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

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

Lewis Gardner <lgardner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>My problem is with those that introduce doubt that CFLs are a useful
>technology for retrofitting the millions of Edison base light fixtures
>that exist across the world. Fear mongering about light quality, mercury
>and other quibbles will keep thousands from adopting this simple method
>of reducing man's footprint on Earth.

I suggest you actually take the time to read the thread before making such
wild accusations about what has been said. I don't believe anyone has said
that CFLs don't save electricity. What has been said is that they are not
the panacea that proponents claim and that there are other steps that can
save far more energy without forcing people to do what many, many millions
have freely chosen not to do in the nearly 30 years that CFLs have been
available and that can more directly address the problems like CO2 and
mercury pollution.

Most of the distortion and fear mongering (and inflated numbers) seem to be
coming from the CFL proponents not the opponents. I think forcing everyone
to use CFLs may delay the apocalypse by a few weeks or a few months but far
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.

The problem is that most "environmentalists" long ago decided "if you can't
beat them, join them" and instead of going after the polluters are now
allied with them and even funded by them so they're not likely to bite the
hands that feed them any more than is the EPA which, when founded in 1970,
was supposed to "save the planet" but has morphed into the Enterprise
Protection Agency.

Consumer Reports recently tested new "energy star" washing machines and
found that unless you pay for top-of-the-line models ($1000), you'll be
wearing dirty clothes, as the less expensive models don't do a good job of
getting the dirt out. It sounds like the low flush toilet all over again and
will likely lead to more not less energy use.