« British Criminals Housed in Pricey Residential Abodes | Main | Hugo Chavez Admits to Chewing Coca Daily »

"If one breaks and the authorities find out, the costs of biohazard cleanup are enormous."

No, they are not. Like any adult would, you simply get a paper towel, clean up the miniscule amount inside, wrap it up and throw it away.

"CFLs contain toxic mercury."

So do dental fillings. Just go ahead and tell everyone who has them they have to have them removed, under the same ridiculous assumptions.

"Some are wisely planning ahead by stocking up on incandescent light bulbs while they're still legal."

Yes, by all means. And continue to pay your high electric bills and foist the cost of heating oil and other fuels on US, so your pact with the multinational oil conglomerates, with no allegiance to America, are honored.

Fools.

Is anyone really dillusional enough to think that using CFLs will do anything? Every year more and more electronics are bought - everyone is buying mammoth big screen LCD's - some day soon, those enormous floor to celing wall screens, seen in the movie Farenheit 451, will be common place. Any small amount of power saved by these things will be used by something else. Not to mention billions of Chinese and Indians are now wanting to acquire technology that uses lots of power.

I hate CFLs because flourescents give me a headache along with that annoying buzzing and they dont come on instantly. Not to mention the additional cost of buying the things. LED's hold alot of promise and dont have toxic mercury in them either. When they actually hit the market (and are cost effective) I might check them out.

The banning of fluorescents was a symbolic gesture anyway. I don't see Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington or John McCain giving up private jets in the name of global warming, so why should I have to give up decent lightbulbs? (I make a point to buy 3 or 4 packs every time I go to the Home Depot.)

Frankly, I don't think CFLs are appropriate for every use, but they are the best option for most.

Not for a moment do I believe they will ever be banned outright, but I do believe they will go up in price, and, considering the fact that there are less wasteful options available for most uses, that strikes me as appropriate and prudent.

So, V, if you want to waste your money on such lightbulbs because you are a fan of them (sigh), and continue to be self-inflated electric bills because of your stubbornness, be our guest.

Just don't ask the rest of us with common sense to foot your bills.

If lowering the cost of fuel oils and reducing our dependence on foreign oil is the goal, then why is drilling in ANWR and in the Gulf of Mexico (which can be accomplished with little or no negative net environmental impact) off the table?

Those are not the goals, obviously, because developing domestic supplies would have far more impact on the market for petroleum than banning lightbulbs.

So, that leaves two rationales for this. 1.) This is a symbolic gesture to appease Gaia in the name of Global Warming. {And one has to question whether any of the advocates of this law really believe in Global Warming since their own private jet travel and multiple enormous homes are not subject to such sacrifice} or 2.) An enormous payoff to manufacturers of the higher-priced CFC bulbs, which IIRC are primarily manufactured in China.

If lowering the cost of fuel oils and reducing our dependence on foreign oil is the goal should read If lowering the cost of fuel oils and reducing our dependence on foreign oil are the goals

"...then why is drilling in ANWR and in the Gulf of Mexico (which can be accomplished with little or no negative net environmental impact) off the table?..."

I don't know, V.

I believe it should be put BACK onto the table, because the oil companies always have two ways to do it, the environmentally sensible way, and the one that yields them more profit.

I think they'd be willing to consider doing it the right way by now, gladly. I don't believe they were initially, but they capitulated and enviromental extremists insisted it be an all-or-nothing proposition.

I think the time for such rigid thinking on both sides is over. At this point, it's probably a matter of saving face.

I think ALL forms of energy should be taken advantage of, particularly nuclear power, although I am aware many of my compatriots are in complete disagreement.

What can I say? You have to be sensible.

I use CFL's in certain applications such as outside by my garage. CFL's last longer there (although not nearly as long as they are rated)than incandescents.

I still wonder if the energy savings is as high as touted:

Does the proported energy savings include the energy expend to manufacure the CFL? The CFL manufacturing process is apparently more complex, requiring more raw materials than the manufacture of incandescent bulbs.

Does the proported energy savings included the cost of transportation and recycling? There must be an increased energy cost associated with recycling the toxic mercury.

Does the proported energy savings include the cost of packaging. CFL's require heavier packaging and more plastic. How many people recycle the plastic packaging?

Apparently many CFL's are made in China. What are the enviromental impacts in a country that does not have the enviromental safeguards as the US?

CFL's are not designed to be switched on and off in short periods of time. Will people leave them on longer as compared to incandescents thus lowering energy savings?

