Dear Umbra,
I am reluctant to switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs because that means tossing out not only used-but-still-working incandescent bulbs, but also the brand-new bulbs I have waiting in the closet. Is it really a positive effect overall when we're reducing our carbon emissions but adding to landfills?
Julie
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Dearest Julie,
Damn fine idea ... don't
know why I didn't think
of it myself.
The gummint says, if every American household replaced five incandescents with higher-efficiency fixtures or bulbs, it would keep a trillion pounds of greenhouse gases out of the air. You tell me: would you rather have a full landfill, or have the Arctic devoid of ice? Climate solutions take precedence over garbage-production concerns, particularly when the garbage is relatively harmless.
I don't advocate throwing away your old bulbs, and I'll get to that in a moment, but were you to chuck them I would not shudder. Toxin-containing refuse, on the other hand, must be attended to, natch. Regular readers of Grist know that trash that requires special care includes home electronics, especially computers and cell phones, household chemicals, paints, heavy metals, and -- wait for it -- compact fluorescents. Doesn't mean you can't get these items out of your house, just means don't throw them in the garbage.
Goodbye, old friend.
Photo: iStockphoto.
Your old bulbs may still have a place in your household. Compact fluorescents, though definitely fab and effective and important, are still a bit more expensive than incandescents. They're worth the money -- around 75 percent more efficient! -- but I wonder if you have the cash to replace all your incandescents in one fell swoop. Also, your ordinary, run-of-the-mill CFLs aren't useful in every light fixture: they can't be used in enclosed, recessed fixtures (too hot), and only certain types work with dimmer switches and outdoor fixtures. CFLs also aren't necessarily good for locations where you turn on the light only briefly, such as a coat closet, because they can take a few moments to reach their full brightness.
In sum, do all you can to replace incandescents with CFLs. But you will likely still have some use for your old bulbs. If you don't think that's the case, try donating them to a local organization. And if all else fails, you have my permission to gleefully throw them in the garbage. After all, that's where they'd eventually end up anyway -- and a lot sooner than those long-lasting CFLs. (Besides, what's more satisfying than the sound of breaking glass?)
We should be thoughtful about producing innocent trash, but not think so hard that we stop ourselves from advancing climate solutions.
Lumenly,
Umbra
Ask Umbra on climate-skeptic teachers, low-flow toilets, and more
Tweet for the bees
Comments
View as Threaded
farnishk Posted 6:57 am
21 Jun 2006
If you need any more convincing go to http://www.greenshop.co.uk/acatalog/Low_Energy_Light_Bulbs.html (not an ad, just an example from the UK)
Go on! And while you're about it tell everyone else that they have no excuse not to change.
And to everyone in the UK, there's no excuse not to change to an electricity supplier that provides 100% renewable power (don't know if that's the case in the USA / Canada / Rest of Europe - I hope it is).
Keith
http://www.theearthblog.org
http://www.reduce3.com
Permalink
Shelley Posted 8:36 am
21 Jun 2006
Does this sound correct to you good folks out there who know about this stuff? Thanks.
Permalink
Payton Chung Posted 2:08 pm
21 Jun 2006
If it assuages your conscience any, though, you can remind yourself that IKEA is actually the world's largest tax dodge, er, charity.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:06 pm
21 Jun 2006
Permalink
paradoxish Posted 12:13 am
22 Jun 2006
Anyone else with thoughts/knowledge on this subject?
thanks,
Melissa
Permalink
slurpee55 Posted 7:24 am
22 Jun 2006
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/hzwstman/bulbs2.htm
Another interesting site is:
http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/lamprecycle/tclp.cfm
I find this interesting especially because they point out that, even if a "green" flourescent has passed the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure test, if they go to an incinerator, all the mercury, etc. gets into the atmosphere anyway.
But incandescent bulbs do not contain mercury, and are not subject to the TCLP test.
Permalink
Hotspur2001 Posted 6:42 am
23 Jun 2006
Permalink
jb943 Posted 5:16 am
28 Jun 2006
Permalink
SteveO Posted 12:03 am
08 Jul 2006
Also, the days of the bulbs taking a split second to light are over. The technology has improved greatly over the past five years. Also, you can now get smaller ones that will fit in places the older longer ones wouldn't! As someone mentioned above, you can get them for dimmers. Soft light is also available. And, though I haven't seen them in stores yet, they now come in those big round bulbs that people use for their strip lights in bathrooms!
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 3:14 am
08 Jul 2006
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 4:28 am
08 Jul 2006
How many environmentalists does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: 100. Ninety-nine to stew about the ecological and philosophical impacts of the move, and one -- who also happens to moonlight as a convivial advice columnist -- to climb the ladder and just freaking do it. The point, it seems, is that the preponderance of environmentalists love to engage endless discussions about the environmental impact of screwing in light bulbs, while doing nothing meaningful in that regard.
Now the joke wouldn't be funny, you know, if the core observation within it weren't true. I think the truth of it comes out in the reflection that we're discussing the environmental impact of screwing in lightbulbs, instead of discussing the impact of the system as a whole. In this case, the system as a whole is the electrical grid which powers the light bulb once we srew it in and flick on the switch. Without the grid, no light bulb, no "energy saving," no light-bulb jokes.
