I've got a few friends that are very vocal on the issue that over population. I've certainly seen it discussed many times. Everyone I know understands without question that man is the cause of the problems.
But as far as why you don't see it discussed in the context of issues like Global Warming, isn't it obvious why it's not discussed? Who do you think would be in favor of killing humans in order to reduce man's impact on the Earth? Who do you think would be in favor of population controls in order to reduce man's impact on earth? Who do you think is going to choose not to have children because of Global Warming? There's no point to include the topic in any public statements about Global Warming because it's the least likely action anyone is going to be able to do anything about. It's hard enough just to get people to consider the idea of changing a single light bulb in their house without raising their hands and crying foul.
I use Google tool bar to spell check my posts which I write using the web browser. It creates this really nasty side effect, that when you are in spell check mode, if you try to click on the text and type the backspace button to try and change the text, IE will treat the backspace as a browser back function instead of a text erase. Now, normally, browser backspace is harmless, because you just use the forward button, and return to the message you were editing with nothing lost. But, when you back up while in the Google tool bar spell check mode, all the edited text is all lost.
So every once in a while, I fall into this trap, and I see something I want to change while trying to spellcheck. If I try to change it without exiting spell check mode, I loose everything.
Of course, if I had ever gotten around to adding the spell check function into the web browser interface, none of this would be a problem. So I've only got myself to blame for both hitting the key, and for having to use such a dangerous combination of tools in the first place.
"State of the art" may mean "Chinese SOA" which means ACAPASWWN (as cheap as possible and still work when new). "On campus" suggest that purchasing might decide which ones to buy.
I have four (out of four) 4' x 2 fixtures with inexpensive electronic ballasts ($15 to $20 fixtures) from Menard's (like Home Depot) that have been running in my shop for at least 20 years with no problem, including at least 12 hours a day every day for the last 7 years. I've replaced tubes a few times but the tubes lasted a long time and were black in both ends before they finally quit.
Out of curiosity I've done post-mortems on the last five CF's that died. In every case it was the (disposable) ballasts that croaked: the spiral tubes were probably not past mid-life since there was no discoloration in either end but the ballasts were definitely kaputski with zapped transistors. I'd wondered how such dirt-simple circuits could work for very long. Answer: they don't. The difference in cost to make ballast circuits that would outlast the tubes would be well under a buck -- but Wal-Mart shoppers can only see the price.
Fluorescent lighting definitely saves money by using less electricity, even if some don't last as long as they should. My peeve is that, while the self-appointed environmentalists yammer and bleat about what others should do ... the bleating doesn't seem to extend to making it reasonably easy to responsibly dispose of fluorescent tubes in the U.S. I'm not about to drive 20 miles to and from a designated site whose hours are a total mystery seemingly dependent on astrology or perhaps the mating cycle of the spotted newt.
I'd be quite willing to stop by WalMart and leave them in the bin in the parking lot -- but they don't have a bin in the parking lot. I have thought about leaving them in a shopping cart in the parking lot, though, along with the motor oil I replaced with oil bought there. Problem is, there's a stiff fine for doing that if ya get caught and the proprietor chooses to press it -- and I bet WalMart would.
It wouldn't be ecologically responsible to ballistically apply lead to the parkinglot cameras in aid of responsibly dropping off toxic waste (they sold) for proper disposal at end of useful life, would it? No... It wouldn't be neighborly either, definitely not Minnesota Nice.
A ban on incandescant lightbulbs is an easy way for small minds with big mouths to "make a statement" and feel empowered. Motivation and education require considerably more talent and effort than bleating. Forcing folks to use mercury-bearing fluorescents they'll toss with the garbage for want of a better solution is not environmentally net beneficial, and short-lived pricepoint-uber-alles products that use less energy in short service are not net energy-conservative.
No, I'll offer no site cites. I invite y'all who dissent to do yer own goddamned homework beyond scrounging the internet for mindless bleats that resonate with your own.
I am already motivated to be energy-conservative and environmentally responsible as and where it's reasonably economical and practical. Stupid laws and rules will not make me more so. If you make a stupid law, many if not most will find a way to artfully ignore it at least most of the time.
Wonder what it'd cost to establish, train, arm and equip the new Bureau of Lightbulb Enforcement?
"I got busted for peddlin' at a school, what're you in for?" "Light bulbs". "Oooohhhh, man, git away from me, that's BAD!"
It's simpler than that.. The combined populations of the USA, the 25 countries in the EU and Japan are a little bit less than the population of India _or_ China. Their energy consumption tends to be a little bit higher (think order of magnitude). So population, as such, is not strongly linked with energy consumption. Having said that, reducing the world's population to 20% of current values by not breeding would probably make the world a more pleasant place to live in.