The main reason CFL's use less electricity is that less energy is given off in the form of heat than incandescents. Does the proported energy savings take into account the fact that energy savings would be negligble in cooler climates and in winter since the heat from an incandescent bulb would be beneficial?

Doesn't anyone find it strange that the leading proponent of CFLs is IKEA which manufactures CFLs and just so happens to be one of the few companies in the US that can recycle these bulbs?

Just some questions.

Also, another thought. What is the energy cost per lumen of an incandescent bulb vs. a CFL? The laws of thermodynamics tell me there is no such thing as a "free lunch" in the world of physics. Would not the energy cost per lumen have to be the same? Any physicists out there that could enlighten me?

"Just don't ask the rest of us with common sense to foot your bills."

Thats what you will NEVER get. We don't ask for governmental help, we don't want governmental help nor your help. We are not like you liberals who want to cram your fetus-not-a-baby, you-can't say-sodomy -is-a-sin, junk-science-eart-worshipping religion on us. Feel free to use those annoying light bulbs if you like. We don't want to stop you.

The GOVERNMENT has no business telling people how to run the minute details of their lives. Especially based on politically motivated junk science.

Correct, Mandy. It is ridiculous that the government is telling us what kind of lightbulbs to use, and what kind of toilets to use, for that matter. The left eagerly embraces fascism when it's done in the name of "saving the environment."

Sinclair Lewis is erroneously quoted as saying, "Fascism will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible." It seems more likely it will come wrapped in a hemp shirt and carrying a copy of 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth.

A scene from Joe Versus The Volcano comes to mind where Joe is explaining how the buzzing flickering flourescent lights suck the life of a person. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSuck! SSSSSSSSSSSSSSuck!

I just plain hate them. Its probably why I get headaches at work.

Baldeagle390,

I think you answered your own question. The CFLs use less energy per lumen because they generate less "waste" heat.

Your point about incandescants not being wasteful in the winter is an excellent one. Practically all of the heat from the bulb will go into offsetting your heating expenses. The only difference is that most homes are heated with natural gas but the light bulbs use electiricity, which is generally considerably more expensive per therm.

Baldeagle, you have a good point about IKEA.

The good news is, after you drop your first CFL on your desk, covering it in a toxic sheen of mercury, you'll be able to replace it with one from Ikea for $39. So it's all been worked out for you.

"Apparently many CFL's are made in China. What are the enviromental impacts in a country that does not have the enviromental safeguards as the US?"

I don't know, but our own environmental safeguards have been slashed to ribbons, since neocons repeatedly insist upon measuring ours up against toxic hellholes like China, so we are very much at the mercy of what the unregulated, unchecked multinational corporate giants, with no loyalty to country, will tell us.

"CFL's are not designed to be switched on and off in short periods of time. Will people leave them on longer as compared to incandescents thus lowering energy savings?"

Today's modern CFLs really don't have a problem handling this...I shut mine on and off at short intervals without any problems.

On a very, very cold day, they do seem to take longer to brighten, but this is not the worst thing in the world to live with, if you factor in the savings.

"Doesn't anyone find it strange that the leading proponent of CFLs is IKEA which manufactures CFLs and just so happens to be one of the few companies in the US that can recycle these bulbs?"

Not any stranger than the fact that the main critics of CFLs happen to be paid by the oil and energy companies...

"Would not the energy cost per lumen have to be the same? Any physicists out there that could enlighten me?"

Not a physicist, but I can tell you my electric bill went down 65%. That would have been enough to send any paleo (real) conservative right down to the hardware store....

"Feel free to use those annoying light bulbs if you like. We don't want to stop you."

Sure, Mandy, but you also have no problem unnecessarily wasting a disproportionate amount of energy and causing my electric and gas rates to skyrocket in the process!

Which would be, where your whiny little preferences take a back seat to MY right to affordable and reliable supplies of energy, and MY right to spend MY money how I choose.

"Especially based on politically motivated junk science."

Mandy? Turning on your electric light and paying less for it is hardly "junk science".

"...and what kind of toilets to use, for that matter. The left eagerly embraces fascism when it's done in the name of "saving the environment."

V, comparing low-flow toilets to CFLs is a poor analogy, and I happen to oppose low-flow toilets because, more often than not, you need to flush them at least twice, defeating their original purpose. For the same reason, I do not endorse most of the new and very front-loading washing machines, because the water standards are simply too stringent and they are set to use far too little water to get the clothing clean.

And remember, I'm supposed to be one of those eeevil leftist fascists...

But I have a solution to ALL of these "problems"!

