n Regarding its 3,600-square-foot sign above Kenmore Square, the CITGO website reads, “London has Big Ben, Paris has the Eiffel Tower. Boston has the CITGO sign.”

While many would not place the CITGO sign in such company, it certainly has national visibility every time the Red Sox play at Fenway Park and is a Boston icon, whether Bostonians like it or not.

The Daily Free Press article about the Mayor’s proposal to cut greenhouse emissions (“Mayor proposes to cut greenhouse emissions,” April 13, p. 1) makes this a timely occasion to ponder what the CITGO sign represents and how it reflects on the City of Boston.

First, contrary to the mayor’s initiative, the sign generates substantial greenhouse gas emissions at considerable energy use. A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the energy used to power this sign would cost a normal consumer about $11,000 per year and results in more than 100,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions per year.

Secondly, and more importantly, this sign perfectly symbolizes our dependence on fossil fuels and, more particularly, foreign sources of energy, since CITGO is an entirely foreign-owned oil company.

It is understandable for people to gain an attachment to familiar symbols, but I suspect that upon reflection, most people would agree the CITGO sign and what it represents does not reflect well on Boston or the United States at a time when people are literally dying to preserve and expand our consumer culture. What could be done to change how this icon represents Boston?

CITGO could be asked to stop purchasing carbon energy to power its sign. Better yet, a wind turbine could be placed atop or near the CITGO sign to power it — or even replace it — and become a new icon of Boston. It would make a statement about energy independence to the nation every time the Red Sox play.

Would this be an eyesore? Well, one person’s eyesore is another person’s icon.

Nathan Phillips

Department of Geography and Environment