Red Light On Green Lights

So-called “green” compact flourescent bulbs are far more dangerous to the environment than the “carbon footprint” of an incandescent bulb. Consider this: the plants that generate the power will operate no differently simply because you choose to use a more energy efficient bulb. Power plants are not like producers of goods in that they can significantly “slow down” the assembly line when demand falls; and it is unlikely that demand would drop off in any region to the point that a generation plant is taken offline. Secondly, flourescent bulbs, compact or otherwise, are full of compounds long known to be toxic to the environment – in particular: they contain mercury which, for decades, polluted our waters due to run off from the land, and it is toxic to the fish and wildlife  these alarmists claim to be protecting.

Recycle them, you say. Dispose of them in controlled environments through recycling programs such as offered by Home Depot and the like. Ha! I say. Communities across the US have curbside recycling programs for more innocuous household disposables which achieve nowhere near 100% participation – from 12 to 41% is typical. Do you think for a minute that the participation in a flourescent bulb recycling program in which you must go to the recycling center would be anywhere near that of a curbside program? Stop kidding yourselves.

Me? I’d rather have some glass, traces of tungsten, and the metal base of a lightbulb in a landfill than the mercury from Gore’s nightmare. The farcicle “carbon footprint” is essentially unchanged in either case. Do you truly want to reduce the “carbon footprint” of electricity? Wind and solar are little more than industrial curiosities. Each produces relatively small amounts of power through relatively expensive equipment when compared to more traditional means. Outside of hydocarbon-fueled steam generation plants, hydroelectric and nuclear are the two most viable means of low-cost, mass generation available. Unfortunately, for the first, you need a source of mass-flow water, and these are not universally available where power is desired. And, thanks to all the lovely activists within our country, for the second, you need an act of God…


2 Responses to “Red Light On Green Lights”

  1. Danial Treider Says:

    incandescent lights uses too much electricity compared to compact fluorescent lamps.~

    • pateratic Says:

      First, define what “too much electricity” means. True, incandescents typically use more electricity tham LEDs or CFLs due to the filament heat-up, in particular, but what does “dtoo much” mean in the context of a consumer? Second, why is electricity comsumption the only criteria in this discussion for most? Where are the earth worshippers complaining of all the toxic chemicals introduced into landfills and their surrounding environment when CFLs are disposed of? And where is the defense for migraine sufferers whose attacks are triggered by the incessant flickering of non-incandescent lights?

      I urge you to not simply repeat the talking points of those who are pushing the end to incandescent lighting. This was clearly not an effort to help the environment, but one to promote one industry over another. You’ll note that US incandescent light manufacturers are pretty much winding down, if not already out of the game. The unfortunate fact is that there are no serious production sites of CFLs and the other alternative lighting devices supposed to take incandescent lights’ place in our homes in the US – so not only did they choose “winners and losers” in this industry, they chose that those who are the winners are not on US soil, and took jobs away from the people in the US – as with most recent politically motivated issues. You see, there is no shortage of electricity if you call the dogs of the EPA and DOE – two extra-constitutional, bureaucratic organizations who respond to factions in our society – and politicians – rather than any objective metrics or truly settled science. And this is a case where the cure for the “environmental issue” is far, far worse for the environment than the supposed disease…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: