ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper
School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!
Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars
Why do blowouts take so long to fix?
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« Earth Day . . . again? | Main | Prom dresses, tiaras and combat boots »
A bright kind of proposal
A high school algebra project first clued me in to the inefficiencies of incandescent light bulbs. After working out some basic calculations in the classroom, I was appalled to find just how much electricity these virtual heat-lamps devour (and how much more they add to electric bills) in relation to their fluorescent counterparts. A compact fluorescent light bulb uses less than a quarter of the watts required for an incandescent bulb. Since lighting consumes about 22 percent of electricity in US households, switching bulbs can put a real dent in monthly utilities costs.
Though I tried to explain the ecological/economical sense of CFLs to anyone who might listen, I was often ignored. “They’re too expensive. They don’t give off the right kind of light,” others would say.
Sure, when you’re standing in the home-goods aisle with a few bucks stuffed in your back pocket, it’s difficult to drop several dollars on a funky space-age looking bulb when the traditional ones go for fifty cents apiece.
But over its lifespan, each CFL can save $30 or more and prevent over 450 pounds of power plant emissions. Some of the newer CFLs even mimic the size and shape of a standard incandescent, and they all emit a warm color range unless labeled otherwise. So what gives?
Some lawmakers in California are now considering an efficiency mandate for light bulbs, proposed by Utilities and Commerce Committee chairman Lloyd Levine. Though some argue that consumers should have unlimited choice in what type of light bulbs they purchase, others think the bill is a necessary step in reducing energy consumption and curbing greenhouse gas emissions in the state of California.
Mark Murray of Californians Against Waste said, “It's hard to identify a technology that is more inefficient and backward than the incandescent bulb.”
Leave a comment