Alternative light: A bright idea?
March 30, 2007
Click here to see a comparison of different types of light bulbs.
California is attempting to lead the nation in a move to reduce energy consumption by banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs by the year 2012. The "How many Legislators does it take to Change a Light Bulb Act" is the brainchild of Assembly member Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) who says it is time to replace the "incredibly inefficient" incandescent bulbs which convert only "five percent of the energy they receive into light."
Replacing a 75-watt incandescent bulb with a 20-watt compact fluorescent (CFL) bulb reduces the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by 1300 pounds in the life of a single bulb. It also saves the consumer up to $50 in energy costs during that same time period, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute.
There are, however, environmental trade-offs to consider. Using CFLs reduces the amount of carbon dioxide released from coal-fired power plants, but it also has the potential to increase mercury pollutants when the bulbs are disposed.
Levine's office says it is working on an amendment to provide for a recycling program to handle the mercury. It says "neither (the mercury in CFLs nor the lead in incandescents) is 100 percent environmentally friendly without some sort of recycling program."
GE recently announced plans to release a high-efficiency incandescent bulb in 2010 that would be twice as efficient as current bulbs. Those bulbs would also continue to improve to a maximum efficiency equal to what CFLs currently have.
==Start Related Links==
OurTahoe.org Links
Comparison of different types of light bulbs
Green hotel tour
Make a promise
Play Tahoe Life
Global moves to reduce incandescents
Outside Links
National Geographic guide to "green" lighting
Learn how to dispose of CFLs
Florescent bulb recycling in South Lake Tahoe
Florescent bulb recycling in Incline Village
GE press release
Conversation on treehugger.com
Phillips Lighting Company seeks phase out of incandescent bulbs
==End Related Links==
A comment on treehugger.com poses an interesting alternative solution to banning the bulbs. "Instead of banning a specific technology (incandescent in this case) -couldn't the law be reworded to require a minimum lumen per watt ratio? This way we are removing inefficient implementations of any technology (could be Xenon, Incandescent, halogen, whatever)."
"It's premature to write off incandescent technology with all that's happening, " says Steve Bishop, sustainability designer for IDEO, an innovative design company based in Palo Alto, California. "There are a lot of opportunities with incandescent bulbs."
Proponents of the California bill point to the immediate potential for positive environmental impacts. If the 3 to 4 billion incandescent light bulbs currently being used in the US were replaced with CFLs it would save approximatley $10 billion dollars in energy costs and reduce coal burning by 30 billion pounds a year, according to the National Resource Defense Council and the Environmental Protection Agency.
With the future of light bulb technology uncertain, what do you feel is the best way for the California legislature to proceed? Leave a comment, and tell us what you think.
Related posts: [ Global moves to reduce incandescents ] [ Tour the Cedar House ] [ Is there missing information? ] [ Light bulb moment: Turn it off ] [ TRPA postpones pier review ]
Lake Tahoe Airport’s Future
March 29, 2007
|
|
Related posts: [ Future of airport still up in air ] [ Most connected groups ] [ Understanding diversity ] [ Cinco de Mayo Celebration in South Lake Tahoe ] [ BMP Talks participants present their BMP solutions ]
Back to square one: TRPA to reconsider Heavenly Master Plan
March 28, 2007
After threats of litigation the TRPA Governing Board voted March 28 to re-hear testimony, public comment and debate on the Heavenly Master Plan Amendment issue. An attorney for the Sierra Nevada Alliance, League to Save Lake Tahoe and Sierra Club claims the board violated open meetings laws in the original hearing.
"Today, I am not discussing the merits of recent claims by some organizations that the February Governing Board meeting did not comply with California open meeting laws," said Joanne Marchetta, Agency Counsel. "I am recommending to the board that you re-hear the Heavenly Master Plan as a courtesy and accommodation to the public."
All but one voting member of the governing board voted to hear all the testimony and debate about the master plan amendment again before re-voting on the issue.
Three board members already requested that the board reconsider their original amendment decision due to requests from their constituents.==Start Related Links==
Tahoe Daily Tribune
What happened?
