To the editor:

Ice on the lake freezes at a rate of 1-2 inches per 24 hours on cold days that are below freezing. Once ice gets over 3-4 inches, ice growth continues, but is slower. Needless to say, but I will say it anyway: Ice fishermen, snowmobilers and cross-country skiers avoid boathouse bubblers.

Given our ability to recognize how our behaviors affect others, why is it that some people with boathouses run their bubblers continuously?

My friend Steve, whom I met at Nori’s in Saranac Lake, says people generally just don’t care. The reason for bubblers is logical. If a dock or boathouse freezes into the ice, with thick ice, a warm spell can raise lake levels and the ice will lift the boathouse or dock, causing damage.

I realize I have an optimism bias, but Steve may be right. Considering I run my bubbler in my boathouse about three to four hours in a 24-hour period, I am saving 6-8 times the cost of the electricity than those that run the bubbler continuously. Ice forms over time, so running my bubbler for 30 minutes, 6-8 times over 24 hours, does not allow ice to form with any consistency. Even if skim ice develops, it’s not enough to lift anything, and it disappears in the next bubbler cycle. The really brutal days may produce skim ice, which is removed as soon as the bubbler kicks on for its 30-minute shift.

Maybe environmental conservatism is nothing some of us care about, however saving money might spark interest. It is ironic that some of the owners of really nice boathouses, that create large swaths of open water, can be seen driving their Teslas. I am not judging; I just find it ironic. Opening more ice than is necessary makes it less safe for people and animals.

There is some interest in the potential to reduce carbon emission of the 1 billion combustion engine cars on the planet. It seems more likely to me that working from home saves more carbon emissions reducing unnecessary travel. Considering the third world human exploitation in pursuit of lithium, manganese, cobalt, nickel, and other elements needed to produce electric car batteries, I’m not convinced the environmental and human footprint of electric cars is worth it yet. Certainly, there are ways we could conserve the amount of electricity we consume, that would minimally affect our lifestyle.

Boathouse bubblers are just an example. For now, I would love to see a trend that uses the minimum needed to keep the boathouse safe instead of the maximum. Who knows, maybe this will start an enlightenment, to pursue environmental conservationism. Whoops, there goes my optimism bias again. How about it? Plug your bubbler into a cheap plug-in timer and save money and create less impact. Thinking about how we affect others may also become a trend, albeit that is also bit optimistic.

Bill Martin

Saranac Lake