Although I am very much of the mind that we all have the responsibility to be "green" whenever we can the numbers just don't add up when it comes to light bulbs ["FAQ: The End of the Light Bulb as We Know It," usnews.com].
It has been my experience that most of my bulbs last 3 to 5 years. Instead of legislating what we have to purchase why not try making the manufacturers produce a good reliable compact fluorescent at or near the same cost as an incandescent. I hate having to worry about my pocketbook when it comes to the environment but my income is what it is. When it comes to being "green" we (myself included) need to make recycling and the purchase of materials that help the environment cost effective for everyone before the masses will get on board.
Chad Solberg
Via email
Trying to get rid of the incandescent bulb and going to the energy efficient bulb seems great, but does anyone know just how much energy their new wide screen plasma TV uses compared to a comparable full screen one about the same size? When it comes to our entertainment "spare no expense" seems like the quote that should be put on something that uses more than double the amount of kWh than the standard television.
Via email
I understand that florescent lighting may be the preferable lighting source to some, but I for one will be buying up as many bulbs as possible, and continuing to use them past the 2012 "mandate" to end the incandescent bulb. Florescent light is and always will be harsh, ugly, and irritating. I hope to gather as many as possible in the fight. Maybe a black market in incandescent bulbs will spring up.
Stephen Lavezzo
San Francisco
Reader Comments Read all comments (1)
bodybuilding diets of 10:16PM March 26, 2010