Going green = helping economy?

That sort of thing can't hurt. We should be doing more stuff like that. I'd love to see municipalities ripping out the old incandescent traffic lights and replacing w/LED ones. The typical intersection chews up over a kW just running the lights. That could be cut substantially by replacing the bulbs. Seems like it would put a rather noticeable dent in municipal energy bills.

 

Making buildings greener is a win/win for energy and the economy.

I think all our lights have been changed by now. Its definitely a good thing environmentally and for safety. The economy is much more questionable. We used to replace all the traffic lights once a year, which used city labor, and production of bulbs I'm sure provides jobs. Since the led traffic signals are warranted for 5 years and will likely last much longer, and a dead led doesn't present a traffic hazard they won't be replaced until they break. This means no real help for the economy, but we can spend the money on other useful items instead of energy, labor, and light bulbs.

 

Definitely. All of those things, except possibly the school buses help the economy and the environment. I only removed the school buses because current prices may actually hurt municpalities and their ability to spend the money in more usefull ways. When the price of hybrid school buses comes down that will change.

I also think cities should replace traffic lights, I just don't think it really adds to jobs and the economy. It does reduce energy use and long term city costs. Here is Austin's reductions with LED lighting, look at slides 27 and 28. The project replacing traffic and crossing signs should be saving 7.2 million kwh a year, and payback is estimated at 2-6 years.


http://www.ledcity.org/pdfs/Austin LED City Council meeting PP LS and CC.pdf

 

Everywhere Go Green techniques is educated but our environment will be saved only when everyone takes step to be eco friendly.

 

What does it say if your economy is unsustainable? It says it will eventually collapse. It doesn't matter how good an economy looks right now. Which would you really rather have, an economy with 10% growth rate destined to completely collapse in 10 years, or one with a 0% growth rate which can extend indefinitely?