Baron Josef von Kronen's posts with tag: cfls
These are perilous times for America. I hate to sound cliche or fear-mongering in my first blog in nearly a month, but I've had this pervasive feeling in the back of my mind for the last while. It's percolated past a previous precedent to pestilent proportions.
The pernicious problem presides in Congress.
 Besides having one of the lowest approval ratings in Congressional history, and in all rating systems ever, most likely (yes, that means they have worse ratings than The View), Congress is doing something else that's reasonably suspect. They're limiting our freedoms.
I've always pictured myself as a hybrid between a conservative and a Libertarian, which is sort of an awkward cross. A truly far-right conservative puts values on some personal restrictions to preserve (or, *cough*, "conserve") traditional family values. An example of this might be gay marriage. As a conservative, I can't see giving them a "marriage" as the right thing to do. I want to give them something else that's similar, but not really the same thing. That's the legal aspect of it. The Libertarian streak in me says that when it comes to two consenting adults in a private bedroom, they can do whatever the hell they want. That's personal freedom.
A firestorm erupted when the Supreme Court was considering taking up the DC handgun case. It escalated to a higher degree when they actually did take it up. The Supreme Court, to simplify it, is really at a four-four lib-conservative split. It's almost always one judge who is the wild card that makes the decision -- and his name escapes me. I believe it's Anton Scalia or Justice Kennedy.
Anyway, point being that all this hell was raised: "Are they gonna take our guns away? Will it set a precedent for further measures to take more guns away?" and "Will it make our streets safer? Will it set a precedent for further measures to make the streets safer?" Really, though, it came down to splitting hairs on an amendment that pretty much spells it out.
As an avid gun shooter and owner of multiple firearms, as a person who hopes to be able to defend myself should the need present itself, and as a right-wing Libertarian, I'm ecstatic the decision was made to overturn the handgun ban.
It would have been a monumental blow to our rights to have a Supreme Court spit in the face of the Second Amendment like that. Freedom loving Americans can breathe a sigh of relief. My axe to grind, as I mentioned earlier, is with Congress.
Our rights are being nibbled at more and more every day that Congress meets. This is a fairly repeated phrase, really, and people just tend to nod their heads and walk along. Apathy is what's killing America.
On December 19, 2007, Congress eliminated a freedom that will affect undoubtedly every American with nary a blink from Big Media or the populace. I blogged about it about a month later in an entry called "Live Green or Die Trying." 43 people saw the entry. I don't think any of us realized the repercussions of that particular measure, though.
Congress banned incandescent bulbs, the round kind that most of us have, by 2014. The only viable alternatives right now are compact fluorescent bulbs and whale blubber. (Damn, the Japanese have a monopoly on that market and the eco-libs vow energy independence... CFLs it is, then.) Frankly, I suspect they are going to phase-out the bulbs by disallowing the sale of the bulbs which'll have a trickle-down effect, but I plan on stockpiling incandescent. That, of course, is another rant entirely...
While freedom to light bulbs isn't in the Bill of Rights, I believe that "liberty" is in one of those old documents -- "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Frankly, I think Congress has more important issues to deal with than what light bulbs we use. Besides, this is America and I want to choose my own damn light bulbs.
There might be some caribou on an ice float in the ozone layer that'll be impacted by my desk lamp, but it's my decision: freedom of choice. I know that there needs to be some regard shown to the environment, but it isn't like America -- at least in theory -- to do things this way. Tobacco is bad for people, but can you imagine the uprising if Congress tried to phase it out, first cigars, then cigarettes, then chew, and finally Nicorette?
I think the government took a pretty good road with tobacco, actually. You can still get tobacco, but there is an exorbitant tax on the stuff. If you want it, you can get it, for a price. That is using the economy and the markets to influence people's buying habits. I think that while this is still questionable when orchestrated, it's a better alternative to just banning the stuff outright considering it happens all the time. Look at the sudden upswing in people taking advantage of public transportation. The force of economics taking form of $4 gas is forcing people's habits, likewise with tobacco. Tobacco users should be allowed to do what they want -- even if that means giving themselves lung cancer in the privacy of their own home.
"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
-Ronald Reagan
The average incandescent is what, $0.50? Most CFLs are about $3. As they get used more, of course, the price will come down. But let's say that instead of phasing out the bulbs, Congress put a $2 tax on the 100-watt bulb in 2012, $2 on the 60 by 2013 and $2 on the 40-watt by 2014. While it would have undoubtedly made some people angry, that money could go towards corn mash, dry ice, and parachutes for those caribou stranded in the upper atmosphere or some other environmental project of your choosing.
You see, though, it's not just big decisions like the DC gun ban case or the amendments to the FISA that are pieces of your freedom at risk. It happens every session Congress meets.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
-Mark Twain
Look at the nearest light fixture. Do it. Which do you see?
  For the most part, I bet you see the one on the right -- an incandescent bulb. Most of mine are incandescents, but I'll admit I caved and bought a pack of the ones on the right -- CFLs, or compact fluorescent light bulb. I hate the damned things. They remind me too much of a 'sterile' environment... work or the hospital. I put them in places where that wouldn't matter, closets and the kitchen. In the bedroom, bathrooms, living rooms, and dining room, I still have incandescents. I think they cast a much warmer light. There's a problem, though.