RAISE the federal water levels on the toilets and the washing machines, USE the economical bulbs wherever feasible, SAVE money, and LEARN not to overreact and overpoliticize...

Every.Freaking.Issue.

This is not rocket science, folks.

Maybe I was a little too complex. I'll simplify. From conception to disposal what is the energy cost of a CFL as compared to an incandescent bulb.

My family's carbon footprint is actually smaller than average. That is what naturally happens when people allow economic forces to determine how they live (i.e. it is cheaper for me to do x than y, so I do it.) I've got no problem using cloth diapers, driving a hybrid etc if it is good for my family. I just don't think everyone should be forced to do it by any government. that is the opposite of freedom. These laws are also based on nonsense.

My electric bill has no bearing on yours whatsoever. This is reminiscent of Marx's zero sum economics: If person a is rich and person b is poor, then person a is exploiting person b and the cause of their poverty.

The problem with this communism and for the common good mentality is that it ignores an important aspect of human nature. You can motivate people to work for those they love, you can motivate people to want to do the right thing for their own family's interest. You cannot translate that warmth, love and motivation to use for the common good. We saw how human nature is - you can't make people care about and work for hypothetical human they don't know and will never meet. This is why the patriarchy was such a good system. Men were very willing to support their wives and legitimate children. They have no natural inclination to collectively support the general populatiton of other humans.

oops...forgot "?"

I meant to say " We saw ho human nature is in the old USSR" in that last paragraph - sorry!

"I just plain hate them. Its probably why I get headaches at work."

Anonymous, the ones the corporations supply for you to work under are the cheapest fluorescents going, unchanged since the early fifties, and far inferior to the compact ones sold for home use nowadays.

Perhaps, if our LABOR MOVEMENT had not been decimated by the neocons, you would not have had to spend so many years at your workplace, working under such inferior equipment...but, no, the "free market" must prevail, no?

I think you answered your own question. The CFLs use less energy per lumen because they generate less "waste" heat.

"Practically all of the heat from the bulb will go into offsetting your heating expenses. The only difference is that most homes are heated with natural gas but the light bulbs use electiricity, which is generally considerably more expensive per therm."

That's a helluva expensive "offset", no? You couldn't afford to heat your house with incandescent bulbs as your heating source!

"The good news is, after you drop your first CFL on your desk, covering it in a toxic sheen of mercury, you'll be able to replace it with one from Ikea for $39."

Did I mention yet that I have actually dropped one? I could have cleaned up the "toxic sheen" with a single paper napkin.

And the bulbs are WAY cheaper at WalMart than at Ikea. Ikea is more expensive on virtually everything, because it's trendy and overpriced.

"Maybe I was a little too complex. I'll simplify. From conception to disposal what is the energy cost of a CFL as compared to an incandescent bulb."

Eagle, I honestly can't answer yet from personal experience. The boxes they come in tout how many years they last under normal use, but I'm not taking that as gospel anyway, so I'll have to wait until they burn out by themselves.

At the time I bought most of them, they were still fairly expensive, but they have come down in price further still (particularly since WalMart got into the game).

I will tell you, my electric savings so far have been astonishing.

GE, a very big company, bigger than any "evil oil company" has a very big stake in the gov't mandating the strict use of CFL bulbs. They own NBC who always has a big story on "globull whorming" in their news programs. Remember that stupid sports show w/ Bob Costas a few weeks ago about NBC turning the lights off and candlelighting the set? Talk about a monopoly, this monoply would make any "evil oil company" monopoly pale in comparison. The "green" biz is a farce. It's not for the common good or saving the environment. It's driven by the likes of The Goracle who is poised with his "green" holdings which will rake in tons of "green" $$$$ when and if it all becomes law. Has not HashyOil heard of the lady in Vermont who got stuck with a $3000.00 tab by the state EPA for cleaning up the extremely high levels of mercury due to a CFL she dropped and broke in her daughter's closet? CFL's are on the way out already. I hear LCD bulbs are the answer. So keep your fuckin'laws off my bulbs and I'll support keeping any laws off anybody who wants an abortion. I was at a recycling center a few weeks ago and some earth-muffin recycler had a burned out CFL he was tring to recycle. I told him about the extremely high levels of mercury in them and we both wondered why there was no bin to dispose them in. I told him to call the local IKEA for recycling info.

"GE, a very big company, bigger than any "evil oil company"

Well, perhaps not "bigger", but maybe one of the biggest defense contractors, who have profited immensely from the failed Iraq occupation?

Hmmm, bry...maybe not one of the finest evasive moves you've ever pulled.

Maybe you should have invoked Philips. At least then, you'd have something else to blame on the Dutch....