Oh, sure, energy-saving lightbulbs are nice, but isn't it the electrical grid, among the other grids (e.g. the transportation grid, the air traffic grid, the monetary grid, the military grid), which dominates the world. Isn't it that which has forced us into this ecological crisis where we consume 85 million barrels of oil every day and can't stop?
You may now go back to your regularly-scheduled conversation about light bulbs.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:14 am
08 Jul 2006
With all this talk about global warming, we have now evolved into talking about talking. It is all just talk. There still is no walk, no work.
And the band plays on...
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 2:50 pm
08 Jul 2006
Behind the messages of "cutting carbon emissions" or "ending oil dependence" (while leaving everything the same) is a fundamental misconception that keeps us from doing anything.
Our global civilization does not consume 85 million barrels of crude oil every day because of some objective human need for the substance. Thus the stock "solutions," e.g. mandating cuts in "carbon emissions," or developing "carbon-neutral" energies, are only going to have a minimal effect upon the overall situation.
The reason is that, under capitalism, 85 million barrels of oil are not consumed because there is some objective human need for the substance. Not with half the planet's people living on $2/day, no. No, 85 million barrels of oil are consumed every day because the money to buy 85 million barrels of oil is chasing that oil. Production under capitalism chases "effective demand," which is a number to be calculated by multiplying the number of paying consumers by the price of each quantity of product to be sold. The number represented by effective demand has a hallowed place in every accountant's balance sheet: I believe it's called "receipts."
We will not, I repeat, not get out of our fix without some reckoning with capitalism. If we continue to deny that we are under capitalism, then, eventually, capitalism will come to us.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:00 pm
08 Jul 2006
Here is a light-bulb-related complaint that I have with our consumerist society: I mourn (well, not deeply and not long, but yes, it is true) when I look at an extinct light bulb, before I chuck it. The glass is so carefully and elegantly constructed, as is the metal screw-in base. And there is so far absolutely nothing wrong with them. And yet, just because something in the middle is mortal and has perished, the whole thing must be chucked, and unjustly treated as trash.
How can we support a life-style, in which effort and intelligence and art go into the making of every part of every device and tool and instrument that we use, but when one single part goes bad and renders the device ineffective, we toss the whole thing into the trash, and go out and buy another?
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 5:19 am
10 Jul 2006
But we don't get to the business of getting the bulbs replaced, getting rid of old refrigeration equipment, planting shade trees, deploying shades, installing solar hot water systems, venting attic spaces better, using drip irrigation, growing at least some of our own food, canning our own produce, making 80% of our own meals in our homes, limiting our driving to less than 5000 miles a year, and those other practical things that we should do and show others how to do.
We can make strides in conservation and efficiency but it is boring work, but in the end we can meansure our efforts and see that we have made a difference.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:42 am
10 Jul 2006
Permalink
itseasybeinggreen Posted 2:31 am
13 Jan 2007
Even better than donating incandescents to homeless shelters etc, spent $20 on buying them new, fluorescent light bulbs and give the gift of energy savings to everyone.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 7:14 am
13 Jan 2007
To the best of my knowledge commercially-available LED bulbs currently use more energy than CFL's per unit of light output, not less. OK, LED's have some directional characteristics which CFL's don't which makes them handy in small flashlights etc. but in almost any domestic lighting scenario CFL's are better energy performers. Spend $40 if you wish for an 8-watt LED but a 6 watt CFL costing $4 will give the same amount of light and use less electicity. LED's may become a better environmental deal than CFL's some day, but don't hold your breath. Listen to your Auntie Umbra and replace your incandescents with CFL's now!
Permalink
SunWave Posted 3:53 pm
05 Feb 2007
There are CFL's for all types of fixtures. Our utility offers 39 different styles. Some work great some don't. Typically you get what you pay for except when you buy the 50 cent incandescent you are agreeing one, either not to use it or two, to pay on average $25 more in energy costs. Easy monthly payments. That's what everyone likes...
So when you purchase and install CFL's write the date, the source, and the warranty expiration date on the base and keep your receipts. If and when a cheap lamp fails or you don't like it take back and make them give you another better one.
Sooner or later the retailers will stop selling the crap that people don't like. Ask them when they are going to start a CFL recycling program and make them take them back. They take back used motor oil now a days. They can recycle spent CFL's.
Even better yet, write or call your government representatives and ask them to tax the incandescent light bulb. The Incandescent light bulb is 125 and the CFL is 20. It's about time the old 90% wasted as heat technology were retired to make way for innovative new solutions. We could use the taxes (maybe 6 billion per year) to encourage alternative energy and level the playing field, and put $150 billion spendable after tax dollars back into everyones pockets and dramatically reduce CO2 and need for new coal fired power plants while we figure out this distributed net metering solar energy alternative energy business.
How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb? One in California wants to do it by 2012... it's at least a start.
How many Boulder hippies does it take to screw in a light bulb? None. Boulder hippies screw in solar powered hot tubs. If they want to change a light bulb with a CFL, they just hold one up and wait for the world to revolve around them.
Permalink