Those worried about climate change (f/k/a global warming) want the world, i.e., the governments of the world, to spend hundreds of billions, maybe even trillions, of dollars to solve the problem. Which raises the question of what they propose to do and how effective it will be – and what the unintended consequences might be.
Earlier this week the Chicago Tribune reported that "[t]owns across Illinois and nationwide have switched to LED traffic signals because they burn brighter, last longer and save money by using 90 percent less energy than older incandescent bulbs."
Which sounds great – except. Except that "they also emit less heat, [which means] they sometimes have trouble melting snow. This has caused problems across the Midwest. In Wisconsin earlier this month, snow blanketed LED traffic lights in some towns, leading to ‘crashes at intersections where drivers aren’t sure whether to stop or go,’ The Associated Press said."
But don’t worry, if there is a problem in Kendall County, they will send a crew out to brush the snow off, though, obviously, it may take a while. In any case, according to an engineer in the Lake County Division of Transportation: "‘Maybe it takes longer to melt and you have to go and clean them off, but it’s part of the trade-off for years of energy savings.’"
But when you are talking about trade-offs, consider that an Oswego, Illinois, detective said a snow-covered, obscured LED signal was "‘a contributing factor’" in the crash that killed a woman last April. The driver coming the opposite way couldn’t see the signal, and he crashed into the woman’s car. It was, according to the article in the Tribune, "an unintended consequence".
Nasty things those unintended consequences.
Comments