Cool It!

The US consumed (2004) 3,717 Billion Kilowatt-hours for its 300 million citizens, while Canada consumed 522 Billion Kilowatt-hours for its less than 30 million citizens, which is about 40% more per capita than the US (data from the Energy Information Administration). France and Germany use about 30% less per capita than the US does.

The average US home consumes 938 kilowatt-hours (kWh) at an average cost of $88.60 monthly. Artificial lighting consumes almost 15% of a household's electricity use (according to US Dept of Energy), which is about 141 kWh.

One regular 60-watt light bulb consumes anywhere between 1 to 12 kWh of electricity while a compact fluorescent (60W equivalent) consumes 1/4^th that.

Using Compact Fluorescent bulbs could therefore reduce the 141 kWh to 35 kWh (theoretically) for a total savings of 106 kWh per household. There are 138,367,159 customers (total, EIA data), which then give us 14.6 Billion Kilowatt-hours in energy savings each month for a total of 175 Billion Kilowatt-hours per year. The calculated reduction (3,717 - 175 = 3,542) is about a 4.7% savings in energy use for all of the United States. Year-to-year (2003 to 2004) increases are about 60 Billion Kilowatt-hours.

The average household can save $159.48 in a year; however acquiring the CF's will cost you plenty. I have about 25 light bulbs in my own little bungalow, so at around $10 each, it would cost me $250. I buy regular bulbs at .99, 4 in a pack, so let's say .25 each. They are rated for 1,000 hours of life, versus 10,000 of life for a CF bulb. I can buy 40 bulbs for the price of 1 that can last 10 times the length of the other. Whether or not you get 1000 hrs and 10,000 hrs is the same variable for both, so that doesn't matter.

Because Compact Fluorescent bulbs contain mercury, they cannot be disposed of so easily. They must be disposed in the same way you would dispose of hazardous waste. If your community incinerates its waste and does not provide recycling service, you must look up web sites and call 1-800 numbers to find out how to dispose of them. (Source: Energy Star)

Because of the mercury, you should remove your carpeting and stop using vacuum cleaners. If the bulb breaks for whatever reason, and the carpet soaks up the mercury, you won't be able to pick all of it up, and the subsequent use of your vacuum cleaner will get the mercury airborne, which is a significant health hazard. If there is a breakage and spill of mercury, pickup the mercury with adhesive tape or hypodermic syringe and then the area should be washed with a calcium polysulfide solution (about 2-4 tablespoons of lime sulfur per gallon of water), then washed with a detergent solution, and rinsed (Source: California Department of Health Service, Hazard Evaluation System and Information Service, Richmond, CA).

Energy Star states that there is only a tiny bit of mercury in each bulb, but if I have 25 in my own little house, I'm sure there can be 50 or more in other homes.

Do we really need this hazard in our homes to save such a small amount of energy? I'm sure the downtrodden will be the most affected and health-care cost will increase.

Wood

From building houses to manufacturing furniture to printing books, wood is heavily harvested. So let's save the trees. Do we really need the use of wood in the construction industry? Steel, aluminum, cement, and marble can serve the purpose of housing. Carbon-Offsets purchased by the guilty are actually there to plant trees to offset one's carbon footprint. But the EU is actually promoting the increased use of wood:

(Source: www.cei-bois.org/factsandfigures/documents/CEI-Bois%20position%20Climate%20Change%20after%202012.pdf ), and suggesting that cutting down trees will help save the environment.

There are wood products that are required, such as paper. Is that a true fact? Are there not other methods of providing printed words to the masses? The true necessities are probably for tissue, such as toilet paper. Even Sheryl Crow indicates she will use only 1 to a maximum of 3 sheets (she will probably need a strong eau de toilet as a result). As a first step, all newspapers, magazines and flyers should be banned in paper form, and offered in CD or DVD format (recycled of course). I receive almost 200 pounds of unwanted newsprint and flyers at my own house each year that I have never asked for. I bundle them up 4 times a year, and put them on the street corner for the recycle pickup.

