When reading from a prestigious paper, such as the The Chicago Tribune, one might expect logical arguments looked at from both sides of an issue. While the excerpt we are discussing is actually a commentary from other sources, the contributor is from The Wall Street Journal. However, his views on the matter disregard several important points.
Now, I’m sure that Phillips and GE and Sylvania all want to make the world a better place and so on. But if they can do so while at the same time getting the government to force their customers to pay 10 times as much for their products. … well … did they mention that they’re making the world a better place? The light bulb that costs 10 times as much does, it is true, last four times as long. But if you’re a light-bulb maker, that’s a pretty good trade. [Brian M. Carney]
The first problem? Exaggeration. CFL’s do not cost 10 times more than incandescent light bulbs. Yes, they cost more, but the overall savings will more than make up for this price change. Incandescent light bulbs lose about 90% of their energy to heat and have a life span that is approximately 10 times less than that of a CFL.
There are other arguments against increased use of CFLs besides price. CFLs do contain mercury, although the very small amount (about 3 milligrams) poses no serious threat to human life or the population. The following chart shows the comparison of a CFL’s mercury content with other basic items.
| Product | Amount of Mercury | Number of Equivalent CFLs |
|---|---|---|
| Compact fluorescent lamp |
5 milligrams | 1 |
| Watch battery | 25 milligrams | 5 |
| Dental amalgams | 500 milligrams | 100 |
| Home thermometer | 500 milligrams – 2 grams | 100 – 400 |
| Float switches in sump pumps | 2 grams | 400 |
| Tilt thermostat | 3 grams | 600 |
| Electrical tilt switches and relays | 3.5 grams | 700 |
(http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/energystar/english/consumers/questions-answers.cfm#expensive)
Still, careful disposal is necessary, especially if we are going to greatly increase their use. Additionally, because CFLs use up far less energy (10 x less) than incandescent light bulbs, they have the potential to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel powered energy plants. Coal-powered plants are a source of mercury emissions. A reduction in these systems may be able to balance the levels of mercury from the CFLs. A ripple-effect of decreasing power plants is the reduction of thermal pollution. Thermal pollution changes the temperature of bodies of water, often by using these natural sources as a cooling factor for factories. Thermal pollution can affect animal life in those bodies of water as many species require a specific temperature for survival.
While around the subject of disposal, it is important to note the effect on landfills. Because CFLs last around 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs, the amount of bulbs in landfills decreases likewise. With the decreased amount of disposed packaging as well, the savings become even more significant. Less space needed for landfills means fewer habitats destroyed for this purpose and increased cleanliness in communities that would otherwise be home to disposal areas. With the issue of environmental racism present in today’s society, this aspect becomes increasingly important.
Natural habitats (and all the plant and animal life they contain) can benefit even further from CFL use because their impact on the demand for fossil fuels reduces mining for these resources. (Also, less transportation and processing of these fuels leads to a smaller amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.)
Overall, it’s a win-win situation. CFLs have the potential to make a noticeable impact on environmental issues, and a small amount of patience will allow money savings as well. We’re paying more because we’re receiving a better product. As for the incredible profit the light bulb companies are supposedly raking in… well, shouldn’t it cost them more to produce this energy-efficient bulb? Anyway, it doesn’t seem as though there are nearly enough green consumers out there to change the market just yet.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0111edit4jan11,0,6005999.story
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/energystar/english/consumers/questions-answers.cfm#expensive
http://www.greeniacs.com/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=listcats&cat_id=451&Itemid=114#t
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200704compactfluorescentlights.html
From my point of view, CFL is a great thing. I work in a
Toronto real estate company and part of my job is promoting the green housing as well. The idea of using of CFL is quite wide spread and I try to promote it as well. Just, try to imagine what would happen when everybody on the Earth would start using this things, so as other stuff that helps you to decrease your energy dependence. So much of energy savings and energy independence would occur all around the world. And continue… what would happen to regimes like that one of Chavez or Ahmadinejad. Well, it is just imagination, but may be one day…
Comment by Toronto realtor — January 16, 2008 @ 4:24 pm