Global warming - the sky is falling…again

I've given up and will just go along with the majority because I don't feel like going out and getting a degree in meteorology.  In just the last few weeks I've seen very reputable sounding individuals say that any professional weatherperson who denies humankind's role in global warming shouldn't be certified.  I've seen other professionals saying only idiots and laymen really think that man is having a significant impact on the overall global climate.

My biggest doubt about man's role is when folks say "it's the hottest summer since 1904" or something to that effect... well then, what was going on then that made things so hot?   Not that there's any harm in buying a car that actually finds it's way into the 20's for Highway MPG.

bts

Well, California is again leading the way in the fight against global warming.  Latest news is a bill hitting the floor to ban.............. incandescent light bulbs.  Our tax dollars at work

Wow. Unbelievable. I don't know anything about meteorology but as an electrical engineer, I do know something about incandescent light bulbs.

For instance…do you know how real men it takes to change a light bulb? None, real men aren't afraid of the dark!

An incandescent light bulb uses about 75 watts. An electric clothes dryer uses 6,000 watts! If people used the clothes line (solar power) instead of the electric dryer they could save a significant amount of energy.

~Mike

A-HA!  What you have failed to factor in, is the extra use of irons due to wrinkley clothes, and the loss of the clothes fluffiness factor.

Which has nothing to do with banning incandescents

Yeah, but I look like crap in my tri gear when lit by flourescent lighting.  I'm much better looking in incandescent light.

jimbo - 2007-02-01 1:36 PM actually, lighting accounts for a not insignificant portion of overall energy use in the average household. so yes, turning off the lights will help.

Which has nothing to do with banning incandescents

I'm pretty sure WalMart is putting fluorescents in all their stores. Saves beaucoup.

The government required gas to go leadless due to pollution issues. One could argue that greater electrical consumption due to using incandescents will burn more fossil fuels and create more pollution than if we went fluorescent. So, the good of the whole outweights your and my good of looking better in incandescent light.

Transfat bans - initially I thought it was a ban to save people from themselves. Then it occurred to me that parents are feeding this stuff to their kids - Happy Meal anyone? - and that children have a right not to be fed transfats, even if their parents are too lax or indifferent or whatever to eliminate transfatty foods from their children's diets. The only way to ensure that is to remove it from restaurants. Hello, ban.

The post talked about turning off lights.  Maybe that's a euphemism for a ban that I missed

I fully understand the reasoning behind it.  But I have to believe that the net effect of the use of incandescent light bulbs is infinitesimally small when they could take many other actions under the rubric of "saving energy."  Here's two easy ones -  require everyone to drive hybrid cars and compost their waste.  The effect of those two laws would be ginormous.  Why doesn't some lawmaker pass that bill?  Under the reasoning proposed, there should be no objection to those.

Here's another 'downside' to flourescent bulbs:

Fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury. The standard fluorescent lamp contains approximately 20 milligrams of mercury. While there are no known health hazards from exposure to lamps that are intact, improper disposal of fluorescent lamps can contaminate the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that over 800 million lamps are produced each year to replace 800 million lamps that are then disposed. Since 1 gram of mercury is enough to contaminate a 2-acre pond, there is enough mercury in those lamps to contaminate 20 million acres of water.

Mercury is toxic to the human nervous system. Chronic breathing of mercury vapors can cause a range of physical symptoms, including inability to coordinate body movement and impairment of hearing, speech and vision. Exposure to mercury in other forms can lead to skin rashes and kidney damage.

Elemental mercury that is released to the environment can be deposited into lakes, rivers, and the oceans where a biological process takes place in which the mercury is converted into methylmercury, a highly toxic organic form of mercury. The methylmercury is then consumed by various animals in the food chain where it bioaccumulates, concentrating to higher and higher levels in larger animals. Consumption of larger mammals could cause elevated levels of methylmercury in humans, resulting in neurological damage to unborn children. According to estimates by the National Wildlife Federation, 85,000 U.S. women of childbearing age in a given year are exposed to elevated methylmercury levels sufficient to affect the brain development of their babies.

Just to play devil's advocate a little furhter on this side...... 

There has been a lot of talk recently about multiple chemical sensitivity, and whether employers must accommodate for that.  It's becoming, or maybe is,a recognized condition.  Some people with MCS claim that fluorescent lighting harms them, one case even talks about a woman coming down with cerebral palsy like symptoms after exposure.

Is the government saying you must expose yourself to harm if you have MCS?  How should we accommodate for individual claims of MCS?  Will incandescent lighting be by prescription only?

Aw jeez. 

Easy, government will mandate that everyone dispose of their government mandated fluorescent light bulbs in ther government mandated lead-lined environmentally sealed trash cans.  Problem solved

touche!