Is it really "Green"?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2009 6:45 PM GMT
    Compact flourescent lights are energy efficient, but they contain mercury. Disposable baby diapers and paper towels create garbage problems but you need to use water/soap and energy to launder the others ones.

    Does anybody know of a website that measures the real benefits, or disadvantages of recycling and other alternative ways?

    Sometimes being green may substitute one problem with another.

  • jrc2005

    Posts: 74

    Jul 12, 2009 7:20 PM GMT
    Don't know about a website, but regarding mercury in CFLs: It's entirely likely that the energy saved by burning a CFL (versus burning an incandescent), and thus the coal-burning saved, and thus the airborne mercury saved...outweighs the minute amounts of mercury in the CFL. Also, there may be collection points for CFLs if you're still worried about landfill mercury. For diapers/paper towels versus washable items, it's still probably quite efficient to wash them versus disposing of them, especially with a HE washer and line- or rack-drying. Plus, much of the water is 'recycled' at the treatment plant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2009 7:30 PM GMT
    good reply, jrc2005.



    kissing pro, although this isnt what you asked for.....here's a link to help you find physical sites where you can drop of your compact fluorescents (or other material)

    http://earth911.com/
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 12, 2009 7:32 PM GMT
    http://www.thinkgreen.com/recycle-what-detail?sec=batteries-bulbs&tab=get_started&gclid=CIOoxPzz0JsCFROU7QodEHurJQ

    voila! The power of google.

    https://www.thinkgreenfromhome.com/SafeConvenient.cfm
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Jul 12, 2009 11:08 PM GMT
    I'm a fan of the Green Lantern column over on Slate, which has already tackled both CFLs and the disposable diaper issue.
  • muscled

    Posts: 16

    Jul 13, 2009 12:33 AM GMT
    What is 'Green' anyway.

    It might have meant something forty years ago.

    Now it's just a buzz word at best. At worst it's a dogma of ideas that politicians and marketers use to sell whatever they're trying to sell at the time.

    I've seen 'green' used to justify how research funding is allocated. Used by vested business interests to get public monies spent on sustaining the 'green' status quo and to kill untried but potentially highly significant research of real benefit to both reducing fossil fuel use and ecosystem sustainability.

    I propose a green version of Godwin's Law; He who uses being green to justify his position automatically loses the argument.

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law[/url]

    Best to stick to a list of pros and cons for each alternative. Anyone who uses the word green should be tied to a tree and ignored.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2009 1:02 AM GMT


    Here you go, KissingPro...

    http://www.eartheasy.com/live_energyeff_lighting.htm


    You'll find the reason behind CFLs is to save energy - not the landfill or your health.

    These lights are considered hazardous waste. - it's recommended if you break one that you open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes til the mercury vapour dissipates. There are lawsuits etc going on in the US over disposal by large companies. The newer ones use rare phosphors, which makes us ask the questions of..."Rare? Great. Then what? How are all these people supposed to afford the CFLs?"

    They burn out a lot quicker unless you leave them on all the time.
    They also pose a fire hazard in a closed light fixture. They can interfere with smoke alarms and your wireless devices.


    BUT they use a fraction of the energy used by incandescents.






  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2009 5:10 AM GMT
    muscled saidWhat is 'Green' anyway.

    I propose a green version of Godwin's Law; He who uses being green to justify his position automatically loses the argument.

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law[/url]

    Best to stick to a list of pros and cons for each alternative. Anyone who uses the word green should be tied to a tree and ignored.


    I got the best advice here from a lot of posts.....and thanks for the links.

    Muscled...you bring up exactly what I'm talking about. There should be clearer information out there for consumers so we know the difference between good green and bullshit green claims. And if people are going to fund something that proposes to be green, then, then there should be educated people making that decision.

    Even though going green has become an annoying buzzword at times, there are things we all can do.

  • jrs1

    Posts: 4388

    Jul 13, 2009 6:24 AM GMT


    it's also important not to confuse green and sustainable.

    just having the terminology down is part of the working process:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=top-10-myths-about-sustainability
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2009 8:41 AM GMT
    Or we could return to Incandescent bulbs, new kinds of "green" incandescent ones or their less consuming successors.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html?_r=1&em

    And what about LEDs?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_lamp