Originally Posted By jonvn "But what guarantees are there that damage won't be lessened" Because hopefully we'll be able to figure out a way to create energy that does not cause this type of harm. We already know what sort of harm is being done, and so creating another form that does the exact same thing doesn't really mean a lot. This is why we need to do something now about the situation, rather than just endlessly saying we need more research.
Originally Posted By DAR <<It was an idea that had a brief vogue, but nothing lasting and not believed by every major scientific organization that studies such things.>> If anything things tend be in vogue for a much shorter period. Don't be suprised if in 2017 when I Love the 00's is one, the Mo Rocca, Hal Sparks and Ian Michael Black of that era reminsce about the green movement.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Don't be suprised if in 2017 when I Love the 00's is one, the Mo Rocca, Hal Sparks and Ian Michael Black of that era reminsce about the green movement.<< From the VH1 studios on Mars.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Mo Rocca, Hal Sparks and Ian Michael Black " I have never heard of any of these guys.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<It was an idea that had a brief vogue, but nothing lasting and not believed by every major scientific organization that studies such things.>> <If anything things tend be in vogue for a much shorter period. > Agreed. Yet, the scientific consensus on warming has lasted far longer than the 70's global cooling blip already, and has only grown stronger over the years. Which should tell us something.
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 I've tried the new energy efficient bulbs, and even use them in a few places. But I think one of the reasons they have not really caught on is the packaging is not all that honest. When I buy a bulb that states "as much illumination as a 100 watt bulb" and only get half the illumination of a 100 watt bulb, I tend to buy the old 100 watt bulb the next time I'm looking for one. I've tried them several times too, always with the same unsatisfactory result.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Yup. We just insulated our garage and put in drywall. We replace all the lighting with the energy efficient bulbs. Even with all the white drywall on the walls and ceiling, it isn't as bright as it was before the work. And frankly, I need it bright in there or there'll be an accident with power tools.
Originally Posted By Fe Maiden I just switched out the energy efficient bulbs in our closet and bedroom for the old-fashioned brighter ones, because I couldn't tell the difference between some of my black and blue pants. If being less green means I can walk out of the house and have my pants match the rest of my outfit so be it.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Fortunately, there is legislation in the works that should soon make the old incandescent light bulbs banned within a matter of years, so the only choice will be energy efficient CFLs.
Originally Posted By friendofdd The new bulbs do require some extra care due to mercury content. <a href="http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp" target="_blank">http://www.snopes.com/medical/ toxins/cfl.asp</a>
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << The new bulbs do require some extra care due to mercury content. >> Electric power plants produce more mercury that is released into the atmosphere in the process of powering a single incandescent bulb than the amount contained in a CFL. And the link you provided pretty much debunks the idea that CFLs are hazardous due to mercury content.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Agreed. That is why I posted the link. But they take more care when broken than Incandescents do. No vacuuming and do not dispose of as trash, but take to a hazardous materials site.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ A single broken CFL doesn't really require that sort of over-reaction. There just isn't enough mercury there to warrant the extra effort.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Maybe not, but what about when every bulb in every house is eventually CFL. Just because one bulb doesn't make a huge difference doesn't mean we shouldn't dispose of it properly. It's the big picture...
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Households regularly dispose of items that are far more toxic without any concern for the "big picture." The whole mercury red herring has been raised by the same interest groups that try to plant seeds of doubt about every green initiative introduced. Raising the specter of mercury poisoning is a fear tactic, plain and simple. If folks want to go to the extra effort to dispose of their CFLs, that's great, but it's totally unnecessary in the context of the amount of the material there and in comparison to all of the other toxic substances that we allow in our houses, garages, and workplaces everyday.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal "Households regularly dispose of items that are far more toxic without any concern for the "big picture." The whole mercury red herring has been raised by the same interest groups that try to plant seeds of doubt about every green initiative introduced." So if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?? Sorry, I hate to sound like my mother but just because "everyone" does something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good or sound idea. If there's something I can do to reduce the toxic or hazardous waste going into regular landfills then I'll do it. That includes batteries, paint, oil, etc. The whole "everybody throws out hazardous waste all the time" argument doesn't seem to make much sense to me. If anything the fact that households DO routinely dispose of hazardous waste in an irresponsible manner speaks to the need to have more easily accessible hazardous waste facilities. My mom in San Diego had to make an appointment to dispose of unused latex paint and her appointment was scheduled for three months away! Ridiculous. And I totally agree that one or possibly even hundreds of CFL bulbs in a landfill won't cause problems. But, again, I'm looking into the future. When there are millions of bulbs. And mercury doesn't just disappear. One bulb makes no difference. But I'll be happy to be putting one less CFL bulb into the landfill.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Anybody heard about the new Compressed air cars being introduced this year in Europe? They sound very encouraging but are tiny and ugly as hell.
Originally Posted By DAR <<They sound very encouraging but are tiny and ugly as hell.>> Yeah I don't want tiny and ugly. You can't take things from Home Depot in tiny and ugly. Hopefully they're working on BIG and BAD but enviromentally friendy.
Originally Posted By woody <<So while I appreciate any attempt to stay open-minded to more research and more science on any issue, history has shown that we typically have to be very skeptical of anyone who says science is wrong and needs more research.>> Wrong assessment of my position. I'm haven't argued for the end of debate. That would be Jonvn. I'm a skeptic of the consensus. Science does not rely on consensus opinion especially if it is described as being over with the specific argument that MAN has caused Global Warming. The science doesn't prove that man has caused Global Warming. As for Global Warming, there is reason to believe the the earth is getting warmer, but there's no way of knowing if warming will increase to the point of causing an apocalypse. This is faith masquerading as science.
Originally Posted By woody Global Warming is about ... "The predicted effects of global warming on the environment and for human life are numerous and varied. It is generally difficult to attribute specific natural phenomena to long-term causes, but some effects of recent climate change may already be occurring. Rising sea levels, glacier retreat, Arctic shrinkage, and altered patterns of agriculture are cited as direct consequences, but predictions for secondary and regional effects include extreme weather events, an expansion of tropical diseases, changes in the timing of seasonal patterns in ecosystems, and drastic economic impact. Concerns have led to political activism advocating proposals to mitigate, eliminate, or adapt to it." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E ffects_of_global_warming</a> On the top three effects... "Rising sea levels, glacier retreat, Arctic shrinkage", here's some research to refute it. "Scientists have discovered that glaciers survived for hundreds of thousands of years during an era when crocodiles roamed the Arctic, reports Roger Highfield" "The most pessimistic predictions of sea level rises as ice sheets are melted by global warming may have to be scaled back as a result of an extraordinary discovery that ice persisted when the Earth was much hotter than today." <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/earth/2008/01/10/sciglacier110.xml" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear th/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/earth/2008/01/10/sciglacier110.xml</a>
