Ok, so maybe the title of this entry is a bit overkill, but it got your attention now didn’t it?
The American Thinker has what I consider an excellent article that actually thinks through the problems associated with the pending shift from our almost 140 year old humble, lowly incandescent light bulb. It speaks directly to the problem that moving to more efficient compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFL) is supposed to address, and sheds light on why it won’t begin to touch the problem – and in fact, may actually do quite the opposite.
Think about this. CFLs cost roughly 5 times the price of our lowly but hard-working incandescent light bulb. Yes, they presumably last longer and decrease the cost of your electricity (uh…recouped after something like 3-5 years) so that makes better fiscal sense, right? For those with the financial means to make that up front investment, perhaps. But what about low income or poor families? Does anyone really understand that the $5.00 so-called “investment” for one CFL will be completely out of reach for those families?
Even more interesting is how the CFL is supposed to decrease our dependency on electricity and therefore reduce the number of coal power plants. Until reading this article I didn’t understand how ridiculous that notion actually is.
And yet the government is preparing to vote on mandating the use of CFLs within 10 years!
Read the article, do your own research and perform your own cognitive thinking about this issue and see what you come up with. I honestly am not yet sure where to take a stand on this so-called “global warming.” I’m still trying to dig out the truth myself as I see it. But I am curious to determine the answer to how it is that we can possibly think we can destroy the world through global warming when one decent sized volcanic eruption spews more pollution into the atmosphere then we could ever possibly even think of creating in an entire lifetime? Hmmm….makes one wonder….