Odd..according to ice core samples taken, every warming trend caused the CO2 to rise. This of course pre SUVs, ..in fact..pre tool using hominids in several cases.
Gunner
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"
In my office I have 3 ea 4' fixtures. 5 of the tubes are 40W "Cool White" and the other is a "grow light." I like the light mixture. And unlike my unheated and uncooled garage/shop, I haven't changed a tube in the office for 4 years.
Iwas told of this problem about 20 years ago and the lecturer said the machine shop flourescent lights were specifically wired in 3 banks and powered by the 3 phases to prevent any problem with strobing.
Oh, I'll betcha that has a LOT to do with it. Especially for older fluorescent lamp tubes that have a very low persistence phosphor mix inside, 50 Hz is slow enough that the effect will happen.
But as I pointed out, this is old news if you use electronic ballasts.
The raw data for the Vostok ice core sample can be found at:
The first data set measures CO2 vs. ice core depth.
The second data set actually measures the amount Deturium (an isotope of Hydrogen) vs ice core dept.
In addition, the second data set has a column that purports to measure global temperature as a function of ice core depth. This number is *computed* from the the Deterium concentration and is based a fairly complicated theory that suggests that increases in global temperature will cause corresponding increases in Deterium concentration. I won't repeat the theory here because it is quite complicated and in my opinion rather unconvincing.
You are welcome to plot the two data sets yourself. If you run a typical Linux distro, there is a program called gnuplot that can be used for the plotting.
My conclusion is that there *is* a correlation between Deturium and CO2. When the CO2 concentration goes up, a while latter the Deterium concentration goes up. Conversely, when CO2 goes down, the Deterium contration goes down a little while later. Whether or not CO2 tracks global temperatures depends entirely whether or not you believe that Deturium concentrations track global temperatures. Reasonable people can be quite skeptical of the Deterium concentration vs global temperature correlation
*theory*.
The first data set pretty clearly indicates that CO2 varies all by its little lonesome without any help from humainity (as Gunner said above.) The climatoligists have not been very forthcoming with a theory that explains why CO2 varies on its own. (I wonder why?) Since every historical increase of CO2 has been followed by a decrease some time later, what is the mechanism that causes it to decrease? and why is that mechanism not going to kick in again? I don't know the answer to this question, but it is a very relevant question to ask.
So far, the climatoligists have generally looked at the Vostok ice core sample as "proving" their claims. You can look at the data yourselves and decide for yourself. Personally, I think the current Vostok theory is quite flawed. However, you do not have to rely on my opinion or other peoples opinions to analyze the data for you; you can analyze it yourself! Start asking the hard questions. Start saying "show me the data!"
My $.02,
-Wayne
P.S. At high pressures Hydrogen (and hence Deterium) is a metal. obligatory metal content.)
Mostly, it was due to the use of flint by the cave men. Not to mention the invention of the wheel. That is known to have raised CO2 levels by over
30% in the first 100 years because of all the CO2 produced by the cave men as they pushed things around on wheels. And all that heavy breathing which happened after the invention of sex didn't help either.
Joking aside, I really have no clue what you are saying.
Are you actually trying to argue the current rise in CO2 was not caused by the actions of man on the environment? If so, did you even look at the graphs? The correlation is too strong for any sane person to ignore. Trying to understand why it is rising is a good subject for research and debate (how much is it the burning of fuel vs the deforestation of the land, vs other complex dynamics), but trying to deny that it was a side effect of the industrial revolution seems unfounded to me.
The other major point of the anti-fear crowd is the argument that the rise is not harmful - or at least not harmful enough to be concerned over yet. That too is a valid point of debate and research. But trying to deny it's rising as a side effect of human actions? You have lost the argument before you even begin if you take that position.
When you write something that implies your understanding of the facts is that weak, it makes me, and others, write off your opinion on the subject entirely. If you want to be listened to, if you want to have some impact on what happens in the world, you will have to do better than that.
I have _tried_ to use the 50Hz mains as a standard with fluorescent tubes when checking the speed of an invertor drive lathe. Even with the aid of white stripes on a black painted disk it was difficult to get a good indication when running the pulley at synchronous speed. This was in a garage lit entirely by fluorescent tubes on the same phase and with no daylight interference. There is no way that one could accidentally assume that a lathe were stationary based on stroboscopic effects from fluorescent lighting. My current workshop lights have static ballasts and obviously aren't any good as strobes :-)
Funny! My bathroom compact fluorescent lamps are at least five years old; more likely 7 or 8. I find CFL lamps to be so reliable that I don't even bother keep spare bulbs around the house.
