THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Truckee among the top polluting mountain towns


image_pdfimage_print

By Teton Gravity  Research

When we set out on our quest to find the mountain towns with the largest carbon footprint, it was not an easy task. The hardest factor was to find a common denominator for all of these different areas. That’s when we discovered an interactive map of the United States created by researchers at UC Berkeley, who weighed over 37 variables, including household energy use, consumer expenditures, and transportation to provide the average metric tons of carbon pollution produced by each household in every county in the United States.

We used this data to rank over 30 mountain towns and, as a jumping-off point, to discover what is going on in these mountain communities.

What we discovered is that the two factors that lead to pollution in most mountain towns are housing and transportation. This usually stems from an inadequate public transit system or large vacation homes that are not occupied for the entire year.

Truckee came in at No. 9.

Read the whole story

 

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (4)
  1. Passion4Tahoe says - Posted: April 24, 2015

    And we want to be more like Park City? I think not!

    But we are well on our way. Just look at all the McMansions that are being built here that require heat all year long, but are not fully occupied. The latest is the gigantic “motel” that has been built on the old drive-in theatre property on Glenwood Way — you know, in a residential zone. If you haven’t seen it, drive by.

    So sad.

  2. Passion4Tahoe says - Posted: April 24, 2015

    And another thought – Park City is certainly no model for creating community. They have a well-deserved reputation for having a huge employee housing problem.

    Do we want to further erode our community by forcing those who work here to live elsewhere? Not only do we lose a sense of community, but we add to pollution, etc. as people need to drive a greater distance just to get to work.

    Here’s an interesting article:

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700247931/Affordable-housing-elusive-in-Park-City.html?pg=all

    To avoid this, we need some thoughtful policy changes now. Policies need to be balanced between the need to attract and retain our valuable tourists AND quality of life for residents.

  3. nature bats last says - Posted: April 24, 2015

    There are several other communities like Park City who have problems with housing their workers, Aspen, Sun Valley Idaho, Jackson Hole. I think our town might be one of the few that has housing to accommodate local workers and that is a stretch…

  4. Garry Bowen says - Posted: April 24, 2015

    ‘passion4tahoe’:

    “Ostentatious” rules! as in. . .we’re supposed to allow the 1% to do what they want, and not say much about it, according to a NYT’s article from last Sunday. . .’size matters’ in this society, as they are the pillars of society and they want to make sure you know it. . .

    Aspen is, among ski areas, always at the top of any sustainable list, as they have (for example) at least built an 80 unit affordable housing project just off the downtown area. . .and have the renowned Auden Schendler looking at other issues there (his phrase: “effluent-for-the-affluent”)

    As to this area (I can’t call it the Basin, as some of the issues are ‘out-of-Basin-jurisdiction, like Squaw & Northstar) – where is the sustainable development (?); another article in today’s LTN talks about the acceptance of Liberty’s increase plans, while another talks about Truckee being a top polluting mountain town. . .

    As it costs no more to build green, to save the money from alternatives (when the existing structure should be the “alternative”), some have so much that they apparently are O.K. with leaving a lot “on-the-table”. . .Tahoe has had the ‘wool-pulled-over-its-eyes’ in deference to a large foreign power company’s (Canadian) fear of losing some revenue. . .a fear that is justified now in so many other places than Tahoe. . . Tahoe’s extra rates will now no doubt keep them afloat a bit longer. . .but at who’s expense (?): ours. . .