I knew about this right after it happened. Now, of course, there are some hitches. The largest bulb, the 100-watt, will be banned in 2010, through the smallest, a 40-watt, by 2012. Most of what we have in our homes are 60-watts.
I bet most of you who are reading didn't know this. This, of course, affects all of us, everywhere, in more ways than you may think. I wouldn't expect the FBI to come kicking doors down and ripping lighbulbs out. I suspect it only bans the sale, or manufacture of them. I'd suggest you buy a few, try them out, and if you like 'em, don't worry. If you don't, buy a bit of a stockpile of regular bulbs. The only reason I suggest that is that the ban is inevitable. Other than that reason, I'd highly recommend you don't buy them.
What really has me shaking my head over the whole compact fluorescent lighbulb (CFLs, from here on in) business is that there are major risks associated with these bulbs that have been overlooked. There is a major push for these CFLs from the green community, but I would think that they'd analyze every aspect of the CFLs before putting themselves in such a compromising position. You see, CFLs contain small amounts of highly-toxic mecury. Smashing one of these bulbs will have more of a consequence than a regular bulb, as illustrated in this news story. An excerpt: WASHINGTON – Brandy Bridges heard the claims of government officials, environmentalists and retailers like Wal-Mart all pushing the idea of replacing incandescent light bulbs with energy-saving and money-saving compact fluorescent lamps. So, last month, the Prospect, Maine, resident went out and bought two dozen CFLs and began installing them in her home. One broke. A month later, her daughter's bedroom remains sealed off with plastic like the site of a hazardous materials accident, while Bridges works on a way to pay off a $2,000 estimate by a company specializing in environmentally sound cleanups of the mercury inside the bulb.
"Live Green or Die Trying" It's a scary prospect, but it won't just happen in your house. Once this ban takes effect and bulbs start burning out, then what? You're going to throw them away. Maybe you'll smash them in the garbage can. Maybe the garbage truck will compact them. Either way, they will be smashed at the dump, where that lovely mercury will seep its way into our water supply. Pass me a drink. This ban, while in good heart, has likely done more wrong than good. It would have been in Congress's best interest to make sure there was an established way to dispose of them, namely recycling programs that can handle this and are widespread. I find the entire thing laughable. What about small towns that don't have the facilities or budgets? They'll just have to toss them in the trash, and with a small-town dump, it is almost guarenteed to enter the water supply. How about another anecdote? The warnings on the packages of some of the new bulbs are in fine print – hard to read. They are also voluntary, with many bulbs being sold and distributed with no disposal warnings at all. Charmain Miles of Toronto, Canada, had another frightening experience with a CFL bulb. Last month she smelled smoke on the second floor of her home, only to discover it was emanating from a new energy-efficient bulb. "I was horrified," she told a local TV station. "I went through every place upstairs and took out every bulb." The bulb had been placed in a track-lighting fixture. Though the bulb contained no warning about such fixtures, it turns out CFLs are not for use in track, recessed or dimmer fixtures.
Voluntary warnings? And they're going to be mandated? Take a look at this: Nobody promoted CFLs as aggressively as IKEA. Not only does the retailer sell them, it also provides one of the very few recycling centers for the burned out bulbs. But even with a plethora of recycling centers, how will the public view the prospect of saving up dead bulbs and transporting them to recycling centers? And how about the danger of breakage in that process? "The industry is currently aiming at totally mercury-free CFL lighting, but this is still five to 10 years away," admits IKEA.
Well, that's good news. At least there are recycling facilities available. The problem is this is a private retailer. They can pull it any time they want. That, and the nearest IKEA is four hours away, for me. I am not taking my smashable bulbs four hours to have them recycled. This is something I found interesting. I think this would be a much more realistic approach. That, and it promotes free market by not banning a specific product and almost favoring another. The American Lighting Association has some ideas. It has created a list of five considerations that should be weighed by all legislative bodies considering bans on incandescent bulbs. The association of American manufacturers and retail outlets suggests any such legislation include the following provisions: - a lumen per watt energy efficiency standard should be established rather than a ban on a specific type of product. It should include a 10-year goal
- halogen bulbs should be exempted
- incandescent bulbs 40 watts or less should be exempt
- collection and disposal plans for mercury-based CFLs should be made prior to any ban;
- persuade consumers through education rather than coerce them through limiting choices
Another aspect -- CFLs cost, on average, $3 each. Unless the industry is going to pull out a remarkable way to save money on them, or take a volunatry profit loss, I would suspect that prices will still hover around $3 when they are the only practical lighting solution. A normal lightbulb costs, on average, $0.50 a day. How are folks who don't have money to throw at lightbulbs going to light their homes when they can buy six normal bulbs for one CFL? Are people in the inner cities going to be stealing bulbs from homes and stores to light their homes? Yes, the CFLs do last about three years. Yes, the CFLs do use less energy. I think, with the evidence I've shown you, that there is a price to pay for saving the planet. Live Green or Die Trying. -Ze Baron Links Depository:
"Consumers in dark over risks of new light bulbs"
"Planet Earth banning common light bulbs"
"Congress bans incandescent bulbs"
(Print or link to this blog or one of the above articles. Get the word out.)
| |
