under the initiative, plants have started bidding on allowances to emit greenhouse gases. 90 percent of allowances will be auctioned quarterly by the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is responsible for this effort. The expected price on carbon is expected to be set below $5 a ton.

Two other regional cap-and-trade systems are well on their way to following suit — one in the Midwest and one in the West. It’s basically the states’ way of telling Congress and the White House, we really don’t need you telling us what to do about our regional pollution.

The plan requires Chicago to reduce emissions levels to 3/4 of what they were in 1990 by the year 2020. The city will do so by implementing green building standards, ratcheting up the use of renewable energy sources, improving transportation and reducing industrial pollution.

Besides Daley, about 800 other mayors have talked about adopting the same goal, but Chicago is the first  to  come up with a discrete plan.

“We can’t solve the world’s climate change problem in Chicago, but we can do our part,” Daley said, according to the Associated Press. “We have a shared responsibility to protect our planet.”