:I told him about the extremely high levels of mercury in them..."

Well, you'd have been lying, then, because there was no "extremely high levels of mercury" to worry about.

Perhaps your next form of public service will be to run downtown with dental dams and a tongue depresser, so you can accost random passersby and pull their mercury dental fillings so you can "save" them from their own toxicity?

"I told him to call the local IKEA for recycling info."

Maybe he should have called the boys with the padded van to pick you up?

Hashfanatic, I think the idea here is that if YOU like the new bulbs then YOU should definitely use them, and if I don't like them, I'll use the incandescents, and if someone prefers candles, good for them and go for it, and if someone else prefers to get all their light from the sun and sit in the dark at night, well, that's their choice. That is what makes us human - our choices, and our ability to choose. In a free market, you are free to use CFLs, and are free to get a feeling of satisfaction that you're helping the environment and saving money too, while I am free to use old-fashioned bulbs and make my own choices in this and other areas of life. Where it all goes to sh*t is when you tell me what I have to do, or vice versa. That is the only important point here - the increasing, encroaching power of governments to tell ordinary, everyday people what they can and can't do and think. You and your ilk are very happy with yourselves these days, as Europe and a good chunk of the American populace buys into the utterly preposterious notion that massive government regulation and intrusion into everyday life - right down to our toilets and light bulbs and many, many other things - but in the end, you or your kids or their kids are going to deeply regret ever allowing government to play such a daily managerial role in all our lives. A free people that keeps its government on a short leash and limits its power is one of the greatest innovations in human history, and is now coming undone at a furious pace, for utterly stupid reasons, and your facile and docile mindset that "Well, let's not be political - it's a good thing" is the banal enabler of that undoing.

aw heck,use one sheet of toliet paper..problem solved.

hash's logic:
An all-powerfull government answerable only to itself is GOOD when HIS KIND run it and BAD when his kind DOES NOT.

hash, why don't you just STOP USING lights all together and REALLY do "Mother Earth" a favor?

"In a free market, you are free to use CFLs, and are free to get a feeling of satisfaction that you're helping the environment and saving money too, while I am free to use old-fashioned bulbs and make my own choices in this and other areas of life."

Well, we see what your imaginary "free market" has brought us. $4 gallon gas and $5 milk!

I don't support an outright ban on incandescent bulbs (and I'm positive I'd mentioned that several times this thread).

I do believe the exaggerations and the hysteria (and they ARE exaggerations and hysteria, believe me) regarding CFLs is more than just a lie. It's fear-mongering and manipulation for corporate gain, just like the imaginary "Islamofascists" are.

Nobody is saying you shouldn't use whatever bulbs you want to. I AM saying the cost the wasteful bulbs expend on OUR resources, which you have no right to hog out of willful ignorance, should be factored into how much these bulbs cost, and the thrifty, economical bulbs should cost even less.

Most importantly, what I am saying is that if you call yourself "conservative" and find yourself electing the MOST EXPENSIVE choice and the MOST WASTEFUL choice (as you have repeatedly, when managing the country's finances, with catastrophic results), you need to seriously take stock as to whether or not it is your values that have become perverted by the "world", and whether or not you're really prepared to continue blaming others for essentially picking up where you jumped off.

"hash, why don't you just STOP USING lights all together and REALLY do "Mother Earth" a favor?"

Because you've already used up more of your fair share of resources, and I'm tired of carrying your burden as well as mine?

$4 gallon gas
-- approximately 50% of which is taxes

and $5 milk!
-- because most of the land use for producing feed is being turned over to growing biofuels, and because of the aforementioned tax pushing up the cost of transport, and because of government mandates on how milk should be transported and stored...

If prices rise above inflation then it's generally the government's fault.

HashyOilCo. If there are no extremely high levels of mercury in CFLs, then why did a state EPA have to come in to clean one up when it broke in a closet? Your not being honest or even sober. Sad to tell you, GE is a very very very big company that has vast holdings and is an umbrella company for other big companies like NBC. HashyOilCo. needs to use the same yardstick on all his evaluations and judgements. So say i come over to HashyOilCo's house and break every one of his CFL's and then well take a mercury test and we'll see if HashyOilCo. still wants to stay in his house untils it's cleaned up? If he thinks CFL's are so harmless, let him live in a house of broken ones.

No, Bry, I'd simply hand you a roll of good old-fashioned Bounty and a dustpan, tell you to get down on your knees, and clean up the mess you made.

Simple!

"Because you've already used up more of your fair share of resources..."

