I don’t normally agree with George Will but his op-ed in the Washington Post addressing florescent bulbs hits the mark – at least most of the time as it pertains to the bulbs.
He opens by discussing global warming, which I will not address here because truth be told, I tend to be somewhat skeptical of the progressive’s position that all is bleak and an opinion other than ‘everything causes global warming and it’s almost too late to fix it’ is met with intolerance and insults.
One more point: you will find that there are quite a large number of scientists that are not on the oil company’s payroll who now classify themselves as skeptics and that number is growing constantly. I live in hurricane alley and know that hurricane experts Dr. William Gray, AccuWeather’s Joe Bastardi and former National Hurricane Center Director Neil Frank are all skeptics. But this is a matter for another post.
Here I wanted to talk about something that has been bothering me for a while and George Will addressed in his op-ed.
He enlightened me to the fact that many people are hording the incandescent bulbs as they will be phased out in 2014. I was unaware of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act which the title alone is off-putting. Energy Independence to me talks to the issue of importing oil. Of course, importing oil is a security concern for us as we have been repeatedly told. Now I have to find out how florescent bulbs play into this and what other tidbits were quietly included in this legislation.
My issues and experiences with the so-called energy saver florescent bulbs have not been the best. They have worked great in curio’s, for example which usually remain on. But try using them in a dimmer. It doesn’t dim.
I do have them in bedrooms but they take a few minutes before they sufficiently light up a room.
I had always been told that florescent bulbs do better when they remain on for longer periods of time. Repeatedly turning them on an off, as you would in regular use, actually reduces the life of the bulbs.
Florescent bulbs contain mercury so disposal is a huge concern.
From George Will’s Op-Ed:
The New York Times article referred to the frustration level being felt by users of florescent bulbs – something that I was unaware of.
Quality of these bulbs is definitely a concern especially as the need to make lower cost bulbs increases.
The complexity of the bulb is definitely a contributing factor.
So the bottom line for me is that these florescent bulbs were designed to save energy yet is bad for the environment. Of course, we shouldn’t mention that they don’t make financial sense nor do they meet all of our lighting needs.
Again, we’ve been told that they will also assist us in our quest to defeat Global warming. But let ;me reiterate – they are bad for our environment.
I am very pro-environment, but these bulbs just don’t cut it.
Update: Upon completion of this post, I read a story on Talking Points Memo (a site I regularly read and enjoy) and they jumped all over George Will for this op-ed. Not because he commented on the inadequacy of the florescent bulbs but for his comments on global warming. Never mind that Will’s column addressed an article in the New York Times. In fact, you would have thought that his column was solely about global warming.
That sums up one of my biggest issues with the Global Warming crowd. How dare anyone differ from their opinion or wish to discuss further. Anyone who challenges this is a denier, a flat-earther or a shill for the oil companies. Let’s also ignore the growing number of scientists who are adding their names to the skeptics list and believe that discussion is not over. Let’s also ignore the fact that many of the pro-Global Warming scientists need grants in order to continue their research and if they addressed questions of their extreme stance on global warming they may lose their research grants.