What would you do?
Was there missing info?
Visualize the alternatives
Design your master plan
Stakeholders speak out
Read reporter's blog
==End Related Links==
The hearing and vote are scheduled to take place on April 25 at 9:30 a.m. at the TRPA offices in Stateline, NV. To read more about the vote and give input to the reporter who wrote it, see the article from our news partner at the Tahoe Daily Tribune. For background on the issue see our previous stories featured in the related links.
You now have a chance to influence the board's decision on the Heavenly Master Plan. Take a look at the tools in the related links to help you consider the issue and share your opinion.
Related posts: [ What happened? ] [ What would you do if you were TRPA? ] [ Is there missing information? ] [ Design a master plan ] [ Stakeholders speak out about Heavenly Master Plan ]
Future of airport still up in air
March 16, 2007
The Lake Tahoe Airport supported robust commercial air traffic for 25 years, transporting 300,000 passengers in its peak year. Since 1983, environmental impacts of the airport have fueled ongoing debate about its role in the landscape and lifestyle of Lake Tahoe.
The future of the Lake Tahoe Airport remains undetermined, to the dismay of those seeking to resolve the issue.
Today, the airport's future lies in tension somewhere between proposals to expand Heavenly Mountain Resort, to construct a convention center near the City of South Lake Tahoe and to implement the Upper Truckee Restoration Project, which aims to minimize pollution that enters the lake. In its current state, the Lake Tahoe Airport presents a hurdle to the accomplishment of each mission, and simultaneously fails to provide services to local individuals, whose tax dollars continue to pay for airport maintenance.
The situation is not as simple as environmental impacts versus economic benefits. Local residents attribute many meanings to the airport, such as convenient transportation center, local revenue generator, ski-town image booster, annoying noise source, air and water polluter, unnecessary safety hazard, emergency evacuation center and even nostalgic memory maker. Any socially acceptable decision must take these meanings into account.
Agency involvement
The League to Save Lake Tahoe initiated changes at the airport when it sued the City of South Lake Tahoe in 1983 over noise ordinance violations by jet aircraft. Subsequent negotiations among the city, the league, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the California Attorney General resulted in noise regulations that decreased the financial viability of the Lake Tahoe market for air carriers. The last commercial service ceased in the mid-1990s.
With tension looming between the impending economic growth of South Lake Tahoe and restoration efforts on the Upper Truckee River, uncertainty over the appropriate role of the airport is ripening. In November 2006, the league, with TRPA, the California Tahoe Conservancy, and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, issued an updated report that attempts to define the range of issues and possible futures facing the airport
Environmental effects
The Upper Truckee River deposits about 60 percent of fine sediments to the lake, contributing to the declining clarity of Lake Tahoe. The Lake Tahoe Airport, which sits just two miles from the shore of Lake Tahoe and runs along the Upper Truckee River for one and a half miles, is among a handful of human developments that have altered the stream channel. The groups that issued the 2006 report - each of whom have an interest in water clarity and watershed integrity - suggest a reduced role for the airport, including closure and restoration or shortening of the runway from 8,500 to 7,000 feet.
Safety issues
According to Lake Tahoe Airport Director Rick Jenkins, shortening the runway would be a safety hazard. At the elevation of the airport (6,264 feet), airplanes land at higher speeds than at sea level and require longer runways. But other high-altitude towns operate successful commercial airports with even shorter runways, such as Aspen, Colorado (7,820-foot elevation, 7,006-foot runway) and Jackson, Wyoming (6,451-foot elevation, 6,300-foot runway). Jenkins also emphasizes the capacity of the airport to support the refueling of air tankers during wildfires, although four other dispatch centers already exist within 15 minutes of Tahoe Basin and a smaller airport may still host helicopter refueling.
Economic benefits
Officials in South Lake Tahoe emphasize the airport as an economic asset for the city that could be an important revenue source in the context of future development and growth. In addition to the generation of revenue, the airport could play an important role in the event of an emergency evacuation.