Begin in towns and cities by requesting by-laws that will prohibit the distribution of newspapers, flyers on any kind of paper. Request an adjoining by-law that any such printed news be distributed on CD/DVD.

No more oak tables and doors, no more pine floors, no more wood furniture. That's right; if you want furniture, get plastic or rattan. If you're not serious or not convinced about your own role in making the planet warm up, then continue as you have been.

Leave the books alone though.

Fresh Water

Because of the ever-increasing population, the demand for fresh water is doubling every 20 years (apparently). Although 75% of the earth's surface is covered with water, and 10% of the earth's surface is covered with ice. More than 97% of the earth's water is in its oceans, about 2% of the available drinking water is frozen leaving only 1% for drinking. Saline (ocean) water must be processed to remove dissolved salts, which costs about 5 times more than just tapping into fresh water. But hey, that's not a hard decision to make, when it comes to luxury items such as swimming pools.

Every responsible town and city should shut down public swimming pools, and pass laws banning private pools in their jurisdiction. Not only to conserve fresh water reserves (needed to help keep the planet cool), but also because of the new evidence, which suggests that the addition of chlorine to municipal water may adversely affect our health, especially in the long-term. There is much concern amongst experts about the harmful effects of chlorine. According to the US Council of Environmental Quality, the cancer risk amongst people drinking and absorbing chlorinated water is as much as 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine".

Elemental chlorine is extremely reactive and it combines with other natural compounds to form toxic by-products such as THMs (Trihalomethanes) and chlorinated hydrocarbons. TTHMs (Total Trihalomethanes) are a by-product of municipal water disinfection. These chlorine by-products trigger the production of free radicals in the body, causing cell damage, and are highly carcinogenic.

Water treatment for drinking is one thing, but the luxury of a swimming pool poses too high a health risk, which further contributes to the high cost of health care. Of course, the high cost of health care segregates the poor from access to medical treatment, and they don't get to use the swimming pools either.

Governments should plan to pipe in seawater and plan to build large desalinization plants to reduce the impact on fresh water reserves.

I propose that those with an affliction I call Attention Surplus Syndrome (ASS: They live mostly in southern California, near Hollywood) spend a little more on their swimming pools by using desalinized ocean water. Seriously though, some can afford that.

Ignore at your peril.

Truth of the Matter

There are plenty of areas where people, business and government can cut energy waste, such as night-lighting empty homes and businesses and entire buildings; electronic equipment left on overnight; transport trucks (commercial carriers, 8 million in North America) which must idle to keep the driver(s) warm or cool; low-occupancy flights rather than commercial carriers; traffic lights which operate the same during rush-hour and at night, causing millions of stop and go for no purpose (blinking amber used in many cities to avert useless stopping) thereby burning more fuel.

America should drill for it's own oil, and reduce its dependency on foreign supplies that must be brought in by giant oil tankers (supertankers which are about 1500 ft in length by 225 ft wide, a.k.a. VLCCs = Very Large Crude Carriers weighing 150,000 to 300,000 DWT (Dead Weight Tons)). They burn hundreds of gallons of fuel to move the oil and present a potential environmental hazard from oil spills like the Prestige, Torrey Canyon, Braer, and the Exxon Valdez (and others).

It's probably not safe and not feasible to consider building trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific pipelines due to the low temperatures below the oceans, possible spills, and usability of 30 years or less; local sources are the obvious better choice to protect the environment.

And remember that when you are buying the carbon offsets from these businesses that say they will plant trees, just remember that Europe promotes the use of wood products (which require the cutting down of trees) to achieve the same result.

How is the public protected from fraudulent referencing of one tree planted for multiple offset purchasers? If the tree is planted in Europe, will it be used to make furniture there to help the environment?

I know they don't relate one tree to the apparent tonnage of CO2 one is trying to offset, because most simply state they purchase ranch land and plant trees there. Still, there is no accountability that I know of. Not to mention, the 20 or so years it will take before the tree starts to do its job, and will need approximately 80 years of life to offset anything.

Do what you will, but stay informed!

Copyright 2007 (C) - Guy Michaud, All Rights Reserved