Is that wrong?
If you ask the government, they would say "yes". Ask most environmentalists, and they would say "yes".
The fact that those two groups both answer in the affirmative only strengthens my gut feeling that I should keep my incandescent bulbs in place. Why? Two big reasons:
- The debate over the mercury danger in the new CFC bulbs. It's strange to
me that over the years, I've grown-up with the idea that even trace amounts of mercury in water would wipe-out entire species of fish, or pose untold dangers to children. But now, the mercury in new CFC lightbulbs is O.K.? My fear is that years from now, as the CFC's head to America's landfills and dumps, we'll be treated to the discovery that mercury in our soil is an epidemic. Horror stories of broken CFC bulbs, and the scary results, exist. Mercury is nothing to mess around with, which makes me leary of the new wonder bulbs. - I like the way the light from incandescent bulbs looks. Florescent lights hurt my eyes. I don't know why, but it does. It's a harsher light, and if I'm around it too much I start to get a headache.
Now I perfectly understand that my second reason isn't real solid. It's a personal choice and opinion. But I think in saying that, it might be the best reason of all to choose not to use CFC light bulbs: It's my choice.
I live in a state (California) that recently talked about being able to control the thermostats of people's homes to control energy costs. To me, that's un-American. If I want to set my thermostat at 65 degrees on a hot summer day, I know that I'm going to pay through the nose for that cool air. But it's my choice to make. I want the freedom to make personal choices.
And that includes light bulbs. I'm not faulting anyone who wants to use CFC's...go for it! That's your choice, and I support you in choosing a light bulb that you want to use.
Afford me the same choice, and give me permission to remain a little skeptical of the whole Energy Star campaign to rid ourselves of the evil incadescent light bulb.
Comment Preview