Re: Yet another empty gesture

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:25:18 GMT, nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) wrote in
message  <45dc2b4f.50280843@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>At least California has done many other things which actually do save
>significant amounts of energy and make significant reductions in greenhouse
>emissions. California figures are about 30% better than the US average and
>would be better yet if the current federal administration hadn't blocked
>some of their efforts regarding automobile efficiency standards.

It may be of interest to the Johnny-come-lately's who do nothing but
criticize and are just now awakening to the issues that California and US's
minor progress has come, and will continue to come, incrementally -- any one
part of which can be dismissed as insufficient as the OP has CFLs.

For example, part of the reduction cited by the OP has come about through
provisions concerning lighting in the comprehensive energy legislation passed
by the U. S. Congress in 1992 (The Energy Policy Act aka EPACT) that included
requirements that eliminated some wasteful incandescent and fluorescent lamps
meet minimum efficacy standards. Many of the standards took effect in 1994-5.

http://oikos.com/esb/41/epact/epact.html

The 2005 EPACT bill has a similar incremental effect.

Folks that are jist now waking up to energy issues including climate change
might consider changing their own obstinate and wasteful ways. The OP has
stated that he gets five years life out of a regular incandescent lamp
because he dims them. This is extraordinarily wasteful of energy because in
order to 'save' a few pennies on the lamp, he wastes many dollars through
reduced efficacy (lumens/watt) when lamps are dimmed using reduced voltages.

... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECONtrol.org