The city of Greensburg, Kansas, rebuilt itself after it was destroyed by a tornado four years ago, to become what many people call the greenest city in America. But what will it take for other cities to build green? Can Americans do it on their own, without having to rebuild after a natural disaster?

Well, joining us for this week's MIX, Matt Petersen, president and CEO of Global Green USA, which promotes green building throughout the country. He joins us from Los Angeles. And joining us from Austin, Texas, is Robert Bryce, senior fellow at the conservative think tank the Manhattan Institute and the author of "Power Hungry: The Myths of Green Energy." Thank you, gentlemen, both of you, for joining us.

I'm going to begin with Robert Bryce, if I may, and with Greensburg, Kansas, Robert. It is a green success story. People are saving money on their energy bills. Can you possibly have anything against that?

[BRYCE] [Chuckles] Well, that's a good setup question, I suppose, but look, there's no question that some of these building programs are very good. Energy efficiency is a great thing. But, as your previous story mentioned about Greensburg, how was the program paid for? It was a $50 million program. Much of it came from state and federal taxpayer dollars. I think that, going forward, that's going to be the key issue for a lot of these building programs all over the country, is, who pays? And that's a particularly important point now, given the fact that state and local governments, as well as the federal government, are effectively insolvent. If you look at the numbers from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the states had a combined budget shortfall last year of $190 billion. This year, budget shortfalls combined of $130 billion. And then over the next two years, they're facing budget shortfalls overall of nearly $200 billion. Add in a $14 trillion federal debt and I think you're going to see policymakers at all levels of government saying, "We can't afford schools, we can't afford a lot of other things." Then these energy-efficiency programs or building programs are going to be fighting for dollars at every level.

[ASSURAS] So, Matt Peterson, some scary numbers there, and you had to deal with some numbers in New Orleans, because you helped rebuild that, but not only was the Department of Energy involved there, and FEMA -- Brad Pitt, the actor, underwrote a significant amount. So, what about the argument against Robert Bryce?

[PETERSEN] Well, we have public construction programs going on all across this country. Schools are still being built with publicly financed bonds and construction is happening all across most every community in the country in some form or another, so the question is, do we want to build cheap buildings that are expensive to operate and leave behind a legacy that is just going to require us to rebuild or invest significant resources to maintain these buildings or do we want to build them right? And in cases of disaster areas, we have an opportunity to rebuild them right from the first, from the get-go.

[ASSURAS] In some ways, though, Matt Petersen, the question almost is, are people going to do this if there's no natural disaster? Kind of a tough question.

[PETERSEN] Well, people are building green without any natural disaster all across the country as well. So I don't think it requires it, it just means, we're going to build homes and buildings that are disaster-resistant as well as more energy efficient and healthier to occupy.

[ASSURAS] What about that, Robert Bryce? Bringing in codes. For example, in Greensburg, Kansas, there is a city code that says any government building more than 4,000 square feet needs to be LEED Platinum certified. Are you comfortable with those kinds of codes going forward?

[BRYCE] Well, I think that some of these codes make sense -- and I live in Austin, Texas, and there's now an ordinance that requires energy efficiency audits for homes. And all of that is good, but my basic point is, for all of these things, efficiency is not free, and someone has to pay, so, is this going -- and these codes may --

[PETERSEN] Energy bills aren't free either.

[BRYCE] Well, of course not. But what is the right level of efficiency and who is going to pay? Will consumers have a choice in these matters to decide the level of efficiency that they want, or are these going to be more governmental mandates that are simply going to be spread across all consumers with no choice? I think that that's a key question.

[ASSURAS] Matt Petersen, should people have a choice? You talked about the California mandate, for example.

[PETERSEN] Well, we need to create codes that are across the board, to require more energy-efficient new buildings, but the real challenge, as we look at reducing our energy use and making this country more resilient in terms of our economy and putting more money in people's pocketbooks, is increasing the efficiency of existing buildings.

[ASSURAS] Joplin, Missouri, was also hit by a disaster recently in a tornado. What would you say to Joplin? What should it do in terms of rebuilding itself and retrofitting the homes and buildings that managed to survive? Where should that city go from here, Matt Petersen?

[PETERSEN] They have an opportunity to rebuild disaster-resistant homes that are going to be better able to withstand future extreme weather events, which are going to be more common in this country and around the world due to climate change. So we need to prepare for the future. We're not going to work our way, with the failure of Congress and our elected leaders' unwillingness to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We're going to have to rebuild a country that is more resilient to disaster events. So there's an opportunity to also do it in a way that's more energy efficient and helps that community be resilient in all sorts of ways.

[ASSURAS] Robert Bryce, I guess I'll end the same way as I began. What can you have against that?

[BRYCE] Well, I have nothing. Being against efficiency is like opposing air. I mean, everyone is for efficiency. By itself, it can be a very positive thing. Over the last 40 years or so, the U.S. is driving twice as many miles, has twice as many cars as we did in the early 1970s, and yet we're using about the same amount of oil as we did then, so we're getting more efficient overall, but we can't escape -- We have to be very clear about what all of this costs and what is it going to mean for ratepayers. And let's be honest up front about these renewable mandates and the efficiency mandates to see what they cost consumers.

[ASSURAS] The discussions will continue. Thanks to both of you.

[BRYCE] Thank you.

[PETERSEN] Thank you.