Well this being my first blog, I've decided to kick things off with a bang. What better place to start than one of my more vocal topics, environmental friendliness.
The one great thing I've always seen in America is how far people will go to actually save a dollar, from people with 4 million coupons to individuals who spend $10 of gas driving around to fin a value of $4. While I too am a frugal person, one thing I've never understood i in a society so obsessed with saving money where ever we can as to spend it elsewhere, why has it taken us so long to figure out that an initial high investment pays off in the long run? The best example would be the difference between CFL and Incandescent light bulbs. Despite CFLs having been on the market for years it is just now many are seeing the light, no pun intended, that the high initial cost of a CFL easy balances out over the average 5 year life span of significantly lower energy use. But this is a very obvious example, in fact the real issue that bothers me was actually suggested to me by a friend of mine. He posed the question, since when is efficiency bad?
The answer is in automobiles, for years American car makers have insisted that the tiny imports that get 30+ mpg were weak and underpowered... that was until Toyota sold more cars than GM just last year. But really why did it take us until the start of the 21st century to demand efficiency. Putting the obvious "America, Land of the Free and V8's" out of the way, the simple economics just suggest that no matter what the price of gas it just makes sense to have a more efficient car.
Why does it take global climate concerns and high energy prices to motivate companies to make more efficient cars? For years companies tried to claim low maintenance costs on vehicles, but why not target energy consumption (the second largest expense per household in the United States, right behind housing itself)? You can say the answer is arrogance, that Americans need bigger beefier cars to be tough, or we absolutely need to drive a 12 passenger car to work with just ourselves every morning. The simple answer is laziness on the part of the consumer and producer. The lack of progress in the auto-industry wasn't due to lack of insight, but rather lack of incentive. Why produce an automobile that gets an additional 2mpg if gas is only $1/gallon. The savings are minimal and automakers focused on additional features rather than the drive train of a car. There was 0 motivation to spend millions on R&D for a new engine that no one would buy. With the average price of gas for the latter part of the 20th century being relatively low in comparison to average household income, why would anyone be motivated by a few dollars of saving? They wouldn't. But this is the fault of the consumer as well, the sheer ignorance of the average american in the belief that gas prices would forever remain low was a pipe-dream of galactic proportions.
While efficiency is usually always a good thing, it didn't make sense for automakers or car buyers up until just a few years ago. The recency of the issue mixed with the very slow attainment of knowledge by the vast populous is why there remain so many SUVs and wasteful vehicles in production. The economics simple make some sense.
While being liberal in my own political stance, I do think economics would have to play in for the more "green" solutions to be practical (as in solar energy can't cost ridiculous amounts over coal).
But I ask you this for today, what do you tell your kids? That it was good for economy? When their economy fails, when they die of cancers, unknown diseases, suffer food shortages, and can even begin to drink the water. What do you say then?
I agree with you. Plus the light bulbs help our environment.
Plus the light bulbs help our environment.
Are you sure?
CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury
Environmentalists have a bad habit of siezing on an idea that seems to solve one aspect of a problem without considering the total holistic impacts of what they are proposing.
For example:
- The environmental movement were big proponents of ethanol as fuel. Only recently, after they helped pushed a disaster through Congress, have they figured out that ethanol has a negative energy balance and causes all sorts of other environmental degradation such as soil erosion and aquifer depletion.
- The environmental movement is big into hybrid cars. But who is talking about all the lead in those batteries and how to dispose of it? And are you all aware that when batteries are charged and discharged that lead is emitted into the air? We have stepped backwards into the bad old poisonous days of leaded gasoline.
- The environmental movement has been enthralled with fuel cell cars that run on hydrogen and emit water as the by-product. Sounds great and almost too good to be true. But they forget that the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. Either it can be electrolocized from water (can we say coal or nuclear powered power plants) or it can be stripped off of hydrocarbons with the byproduct being CO2.
- I could go on. I get blue in the face when I consider the environmental damage caused by the environmentalists that killed the nuclear industry which is by far our cleanest and cheapest fuel.
I believe in conserving the environment but I have long since been disgusted by the environmental movement because it approaches these issues from the perspective of religious dogma rather than science.
Yes CFL's do have their drawbacks. But this is one of those tradeoffs that we have to make to achieve greener technology. Also, it has been shown the small levels of mercury in each bulb (while enough to cause problems) when handled properly is not an issue. The way I see this, and feel free to hit me over the head for this, the cataclysmic results from climate change are by far much worse than some spilled mercury. Also this isn't the first time Americans have been exposed to potential mercury risks, think old thermometers. A simple national educational campaign is enough to halt a lot of the potential damage by CFLs. While I don't like the mercury being present, I like the idea of more energy efficient lighting much more.