Curt, the problem with your "heavy tax with the money going to consumer education" is that it never works that way. The pols will write the tax legislation that seems to offer what you suggest, but they will shortly loophole the revenues into the "general fund" and then spend it for what they damn well please.
Take a look at the "tobacco settlement money" that a bunch of states extorted from the tobacco companies (not to say whether smoking is good or bad or these companies are pure or evil.) Certainly the settlement money in my own county has gone - pardon the expression - up in smoke. I doubt that a penny on the dollar went where it was supposed to.
Same goes with all of the state lotteries that were "to enhance the children's education". Some years back, when Ed Koch was mayor of NYC, I heard him propose - on the radio - applying a bunch of NYC's Lotto revenues to a (non educational) public works project. When the interviewer questioned this since the Lotto funds were dedicated to education, Koch replied that he would just take the money from the general school funds that the city normally paid to the school system and let the school system make the amount up out of the Lotto revenues.
I keep trying to write a reply to your post without getting emotional and I keep failing so I delete it and start over. :)
I strongly suggest you reads the URLs I posted instead of making unfounded assumptions about what I read. For the most part, I don't read anything about Global Warming because I really don't care that much about it. But just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. :)
The charts I gave came from the wikipedia.org article on CO2 which I posted the URL for. I love wikipedia because there's a strong motivation for the articles to be unbiased. And as such, the information on CO2 is fairly mundane and not littered with FUD or anti-FUD opinions as you claimed they were.
The third paragraph (which it seems you didn't bother to read) is:
The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity; this was essential for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.[7] Volcanic releases are about 1% of the amount which is released by human activities.[citation needed]
I doubt it. :)
I'd love to see us use more nuclear power. It's far cleaner and far less global impacting than the power stations which pump crap into the atmosphere. It's very important that they be heavily regulated and monitored to make sure the risks are kept to a reasonable level - but I believe it's possible to do that.
I'd love to see better solutions than nuclear power, and I think people are working hard to find those, but until they do, reducing our global impact on the environment I think is more important than worrying about the dangers of radioactive waste. If increased use of nuclear power really is the only solution, them I'm for it.
I believe the real danger with Global Warming is that man is upsetting the balance of something we know too little about and which we have no backup for. I think it's best that we invest more time and money into finding ways to reduce our impact until such time that we feel confident that we either understand what is going to happen, or we simply have enough advanced technology to protect us no matter what happens to the Earth's environment. I suspect it will be at least 100 years until either of those things could happen, so I think we need to look at how we are going to slow down this "boat rocking" to allow us to continue for the next 100 years. I think allowing the greenhouse gas levels to continue to grow at the current pace is a disaster waiting to happen. I don't care if it takes 10 or 20 years to stop the growth, but we need to find a solution that will put us on that path. It's clearly a very tough political problem because there simply are no known easy solutions to this problem. It's likely we will have to suffer to some extent in the short term - which is hard to accept when the long term risk is still mostly undefined.
What I don't like to see is people trying to pretend there is no problem. There is a problem, that we know enough to know that. The only valid argument to me, is how much we can justify giving up to deal with it.
If your opinion is that the problem is so poorly understood that it would be a waste of resources to do anything which effects our current lifestyle then I can accept that view even if I don't agree with it. But if your opinion is that everyone that talks about Global Warming is just a fear monger, and the defense of your position is the view of a popular fiction writer who makes his fortune creating best selling fiction, I reject your argument as being nothing by an irrational and emotional response to a problem that calls for rationality and reason instead of emotions.
The only thing I've actually suggested people do today, is use more CFLs. That's hardly a big sacrifice since it's likely to save people money.
What actually is your suggestion to people? That they continue to waste money and electricity on incandescents when they don't need to just because doing otherwise would be giving in to the fear mongers?
Yeah, many ideas that sound good in theory fail in practice because of real world implementation problems.
I worked for the Navy for about 8 years as a contractor. It give me a good perspective on how ineffiecient the government was at spending money and how much the government was able to bend the rules for self serving purposes. Mostly it left me with the view that we should use the government only as a last resort to problems whenever possible.
Taxes at least have the advantage of doing the job of creating motivation without the government having to do anything other than enforce the tax. That allows the economy to do it's job on it's own. To hope that the tax revenue would be used for a valid purpose is probably, as you point out, a fool's wish.
Any solution that can be found that doesn't give the government more money and power is clearly a better solution.
Not doing anything active and just letting people figure out on their own the value of CFLs over time might well be the best solution. Conversations like this thread go a long way to helping people realize there are there are things they should look into. It was a thread in another online discussion that triggered me to look into it and convert a lot of lights in my home to CFLs.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.