There is an ordinance up for debate in the Common Council dealing with light bulbs. Specifically, these are fluorescent light bulbs that seem to be a new trend sweeping the nation, and Madison is really starting to consider getting in on it.
The ordinance would require efficient lighting in Madison's rental properties - home to more than 50 percent of Madison residents. Focusing on an electric efficiency standard measured by how much light is given off per unit of electricity, a mandate targets output levels for every rental property owner, in reality giving them a choice of how they want to meet those standards. The recommended way is replacement of the existing lighting structure.
Opponents of the efficiency ordinance say these new requirements and performance standards would be a bane to landlords who would have to change most light bulbs and exit signs in their respective properties.
Vocal opponents thus far have generally been the landlords who would be most affected by a confirming vote. Additionally, some dissent has arisen because of the initial costs to property owners and commercial establishments who would be required to implement the changes.
Fortunately, advocates have shown supporting claims of reduced electricity costs for landlords and tenants in our city, to the tune of millions of dollars per year.
The estimates also mention that, in addition to the initial cost being more than made up for by energy savings, for both owners and tenants, the savings will also tend to increase depending on the initial cost. If more lights are replaced, after all, more energy is saved.
Furthermore, the Energy Efficiency and Safety Ordinance proposition suggests a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for the Madison area and, of course, the proposed standard bulbs last anywhere from 10 to 30 times longer than the older incandescent ones.
One of the most interesting points of
the plan is something very few people often consider - exit signs. Rarely paid any attention to unless one is inconveniently unlit, exit signs are legally required to be on at all times in thousands of locations around the city.
There are numerous, self-explanatory safety reasons for the signs which are great and thoughtful, but each sign costs around $40 each year to keep lit. The Efficiency Ordinance is set to change this, reducing the costs considerably by replacing incandescent-lit exit signs with LED-lit ones. The potential reduction in energy consumption is a big, painted 95 percent. This sounds like less money to the energy companies and a happier spaceship Earth to me.
It seems like there are always some seriously good ideas out there for lessening our carbon output into the skies and alleviating our slow domination over the ozone layer (although this pertains more directly to soot and smog), but often there are dire and arguable economic tradeoffs. Well, this one is a ridiculously easy choice to make because fluorescents and the economy are old pals: They went to middle school together and sat at the same lunch table every day eating similar peanut butter-and-ham sandwiches, meaning it would be everything and an act of injustice to keep these two apart.
Ryan Seib is a junior majoring in business and English. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
