Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity; Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 06:15:31 -0400, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<hMqdnaoYMc8mF_vbnZ2dnUVZ_uygnZ2d@xxxxxxx>:

>"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
><stuff snipped>
>
>> more massive changes in lifestyle are necessary if it's to be avoided
>> all together and that's where the focus needs to be, not on marginal
>> "feel good" empty gestures. Given that the polar ice is melting much
>> faster than the models predicted we may have already reached or passed
>> the tipping point so a 1-2% reduction in electricity use is
inconsequential

Numeracy Deficit Alert:

We can (for example) divide all energy use into Electric (E), Non-electric
Stationary (NS), and Non-electric Mobile (NM) categories. (About %40 of US
energy use is electricity, depending on where you include production
costs/losses.)

Each of the three categories can be further divided into Household,
Commercial, Industrial, and Transportation or Government sectors.

And each sector can be divided into at least three uses: eg,  lighting,
equipment, heating and cooling

So we have at least 3 categories x 4 sectors x 3 uses = 36 individual
accounting units.

So on average each of these individual accounting units = %100/36 < 3% of
total.

Electric/Household/Lighting is one of those 36 units about which Dave has
been a broken record with strawman after specious after strawman argument.
If we save 1/2  of the 3% for that accounting unit we will have achieved
the 1-2% reduction for that one of 36 accounting units that Dave claims is
pointless (because he made an unwise characterization about CFLs years ago
and is screwing himself into the ground deeper most every time he posts).

Trouble is, that every one of those 36 accounting units has some sort of
"not out of my sector" lobby just like Dave. So Dave's route would lead us
to discounting the usefulness of doing anything in any sector -- in other
words, paralysis.

After a while (if you actually have experience in these matters) you can
see through this sort of divide-and-conquer, self-interested argument
while asleep (Been there; used it ;-)

Whether the average Cub Scout is a better economist than Dave, or he has a
profound problem with intellectual honesty -- or both -- is not my
concern.

>You're right about the tipping point, and it works in more than just
>scientific terms.  People don't act until there's a crisis, and reducing
>demand postpones that crisis while power plants still belch mercury.  One
>of the major reasons that car exhausts got cleaned up so dramatically was
>the never before seen "killer smogs" that caused such a grave health
>crisis, and therefore great public awareness.

Having spent a significant part of my life trying to be effective in
environmental education, I conclude that part of the usefulness of the CFL
discussion (aside from actual energy and other environmental benefits) is
to raise public awareness. Does BobbyG have any clue about how much of the
purchase price of products he buys is consumed by advertising dollars to
influence his decision? The Proctor and Gambles of the world would eat
Tide for breakfast to get a marketing tool like CFLs. What is "empty"
about a tool that is effective both in real environmental benefits and in
helping to cause the desired -- nay , necessary -- change in behaviour?
>
>If people want to really clean up the air, they need to spend money not
>on CFL stop-gap measures that add back a noxious poison,

Bobby doesn't respond to my and other's posts on this topic because he has
no cogent response. He's just babbling at this point IMO.

The important concept is "and".     CFLs _and_ fewer lamps,  _and_ shorter
hours,  _and_ fewer places,  _and_ better technology when available.

"Not this single thing because it isn't a complete solution" leads to
nowhere right quick.

>but on lobbying
>organizations that have demonstrated their committment to clean air by
>filing lawsuits against BIG polluters.

"Lobbying's" fine.  But Bobby's may never have actually (effectively) done
any of the things that he thinks _other_ people should do _for_ him.

Some of us have actually participated in _applying_  Section 505, 33
U.S.C. 1365 (Citizen Suit Provision of the Clean Water Act). See my
previous posts. This can be a heck of a lot more effective than
"lobbying".

>They

"They" ? ROTFL ;-)  How's about youze doing sumpthin too ? ;-)

>need to write their
>representatives and demand that all states compute the true cost of coal
>power, including the projected cleanup costs, across the country so that
>states that DO scrub their stacks or that mandate alternative clean
>energy sources don't bear the costs of states that emit pollutants.

Writing is fine, but does he know that _going_ to DC is far more effective
than writing? Some of us have been doing the latter for decades. (See my
previous posts.)

Is Bobby aware of the consortium of US States that have _sued_ in Federal
court (not jist "demanded" whatever the heck that means in the real world)
for just that?

It's wunnerfull to see the heat that this topic creates. But the efficacy
in turning that energy into light could be improved. Perhaps the
intellectual equivalent of a CFL is needed  -- he says, ducking ;-)

I think that even a wee bit of training in _effective_ advocacy and
_effective_ mitigation strategies would go a very long way. Thar's much to
learn. Sometimes these trips are best embarked on before, like BobbyG, you
know how long and hard they really are, and how much you owe -- even
before you start -- to your predecessors.

With respect to clean water, there is no better place to start than the
"Clean Water Act Owner's Manual" written by colleagues and friends at
River Network (Forward by Jimmy Carter)
 http://www2.rivernetwork.org/marketplace/index.cfm?fuseaction=product
.display&Product_ID=5

I would hope that there is something similar to this for air, and perhaps
energy but neither of those domains have federal law which empowers John
and Jane Q with quite the same clout as the CWA.

A useful enterprise would be to put together something on the topic for
"home automation" to help grow it out of its "home toys" toddler stage.

Course some folks (eg the Savoy/CyberHouse + Cutler Hammer/Eaton + US Dept
of Energy + Subdivision Developer + Electrical Utility demo effort) were
trying to make progress years ago. No doubt other efforts are ongoing.

And I don't think that the principal obstacle to progress is that 2-wire
WS467 X-10 dimmers won't play well with pre-2010 LEDs and CFLs ;-)

... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.EControl.org