Possible outcomes
Could shortening the runway at Lake Tahoe Airport allow some mitigation of environmental impact along the Upper Truckee River while still accommodating a renewed commercial aviation service to emerge? Could South Lake Tahoe generate enough revenue from a commercial airport to help fund other components of the Upper Truckee Restoration Project and mitigate the impacts of increased air traffic?
Because the groups involved will likely remain loyal to their missions and to their emotional attachments to the airport, realistic solutions will most likely come not from a victory of one group in the contest, but from consideration of the consequences that future scenarios would have on a public that currently derives little benefit from a constructed, yet stagnant, airport.
Reporters Sevil Omer and Claire Fortier contributed to this report.
Related posts: [ Off the couch and onto the river ] [ Impact of the Angora fire on water clarity ] [ Tahoe Summit: 10 years later ] [ Environment takes center stage leading up to Earth Day ] [ Tales from Tahoe ]
Stakeholders speak out about Heavenly Master Plan
March 15, 2007
Post your views on the stakeholders' unedited statements about the Heavenly Master Plan by clicking on the logos below.
    |
|
 |
|
Related posts: [ What would you do if you were TRPA? ] [ Back to square one: TRPA to reconsider Heavenly Master Plan ] [ What happened? ] [ Is there missing information? ] [ Most connected groups ]
Design a master plan
March 14, 2007
What would you do if you were TRPA?
Related posts: [ What would you do if you were TRPA? ] [ Back to square one: TRPA to reconsider Heavenly Master Plan ] [ What happened? ] [ Is there missing information? ] [ Most connected groups ]
Visualize the Alternatives
March 14, 2007
What would you do if you were TRPA?
Related posts: [ Most connected groups ] [ What would you do if you were TRPA? ] [ What happened? ] [ Back to square one: TRPA to reconsider Heavenly Master Plan ] [ Is there missing information? ]
Is there missing information?
March 14, 2007
==Start Related Links==
What would you do?
What happened?
Visualize the alternatives
Design your master plan
Stakeholders speak out
Read reporter's blog
==End Related Links==
Board member Norma Santiago says there is important information about the environmental impacts of each alternative that she and the other Board members didn't have when they voted to approve Alternative 4. To some, that might seem impossible considering the 18 to 24 months of consideration that went into this project.
Santiago did not support the plan the overall Board approved. She voted for Alternative 4A, which would allow Heavenly to put in a kinked lift to avoid stands of old growth trees. Since her vote, Norma says her constituents and a California Registered Professional Forester have given her new information that the rest of the Board needs to hear.
"Show me the science and be clear cut and specific about the issue," she said. "Cut out the emotion."
Santiago has asked several members of the conservation community, a registered forester, water clarity experts, and environmental scientists and engineers from the University of California, Davis to evaluate the environmental impacts of each of the alternatives.
Board member Mara Bresnick said the information Santiago is referring to might have been included in the large Environmental Impact Study statement the board recieved; however, it could have been lost in how the details were presented.
"When you look at an issue in context it doesn't seem as staggering as in a vaccum," Bresnick said.
It's also possible that the Board did have access to all of this information. It's equally possible that certain aspects were lost in the large amounts of information presented to the Board. The OurTahoe.org Staff can not make any conclusions about this issue. If you have ideas, thoughts or information about this, please click here to share it with our staff and the rest of the community.
Related posts: [ What happened? ] [ Back to square one: TRPA to reconsider Heavenly Master Plan ] [ What would you do if you were TRPA? ] [ Fire fund extends deadlines for Angora victims ] [ South Lake neighborhood lives on, even without houses ]
What happened?
March 14, 2007
==Start Related Links==
What would you do?
Was there missing info?
Visualize the alternatives
Design your master plan
Stakeholders speak out
Read reporter's blog
==End Related Links==
The TRPA Governing Board voted on Feb. 28 to amend the Heavenly Master Plan to allow Heavenly to replace two existing ski lifts with a single high-speed lift in the North Bowl ski area. Known as Alternative 4, this change also provides for several summer recreation improvements and new ski runs.