I have? Please tell me just HOW MUCH of the Earth's resorces I am alowed. (Use any measurement you feel is convienient)
You're talking communism again, hash. I must remind you AGAIN that America is a FREE COUNTRY, there is NO GOVERNMENT RATIONING OF RESOURCES, no matter how much you would like it to be.

Here's bit of irony, the congress just passed a "stimulus package" to pump $150 Billion into the economy (snicker) because we're teetering on the brink of recession supposedly.

Simultaneously, congress is debating a number of 'Global Warming' bills, the least expensive of which would impart an annual cost of $400 billion to $1.2 trillion on the economy.

Does this seem... sane to anyone?

It does to comrade hash and his little shadow.

My resource alowance, hash? HOW MUCH?

"Does this seem... sane to anyone?"

No, unless you consider ceding what little this nation has left in terms of industry and resources to foreign principalities and powers, and deepening ourselves further into the quicksand of debt to be sane.

I personally do not.

Men were very willing to support their wives and legitimate children. They have no natural inclination to collectively support the general populatiton of other humans.

Mandy, slight addition... I agree that men have no natural inclination to altruism, but rather selfishness - which is what Communist states have demonstrated without fail. It takes belief in a God who is please by altruistic, self-sacrificial behaviour to motivate men to acts of selfless kindness.

The US intervention in Iraq is one example IMO.

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/09/17/do-republicans-support-the-troops-because-the-of-jesus-and-the-apostles/

"It takes belief in a God who is please by altruistic, self-sacrificial behaviour to motivate men to acts of selfless kindness."

If you truly believe that the only reason men behave altruistically is because they fear God and eternal damnation, well then your view of human kind is very very sad indeed.

To then claim that this loving, altruistic, self sacrificial "god" approves of your war in Iraq is frankly disgusting.

You are beyond hope.

do you really think God would accept you into his pearly gates because you were a good person out of fear. Do you really believe that he values insincere altruism that can only be obtained by keeping his followers scared of him and hell.

You are saying that people are incapable of doing good through pure logic and ratioanl thinking, and that in order to do good things they must believe in an angry, vengeful God who is capable of sending them to the fires of eternal hell.

People are only good, because they are afraid to do bad?

What a truly pathetic God you have.

Because you people are incapable of warmth and good feelings to your common man, why do you assume everyone is as self centered, arrogant, and inconsiderate as you are.

I don't believe in God....but I most certainly believe in at least trying to to good. i have reached the conclusion that doing good is positive through pure thinking and rationality.

It really dosen't take too mcuh thinking to understand that if my neighbors are happy, satisfied people, I have a better chance of being those things as well.

I beg you people, take your nose out of your "holy books" of nonsense for 5 minutes and read something else....You are holding civilization back!

I really agree burning hot. For those who do not fear/believe in God however, a family usually provides motivation to follow the basic rules of society.

I do not know where the belief that people who believe in God do not have warmth for their fellow man comes from Anon. That is ridiculous. There is good proof (the former Soviet block) the in large numbers, the general population cannot be motivated to work for the "common good" of hypothetical people. There is much evidence (Western Civ) that they can be motivated to do right and work for those they can see, touch talk to, interact with, love etc...

Human beings are generally not disposed to this altruism Hash claims. 36 years on this earth have shown that it is a rare human who will happily make even the most minor sacrifice such as stopping for a jaywalker without flipping them off for the good of their fellow man who is not a close relation or friend. Please explain how abortion is good for any human besides the mother having it done. Yes, hashfan, I believe fear (i.e. respect of His sovereign power - not humanly cowardice) of the Lord is what He expects and rewards. Am I allowed to worship such a God in the USSA any more?

"Am I allowed to worship such a God in the USSA any more?"

Tyrants will not alow competition, MANDY.

"I beg you people, take your nose out of your "holy books" of nonsense for 5 minutes and read something else....You are holding civilization back!"

Try telling that to the MUSLIMS, religion is their all, it is what controls every aspect of their lives.
But its just easier to attack a target that is PEACEFULL and TOLERANT like Christianity and Judeaism than it is to criticize islam, which will kill you for looking cross-eyed at them. ISN'T IT?

K, in the streets of Jerusalem, its not uncommon for rabbinical types to spit on and even physically assault priests and Christian pilgrims quietly going about their business, and all you have to do is watch any nightly newscast and there is yet another antisemitic attack on our own streets, so the muzzies hardly hold any monopoly on hate.

Everyone could be at each other's throats at any moment.

Hash,
Watch hitler on demand doesn't count.

Oops,should have been "watching".