The Wishful Thinking of Greenie Dreams

The American Thinker ^ | May 24, 2009 | Peter C Glover

[Scanian]

The social engineering spin of the green mindset dictates that we should buy ‘green' cars, divert food crops to fuel them, restrict air travel and ban plasma TVs and, of course, traditional light-bulbs. So let's take a closer look at the current green-led switchover: the dimly-lit realities behind ‘green' light bulbs.

Back to the ‘dark ages'

In the US, Republican Jane Harman (D-Calif.) introduced legislation aimed at setting a target date of 2012 to ban the sale of traditional incandescent light-bulbs, switching America over to low-energy alternatives. After all, low-energy "compact fluorescent bulbs" (CFLs) use just one-fifth of the energy of traditional light-bulbs? So it's a no-brainer, right? Harman is taking her lead from the European Union which is currently phasing out the sale of incandescent light-bulbs - even though there is a raft of hidden economic, energy and environmental factors with which neither the EU nor Harman seem cognizant. Harman maintains that implementing such a ban would be, "an important first step toward making every household, business and public building in America more energy-efficient."

CFL low-energy light bulbs are significantly more expensive to produce, and between 3 and 10 times as much to buy, as the standard tungsten-filament bulbs Harman wants scrapped. That is, if they work at all. In addition, CFLs need much more ventilation (top and bottom). A review of what such a switchover means for England in the wake of the EU ban revealed that up to 50 percent of existing fittings would need changing - at an estimated cost of around $6 billion. And that's just the beginning. Low-energy light bulbs do not give off a steady stream of light - they flicker fifty times a second, which can be expected to contribute to health and safety problems, with associated financial costs, down the line.

[Bogey78O]

Came here to say that.

CFLs aren’t bad. I use them extensively.

I oppose absolutely mandating them.

[steve-b]

they flicker fifty times a second, which can be expected to contribute to health and safety problems

Oh, puh-leeze -- throwing in this sort of junk science discredits the valid arguments in the article.