The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Ald. King combats warming

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Letters to the Editor:

SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)

by Letters to the Editor

Monday, March 12, 2007

Austin King's and the Sierra Club's Energy Efficiency and Safety Ordinance proposed at Tuesday's city council meeting sounds like a win-win proposal. Not only would the proposed ordinance fight global warming and the ATC lines attempts at coming into Dane County, but the ordinance would also save money for student renters. Student renters who are paying their own electricity bills will save $20 per year for every CFL they use for 12 hours a day. Both students and landlords will reap the financial benefits of the ordinance. As students, we should encourage the University and the broader Madison community to shift toward cleaner, more efficient CFLs which use one-fourth of the electricity of old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs.

The Herald underestimated the great environmental benefits of this ordinance—it would actually cut 35,000 TONS of global warming pollution, not 35,000 pounds. 35,000 tons of CO2 is equivalent to taking more than 6,000 cars off the road! Austin King and the Sierra Club are on the right track. I would like to also say a big thank you to the eleven alders that co-sponsored the ordinance.

Here in Wisconsin, we are plagued by our reliance on dirty, old, inefficient coal-fired power plants. We must work on fighting global warming both on the broader scale of finding cleaner methods for electricity generation as well as energy conservation. We as individuals can make a difference! We can start by changing our light bulbs, and encouraging our landlords to do the same. It is such a simple way to make a big difference.

Sincerely, Susie Levy UW-Madison Senior History and Environmental Studies

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 2:07am):

A couple thoughts...
Wisconsin gets its electricity from a variety of sources, not just coal. Appleton was home to the very first hydroelectric power plant in 1882.

CFLs contain trace amounts of mercury. The amount is not large enough to pose a hazard to users, but it does become a concern at landfills and trash incinerators where the mercury from many bulbs can escape and contribute to air and water pollution. CFLs need to be recycled, and some people aren't willing to cope with this hassle, like it or not.

Frankly,it's not the city business to ordinate what kind of lighting fixtures are used. This is free society. If the city wants to replace their old bulbs to CFLs, that's great, but it doesn't have jurisdiction in private residences.

In the grand scheme, we need to stop wasting the flow of electricity...and this isn't going to be solved by changing a few light bulbs. Look at all the light pollution at night. Every vehicle has handlamps, so why do we need street lamps?

The real problem is consummerism.

Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 2:38am):

True. My landlord already changed because it saves him money. This is so obvious, it's surprising that it's controversial.

Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 3:54am):

I bet he'll write on this.

Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 7:31am):

"Here in Wisconsin, we are plagued by our reliance on dirty, old, inefficient coal-fired power plants."

This a direct result of killing the Lake Koshkonong Nuclear Power Plant back in the 70s (along with others). It will get really grim if any of the nukes that did get built are decomissioned.

Among plants once considered for Wisconsin, but never built, were sites in Pleasant Prairie, Koshkonong, Haven, Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin Rapids and Durand.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=502707

"For long-term sustainability and absolute minimization of greenhouse gas emissions, there are no current practical alternatives to some appropriate combination of wind and nuclear generation."

http://www.chancellor.wisc.edu/nuclearenergy.html

Here's the solution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 10:01am):

Austin, great way to introduce a slough of initiatives just before you leave office...you are such a noble humanitarian! rah rah rah

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.