Compact fluorescent light bulbs are all the rage right now. They are being promoted as great energy savers and some cities, states, and countries have either already banned or are planning on even banned the selling of anything other than compact fluorescent light bulbs.
However, it seems, like I've state before...that there is always a trade-off. While they do use a lot less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs, they are more expensive. However, what is most ironic to me is that the real trade-off for energy savings is not in the cost of purchasing them, but in the cost of disposing of them. Since compact fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury, they can not just be thrown out. And, heaven forbid, one should break, then you have an environmental disaster in your own home.
So, what's the trade-off? More energy inefficient and more dangerous. Less energy efficient, yet less dangerous. Who should decide which one you use in your home? You or the government?
1 comment:
Let's recognize that politicians are not know for having brains that function. Their answer to this problem will be to (1) institute a special use tax on these bulbs and (2) form several committees to look into the problem of disposal. Meanwhile consumers will simply "hide" the used bulbs in their regular garbage.
Post a Comment