Saving the Planet
I'm being told that I should turn all my incandescent light bulbs into landfill and buy the screw-in fluorescent type. They use less power and last much longer. Will I do that? Not on your nelly!! And I'm as environmentally conscious as anyone.
In the first place, most of the bulbs in this house that I bought eleven years ago have not burned out. I've replaced the odd one in the kitchen and in locations that get a lot of use, but others may be lit for less than an hour in a year. The price of a fluorescent is an order of magnitude above the price of a traditional bulb. However, I'll make this concession to the breathless environmentalists: whenever I run out of my few spares, I'll replace with fluorescent, and install them in high usage locations. There is an economic benefit to that; very often economic and environmental benefits go hand in hand. If I consume less, I do less damage and save money. Win-win. But this is like adding a drop to the ocean.
Many of the solutions proposed by environmentalists have little effect. Some are disastrous, such as the production of ethanol from grain crops, which has limited value, and which contributes to global hunger by feeding gas tanks instead of stomachs.
Replacing all the light bulbs in North America and having everyone driving hybrid cars will not greatly postpone planetary disaster. It is estimated that in order to meet emissions reductions of 50% by 2050, we need, by 2013, to have up and running, 30 new nuclear plants, 17,000 wind turbines, 400 biomass power plants, two hydro dams the size of China's Three Gorges, 42 natural gas plants with carbon capture - and we'll have to build that much every year until 2030. Is that going to happen? In your dreams. And I'm being asked to replace light bulbs.
Strange about nuclear power plants. They were the bêtes noires for years, but now they're the angels. Pick your poison. Storing nuclear waste safely, if that can be done forever, is better than carbon emissions. Oh, well, I suppose that's right.
In the first place, most of the bulbs in this house that I bought eleven years ago have not burned out. I've replaced the odd one in the kitchen and in locations that get a lot of use, but others may be lit for less than an hour in a year. The price of a fluorescent is an order of magnitude above the price of a traditional bulb. However, I'll make this concession to the breathless environmentalists: whenever I run out of my few spares, I'll replace with fluorescent, and install them in high usage locations. There is an economic benefit to that; very often economic and environmental benefits go hand in hand. If I consume less, I do less damage and save money. Win-win. But this is like adding a drop to the ocean.
Many of the solutions proposed by environmentalists have little effect. Some are disastrous, such as the production of ethanol from grain crops, which has limited value, and which contributes to global hunger by feeding gas tanks instead of stomachs.
Replacing all the light bulbs in North America and having everyone driving hybrid cars will not greatly postpone planetary disaster. It is estimated that in order to meet emissions reductions of 50% by 2050, we need, by 2013, to have up and running, 30 new nuclear plants, 17,000 wind turbines, 400 biomass power plants, two hydro dams the size of China's Three Gorges, 42 natural gas plants with carbon capture - and we'll have to build that much every year until 2030. Is that going to happen? In your dreams. And I'm being asked to replace light bulbs.
Strange about nuclear power plants. They were the bêtes noires for years, but now they're the angels. Pick your poison. Storing nuclear waste safely, if that can be done forever, is better than carbon emissions. Oh, well, I suppose that's right.
posted by puzzled @ 9:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home