The February meeting lasted nearly eight hours and was filled with passionate testimony from citizens, business owners, government agencies and interest groups. The majority of those who spoke, endorsed either Alternatives 4, 4A or 5. Arguments about the alternatives focused on how each plan affected different aspects of environmental health and the South Lake Tahoe economy.
TRPA rules specify that any Board member has seven days after a vote to request that the Board reconsider an issue. Three Board members, Norma Santiago, Jerome Waldie and Mara Bresnick filed a motion on March 7 to do so. Santiago had orginally voted for Alternative 4A and the other two members were not able to attend the meeting.
The Board members who requested the action stated that they had received requests from their constituents to do so. Their motion stated:
"This request for reconsideration is based upon, among other reasons, the numerous requests received by Supervisor Santiago from her constituents as the Governing Board to reconsider its decision to approve Alternative 4; the lack of full Board participation in this important decision, and the difficulties experienced by some or all of the environmental impacts and their relative significance associated with Alternatives 4, 4A and 5, as analyzed in the project EIS."
The full Governing Board will vote whether to reconsider the issue at their regular meeting on March 28 in Kings Beach. Should the Board vote to reconsider the issue they will then set a date and establish a process for a new vote.
Related posts: [ Back to square one: TRPA to reconsider Heavenly Master Plan ] [ Is there missing information? ] [ What would you do if you were TRPA? ] [ Design a master plan ] [ Fire fund extends deadlines for Angora victims ]
What would you do if you were TRPA?
March 14, 2007
==Start Related Links==
What happened?
Was there missing info?
Visualize the alternatives
Design your master plan
Stakeholders speak out
Read reporter's blog
==End Related Links==
After a controversial vote on Feb. 28 to approve a significant change to the Heavenly Valley Master Plan (see related story What happened?) the TRPA Governing Board will be voting on March 28 whether to reconsider their decision.
What would it be like to have to make this decision? What would you do?
Imagine you are a member of the Governing Board. You're charged with approving one of six amendments to the Heavenly Master Plan. You've heard more than a year of testimony from scientists, business owners, conservation groups, citizens and Heavenly Mountain Resort about the alternatives.
The TRPA staff, the Forest Service and the Advisory Planning Commission all recommend you approve alternative 4. After the vote, however, several Board members report receiving numerous complaints from constituents and environmental activists. You start to wonder if you had all the relevant information when you made your decision.
From media reports, public comment and interest group statements you might think there are only two issues to consider: Heavenly's bottom line and a stand of old growth trees. But upon investigation, you discover many other relevant issues.
This site provides an opportunity for you to explore these issues and share your judgement about how you think TRPA should proceed.
The Design your master plan game will help you think about some of the different issues involved and decide which ones are most important to you. An interactive representation of the different plans will help you visualize the alternatives. After you've thought about the issue, we encourage you to read what some major stakeholders and others have said about the plan and then explain what you think in your own words.
On March 28 the Board will vote whether to reconsider the issue. Your comments, which will be made available to Board members, could make a difference in that decision.
Related posts: [ What happened? ] [ Back to square one: TRPA to reconsider Heavenly Master Plan ] [ Is there missing information? ] [ Most connected groups ] [ Design a master plan ]
Latest Headlines
- Hearing planned in Incline tree-felling case - The federal trial for an Incline Village woman charged with hiring a tree-cutting company to chop three Ponderosa Pines from her Lake Tahoe property has been canceled and a change-of-plea hearing scheduled May 1.
- Truckee man takes torch to North Pole - A Truckee man who reached the North Pole this week carrying an unlit torch for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games plans to discuss his experience and environmental issues Saturday by audio and video transmissions with participants at a Lake Tahoe festival.
- Quake pattern watched closely - As earthquakes continue to shake Reno, two reports released this month give new insight into the likely characteristics of a temblor at Lake Tahoe.
Winds are North at 6 MPH. The pressure is 30.17" and the humidity is 23%. The heat index is 75. Last Updated on Jul 5, 10:55 am PDT.
What does living or playing at Tahoe mean to you? Share your photos, videos, and stories by joining the ‘We Love Tahoe’ community and show the world what being... Read more »
