The mayors of cities in the US consider public LED lighting as a priority to reduce energy consumption and emissions that contribute to climate change.

The 84^th Winter Meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors held at Washington D.C. indicated LED lighting, the production of solar energy and low-energy buildings as the measures to reduce the emissions that are affecting the global climate.

The mayors participating in the meeting addressed the Congress and the presidential candidates, urging them to invest on cities and metropolitan areas, by speeding up the implementation of these and of other sustainable energy technology.

41% LED/other high efficiency lighting systems
18% solar energy generation
17% low-energy buildings
4% high efficiency appliances, pumps and other systems
4% low-energy water treatment
3% compressed natural gas vehicles
3% capturing of methane from landfills and/or biomass

 

A survey of the mayors showed that 41% of respondents considered the use of LEDs and of highly efficient lighting systems as a top priority.
More than 10 cities have made the switching to LED lighting their primary goal over the next 24 months. It is a very significant figure if we consider that just two years ago, LED lighting obtained only 29% of the mayors’ attention.
The use of solar energy and low-energy technology in buildings was considered as a top priority for 17-18% of respondents, about the same rate as in 2014.
According to the mayors joining the survey, the efficiency of public buildings and outdoor lighting is the main goal to achieve in order to reduce energy consumption in their cities. About 77% of the city majors involved claimed to allocate funds for the optimization of energy in public building, while 65% said they made investments in public lighting.
Compared to two years ago, outdoor lighting has increased from 54% to 65%, while the investments in the lighting of public buildings have dropped from 83% to 77%.
Among the most significant challenges discussed by mayors, 67% of respondents considered the need for more local funds as the main way to achieve their energy-saving objective; 49% expressed concerns for the high initial costs of energy efficient technology, while 33% said to receive little or no federal funding for the development of sustainable energy.