They're not really sold that way -- but it's obvious that a more "fuel-efficient" car, as they are referred to, would decrease cost of ownership.  So maybe instead of just the general word "efficiency", it would help to get specific.  For instance, much of the green collar jobs Van Jones talks about are really about efficiency -- retrofitting buildings, in particular.  So you use a few examples -- not too many -- such as "fuel-efficent cars, retrofitted buildings, efficient appliances".  I know there's lots more, but just concentrate on 3 or 4.  The other advantage of concrete examples is that you can then talk about all the jobs that are generated making these things.

I'm not sure how to go about rep this state of affairs. There are certain intrinsic difficulties in selling efficiency -- which is not so much a thing as an absence -- in a culture obsessed with exploration and energy supply. Thus far the wonks don't seem to be getting through.

I've always liked constructions like, "Detroit is America's biggest oilfield", i.e. the best domestic oil source is greater auto efficiency.
(I forget where I got that quote.)

Maybe think of other ways to recast the "absence" as a concrete thing, or the mirror image of it.

When California addressed its greenhouse pollution in legislation (e.g. AB32, SB1368, AB1493, SB107, AB1407, SB1, etc.), it didn't pass a cap-and-trade bill.  It passed a cap, but it left it up to state regulatory agencies to figure out how to meet the cap. Cap-and-trade is one option for the agencies, and not the one the regulatory agencies are working the hardest on. Congress should take note. They'll get a lot more done leaving the details to others.

Efficiency is a huge help, and that's why so much of California's regulatory agency efforts are directed that way.  However, at best it is only half of the solution.  That's why the alphabet soup above included SB107, California's Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Rather than try and pass cap-and-trade legislation, Congress and the White House should:

   1. Allow/require the EPA to enforce the Clean Air Act (as directed by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA), e.g. getting much tougher standards than the new CAFE;
   2. Adopt California policies, incentives, and regulations (e.g. Negawatts first) at the Federal level, including Title 24 and Title 20 and all the legislation listed above;
   3. Convert the US passenger fleet to PHEVs from 2010 to 2050;
   4. Fund Smart grid with V2G build out;
   5. Fund HVDC grid build out;
   6. Enact a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard;
   7. Buy out and shutdown Fossil power plants to remove generation no longer needed from #1, #2, #6;
   8. Enact incentives for Reforestation;
   9. Improve US agricultural practices;
  10. Limit biofuels to Ag residue feedstocks;
  11. Use U.S. trade leverage to encourage countries that export to the U.S. to adopt greenhouse pollution policies such as our own.
  12. Use U.S. government purchasing power to jumpstart deployment where possible.
  13. Begin research on atmosphere to below ground sequestration of carbon (not CCS, but rather how to drawdown what is already emitted).

Efficiency is built into #1, #2, #4, and #5.