For all y’all who keep telling me you‘re skeptical ’bout CFLs cuz they contain mercury –
Let the above graphic from the EPA (PDF) assuage your fears once and for all.
That’s right — Even if you decided to crush your CFL bulb and bury it in your backyard, the mercury contamination you’d cause’ll come nowhere near that of “regular” lightbulbs.
But being good green boys and girls, I know you’d take your dead CFL bulbs for proper recycling at your nearest e-waste facility anyway, elminating the mercury-in-CFLs prob altogether.
Plus — I’ve had CFL bulbs since 2000, and none have given out on me yet — so I’ve never even had to deal with this over-emphasized mercury-in-CFLs prob.
More info on why — even on a pure mercury perspective — CFLs are better for the environment than regular bulbs at Pharyngula (via grist).
And yes, CFLs work as well and often better than “regular” bulbs, as shown in this investigative Popular Mechanics piece –
Your graph suggests that, if one supplies 100% of one’s electricity from solar and wind (as I do) that incandescent would be the better choice . . . And since ANYONE in the City of Pasadena can have 100% wind for about $12 per month extra . . .
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — May 3, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Careful Siel, you might get comments like the one I got when I talked about this yesterday. He might come back in 48 hours!
Comment by david — May 3, 2007 @ 11:47 am
As one of the buggers, I think this is a great little analysis you did.
But, I would still say that widespread distribution of CFLs without a public education campaign (and an effective redemption system) is still asking for a whole lot of trouble. It’ll be like MTBE all over again.
I want a waste management plan, that’s all.
I would never advise someone NOT to get a CFL. But they need to know what to do with it if it breaks or burns out (albeit, in several years from now).
I guess I’m most worried about a tendency I see in today’s environmental movement that pretends there are simple solutions to all our problems.
A few examples:
-Carbon offsets don’t really reduce your carbon footprint
-Hybrid cars still create smog and congestion
-Even electric cars generate smog, unless you are charging from nuclear, solar, wind, or hydro power (and these all have environmental consquences too).
-Consumerism generates waste, even if you are consuming recycled, organic, fair-trade stuff.
-Building “green” buildings, which are part of a sprawling subdivision in what used to be open-space (Hello, UC Merced!).
It’s the difference between having the tools to be green (a hybrid car, a CFL), and knowing how to use them (carpool, don’t leave the lights on all the time).
I am turning into a negative nancy here, and I don’t want to pretend that each of those things mentioned above aren’t steps in the right direction. But I see them more as partial mitigations for bad behavior, not real improvements. And some things you simply cannot mitigate.
I have much more hope for your car-free life and 100-mile diet, which are REAL lifestyle changes and have IMMEDIATE impact on the environment. I wish those ideas were as popular as CFLs….
–Rafi
Comment by Rafi — May 3, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
2000? I have CFLs that date back to 1994.
Comment by don hosek — May 3, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
Roger — Incandescents would be a better choice ONLY if you decided to crush your CFL bulb and bury it in your backyard. If you dispose of yr CFLs sanely, then it’s always the better choice :P Kudos for going wind / solar though –
Rafi — Totally agree we need more educational efforts out there — and not just educational efforts, but just simpler mechanisms for proper disposal.
Dude — in 1994 I was still a minor and didn’t get to pick out my own lightbulbs –
Comment by Siel — May 4, 2007 @ 12:00 am
Thank you Siel! I can’t tell you how many emails we get over at LowImpactLiving.com from people saying they can’t/shouldn’t get CFLs because of the “mercury problem”. Sometimes I feel people will look for any excuse to support their inertia.
You go green girl.
Comment by Jessica — May 4, 2007 @ 9:33 am