The word “efficient” should be deleted. The issue is to derive electricity from renewable energy (RE) sources, not necessarily from “efficient” RE sources. In fact, most RE energy sources are far less efficient than conventional energy sources, so there are none that could be called “efficient” in the first place (except hydro power, but I don't believe that the intention is to limit ourselves to hydropower). More specifically, the efficiency of wind energy (electricity output over intercepted wind energy) is only about 25%, that of solar cells is 6-25% (but the 6% cells, consisting of very inexpensive amorphous-Si films that can be applied over entire building facades, are quite attractive and could make a big collective contribution), and that of biomass energy (biomass production over intercepted solar energy) is only 1-2% (but biomass can have quite justifiable niche roles). So … the word “efficient” has to go, as it otherwise implies that whoever wrote the line doesn't know what they are talking about (from a technical point of view).
As well, “immediately” shifting is impossible (if it means overnight, which is how it could be interpreted).
Finally, why is reducing radiation exposure the only reason given? There are many reasons.
Enter proposed revisions here 17. All states shall rapidly shift to efficient generation of electricity from renewable energy* [note that asterisk is mandatory, as is footnote that accompanies it]
RC notes: I added “efficient” back for this reason: In the original discussion there was insistence that not any power generation was acceptable, that in some cases centralized power generation was better than dispersed generation; in other cases depending on type, the opposite is true. Thus the efficiency of the mode of delivery must be considered as not all renewables are equal in all circumstances. That doesn’t preclude all renewable forms being valuable. Generally the debate in plenary was about scale, not form of renewable.
BB adds: I think the footnote needs to stay, because it is clearly impossible to switch immediately everywhere. Without the footnote people would say don’t be crazy.
Metta adds: How about changing “immediately” to “quickly”? That is the term I originally proposed in my first edit. I don't see that the footnote adds anything essential and nobody will read it anyhow.
RC: I used “rapidly”. The discussion at the time around “immediately” was that starting the shift was immediate, not the complete conversion, which has to take time.