Even Boulder (Colorado) Finds It Isn't Easy Going Green

Wall Street Journal ^ | February 13, 2010 | Stephanie Simon

[reaganaut1]

BOULDER, Colo.—This spring, city contractors will fan out across this well-to-do college town to unscrew light bulbs in thousands of homes and replace them with more energy-efficient models, at taxpayer expense.

City officials never dreamed they'd have to play nanny when they set out in 2006 to make Boulder a role model in the fight against global warming. The cause seemed like a natural fit in a place where residents tend to be politically liberal and passionate about the great outdoors.

Instead, as Congress considers how to encourage Americans to conserve more energy, Boulder stands as a cautionary tale about the limits of good intentions.

"What we've found is that for the vast majority of people, it's exceedingly difficult to get them to do much of anything," says Kevin Doran, a senior research fellow at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

President Barack Obama has set ambitious goals for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, in part by improving energy efficiency. Last year's stimulus bill set aside billions to weatherize buildings. The president has also called for a "cash for caulkers" rebate for Americans who weatherize their homes.

But Boulder has found that financial incentives and an intense publicity campaign aren't enough to spur most homeowners to action, even in a city so environmentally conscious that the college football stadium won't sell potato chips because the packaging isn't recyclable.

Take George Karakehian. He considers himself quite green: He drives a hybrid, recycles, uses energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs. But he refuses to practice the most basic of conservation measures: Shutting the doors to his downtown art gallery when his heating or air conditioning is running.

Mr. Karakehian knows he's wasting energy. He doesn't care.

"I'm old-school," Mr. Karakehian says. "I've always been taught that an open door is the way to invite people in."

[reaganaut1]

Liberals are not willing to inconvenience themselves or pay for many of things they say they want, such as green energy or universal health insurance.

[reaganaut1]

global warming ping

[Soothesayer]

Going green is easy! Just murder your family and move into a tree.

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[unkus]

Here in Colorado, we refer to Boulder as “The People’s Republic of Boulder”. 40 square miles of BS surrounded by sanity.

[Izzy Dunne]

where residents tend to be [...] passionate about the great outdoors.

Only a liberal would think that being "passionate about the great outdoors" means that you want to replace your light bulbs INDOORS.

[sionnsar]

Esthetics over efficiency — learned this one last week in a discussion with a commercial building facility manager. Yes, it’s more efficient to turn out the lights in unrented spaces, but if you have enough of those your building is less attractive to prospective (not to mention current) tenants.

[SteamShovel]

"Residents "should be driving high-efficiency vehicles, and they're not. They should be carpooling, and they're not." And yes, he adds, they should be changing their own light bulbs—and they're not."

Sounds like they want a eco-dictatorship in Boulder...

[VeniVidiVici]

City officials are frustrated—and contemplating more forceful steps.

[Nuc1]

Liberals always find fighting something that doesn’t exist is easier to do than say cutting their spending.

[goldstategop]

Liberals want to force the rest of us to do with less. But they aren't willing to set the example. That's the bottom line in places like Boulder.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

[Gritty]

My gosh, what a depressing article. These people in Boulder are nuts. They actually believe in this nonsense and are taxing and spending untold millions to implement it!

Tyranny has taken solid root in Boulder. It's like people cheerily buying their own tickets for their last ride in the boxcar!

Just wait until all this stuff becomes mandatory nationwide through Cap & Trade - or Executive Order...

[Wonder Warthog]

"This spring, city contractors will fan out across this well-to-do college town to unscrew light bulbs in thousands of homes and replace them with more energy-efficient models, at taxpayer expense."

Under what authority do they intend to trespass on people's land, unlawfully enter their houses, and confiscate their property???

Were I a Boulder resident, the first such contractor would be told to get the hell off my property and not come back.

[BOBTHENAILER]

City officials are frustrated—and contemplating more forceful steps.

The City Council will soon consider mandating energy-efficiency upgrades to many apartments and businesses. The proposals under review would be among the most aggressive in the nation, requiring up to $4,000 a rental unit in new appliances, windows and other improvements. Owners of commercial property could face far larger tabs.

The goal: to spur $650 million in private investment in efficiencies over the next three years.

"Everyone needs to do something," says Councilman Matthew Appelbaum.

HERE COME THE SPESTNAZ ENERGY SPECIAL FORCES

[PeterPrinciple]

In the program, dubbed “Two Techs in a Truck,” as many as 15 energy-efficiency teams will go door-to-door. They’ll ask home and business owners for permission to caulk windows, change bulbs and install low-flow showerheads and programmable thermostats—all at taxpayer expense. The techs will set up clothes racks in laundry rooms as a reminder to use the dryer less often. They’ll even pop into the garage and inflate tires to the optimum pressure for fuel efficiency.

---

But will those windows open in the spring when you want some fresh air?

[stars & stripes forever]

I read somewhere (probably FR) if a green light bulb accidentally breaks, anything the light bulb touches is considered environmentally hazardous.

[Logophile]

From the article:

One problem: People don't want to give up gadgets. Recently, Prof. Pielke taught a seminar on energy demand. The university had installed motion-detector lights that shut off when the room is vacant to save energy. But when he asked his 17 students to lay all their iPods, cellphones and laptops on their desks, they had 42 electronic devices among them. Powering those up, he said, negated any conservation value from the fancy lights.

So why is that a "problem"?

Presumably, the use of electronic "gadgets" improves the students' productivity and quality of life; leaving lights on in an empty room does not.

If turning off the lights leaves more electricity for things that actually benefit us, the net result is positive.

[mountainlion]

Here in Colorado, we refer to Boulder as “The People’s Republic of Boulder”. 40 square miles of BS surrounded by sanity.

Boulder must have grown. It used to be 32 square miles surrounded by reality.

[ModelBreaker]

“Here in Colorado, we refer to Boulder as “The People’s Republic of Boulder”. 40 square miles of BS surrounded by sanity.”

I don’t know about the sanity part. Denver is next door.

[mountainlion]

There is plenty of coal and oil around Boulder. Coal mining used to be a big business. The there are some old oil wells also. The big business in Boulder is drugs since it is still rated one of the drug hubs of north America. No wonder they don't care.