Virtue and Common Sense in a CFL
by Jeff McIntire-Strasburg, St. Louis, MO on 09. 1.06
No matter how much we and others try to emphasize the non-partisan, non-ideological nature of living more sustainably, many people still love to stick the "L-word" on Treehuggers. While that's certainly true for some of us, conservatives of all sorts are also "getting it" in terms of the practicality and sheer common sense of greening our homes and business practices. This week, Townhall.com columnist Kathleen Parker gives a vote of confidence to greener technology by advocating for compact fluorescent light bulbs as a common-sense, and even virtuous, alternative to building more coal-fired power plants. She focuses on the debate over a new plant in Tallahassee, Florida, but the simple act of changing a light bulb can have national and global repercussions. According to Parker,
It sounds silly, but it's not. In the current issue of Fast Company magazine, Charles Fishman (author of The Wal-Mart Effect) writes about a tiny, energy-saving miracle called the compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL).Can we call Kathleen Parker an honorary Treehugger? Perhaps we should hold off there -- perhaps she doesn't want the label -- but we can certainly give her kudos for spreading the word on these tiny technological marvels. Thanks to TH reader Otto Strasburg (yeah, that's my Dad) for the tip. ::Townhall.com via the Lake Charles (Louisiana) American PressImproved, but not new, the CFL uses 75 percent to 80 percent less electricity than the classic incandescent bulb and lasts for about five years. Fishman predicts the CFL is about to change the world. Here's how: If all 110 million households in America replaced just one 60-watt bulb with a CFL, the energy saved would power a city of 1.5 million people.
Or save enough to shut down two power plants -- or skip building the next two.
What if Tallahassee handed out one free CFL to its approximately 80,000 households? I called Fishman to find out. He suggested giving 10 CFLs to each household at a cost of about $1 million. (CFLs cost slightly less than $3 each, but would sell for about $1 in such bulk, he figures.)
Given that one 60-watt bulb replaced saves 65.7 kilowatt-hours per year -- and a typical U.S. household uses 10,700 kilowatt-hours a year -- then Tallahassee would save enough power to light 4,881 homes. That's an energy savings of about 5 percent.
While 5 percent is a small savings in the grand scheme, it's a pretty good return on $1 million. Plus, that leaves plenty of saved money -- oh, about $399 million -- to direct toward other alternatives and innovations that don't involve producing more greenhouse gasses or polluting someone else's backyard.
Surely there's virtue -- -- and common sense -- in that.
It was a sensible article, but the comment thread was full of straw-men / ad-hominem attacks on "greenies" (their word.) And a lot of climate change FUD quoted as well. I suspect, however, that people with the time to research crank contrarian thinking and post screeds to message boards might just have *too* much time on their hands. I wonder what the broad mainstream of "conservative" Americans thinks of energy conservation measures like CFLs, negawatts, and localised sustainable power (wind/solar/hydro). One would think the name 'conservative' implies a measure-twice, cut-once mentality but when it comes to technology with unforseen consequences, as long as someone's making a buck...
My last experience with Ms. Parker was when she wrote a venomous column decrying Attention Deficit Disorder as "an excuse for laziness." Makes me want to throw out my CFLs just because she approves.
The "L" word? Did I miss something??
"The "L" word? Did I miss something??"
I don't think he meant "lesbian", so it was probably "liberal" (which can be kind of a dirty word in the USA right now).
"Liberal" is what I meant, and for the exact reason Mike mentions... apologies for any confusion.
Um, what about the actual subject of the article? While I suppose it's nice to see somebody you don't expect espousing a green position, CFL's and projected 5% reductions can't save the world. Here's why.
1) lighting is only about 9% of american residential electricity use... see this. Even if you cut it ALL, it's only 9%. Better areas for focusing are heating (31%) or kitchen appliances (27%).
2) more important, improvements in efficiency DON'T translate into equivalent reductions in consumption, because (besides sheer population growth) people are demanding more all the time. For example, refrigerators are more efficient now, but total energy consumption in this area in the US has not declined as expected, because more people have two fridges. See, e.g., page 9-10 of this paper.
The most progressive thing about the piece as it's quoted here is that it not only acknowledges an issue -- it actually estimates the savings as only 5%, suggesting that much more must be done. That part is real treehuggery, so sure, why not mist her green for a day, and see if it sticks.
Thanks for pointing this article out, as I have been a fan of Kathleen Parker since reading her articles on the Duke Lacrosse rape case. It may certainly be true that mainstream conservatives are just now catching on to energy concerns, it is equally true that there are a number of conservatives (in some cases whole groups of them) that are involved in "green" advocation. One book I recommend on conservatives who would fit quite neatly into this category is called Crunchy Cons and is by Ron Dreher, a columnist for National Review magazine.