Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other city officials have repeatedly promoted energy conservation as one of the central themes in making Los Angeles a “green” city. What does it mean, then, when the city permits electronic billboards without so much as a murmur about environmental impacts, even though these signs with their thousands of LED’s consume far more energy than the static billboards they replace? A study by a chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council in San Antonio, Texas, found that the yearly carbon consumption of one digital billboard was equivalent to that of 13 average homes. The city council has given billboard companies the right to convert almost 900 of their conventional billboards, which means a potential carbon consumption equivalent to almost average 11,000 homes. Would a new development of 11,000 homes escape any environmental scrutiny from the city?
- Getting it Wrong: An Open Letter to L.A. City Councilman Mitchell Englander (and his PLUM committee colleagues)
- Coming Attractions: New Digital Billboards on L.A. City Streets?
- Failure to Get the Memo: New L.A. Bus Shelter Ads With Guns
- Alcohol Ads on Billboards: Marketing to Youth?
- L.A.’s Digital Billboard Debate: It’s the Revenue, Stupid
- Movie Ads, Gun Violence, and Smokey the Bear
- Billboard Company Lobbying: Half a Million in First Quarter of 2016
- Digital Billboards: Planning Commission Says NO, Council Committee Says YES