Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

BILLBOARDS: Digital signs would destroy Tacoma’s ‘green’ efforts

Letter by Erik J. Bjornson, Tacoma on July 25, 2011 at 1:51 pm with 6 Comments »
July 25, 2011 2:45 pm

Tacoma residents, civic groups and leaders as well as city’s newspapers have overwhelmingly opposed digital billboards from being forced into Tacoma as they are blightful and distracting to drivers and wisely banned in many cities such as Bellingham and Seattle.

Tacoma residents are continuously urged by the City of Tacoma to reduce energy use by replacing their lights with fluorescent bulbs, using less hot water, funding multimillion-dollar platinum-rated “green” buildings and to even having their garbage collected half as often. However, a different standard altogether appears to apply to billboard companies.

According to the U.S. Green Buildings Council, each digital billboard consumes as much energy as 13 average houses. Thus, the proposed array of 38 digital billboards erected around the city would consume as much as 494 houses and release 4,104 unnecessary tons of carbon dioxide each year, negating any meaningful effort to make Tacoma a “green” city.

Leave a comment Comments → 6
  1. tree_guy says:

    The city of Tacoma is trying to follow Al Gore’s special brand of phony environmentalism, I’ll call it pragmatic environmentalism. The Al Gores of the world brow beat everyone who doesn’t observe the ‘green’ standard, but privately see no reason to apply such austerity to their own lives or that of their friends.

  2. insidevoice says:

    you lost me with your outcome based figures.

    What about th power already consumed by the standard billboard? GBC rate the exchange at 49 to 1, however with over 400 posible billboards they would equal about 6 digital bill boards which brings your number down to about 3,500 tons of carbon.

    What about the trucks that have to drive from Seattle every day to change the signs? 80 miles per day = 20,000 per year. = 2000 gallons of gas = HUGE carbon impact.

    What about 100 pound vinyal covers they put over the billboad now? ( 400 billboards X 12 times a year = 2,400 TONS of landfill waste.

    What of the carbon to haul to landfill?

  3. madmike272 says:

    This letter writed smells like a eco-nut to me!

  4. LarryFine says:

    LED lights are way more energy efficient than incandescent AND flourescent lights… not to mention way more eco-friendly than flourescent.

  5. LED lights are not more energy efficient than no LEDs.

    It doesn’t matter what you personally think of “green”, but ask yourself how easy it is to throw away or “recycle” a VCR, or a printer, or a computer monitor?

    Now imagine a 672 sq foot billboard. No way. It’s gonna end up in somebody’s lawn.

    (Plus anybody know how LED monitors are “recycled”? -yikes!)

  6. LarryFine says:

    LED… not LCD. Do you “recycle” flourescents?

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0