Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Conservatives less likely to buy eco-friendly lightbulbs


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
39 replies to this topic

#13 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,303
  • Reputation: 483
HUDDLER

Posted 06 May 2013 - 07:32 AM

Maybe the real idiots are the ones that accept eco/planet saving advertising while being competely ignorant of which is truly more harmful to their home. 



#14 catfang

catfang

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,855
  • Reputation: 1,541
HUDDLER

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:20 AM

I hate the light of CFLs. I have them at the office and hate them.  The last thing I want is that same light at home.  That said we do have CFLs in locations where they make sense (where lights are on - or off - for extended periods) like outdoor lights.  Frequent on-and-off locations are hard on CFLs and they don't last much longer than incandescent.  I'm all about LED but waiting for price to drop a little more.  I'm going to try halogen in the meantime. They are a little more efficient than incandescent (not much) but at least it's something until LED price drop. 



#15 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 20,088
  • Reputation: 14,961
MFCEO

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:52 AM

The term "Mad Hatter" came about from hat makers soaking their materials in mercury to make them more of a felt. The mercury soaked in to their skin and drove them insane eventually.

 

 

Fact.



#16 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,303
  • Reputation: 483
HUDDLER

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:05 AM

Let's burn some books ya'll

 

Book%20Burning_0.jpg



#17 Doyle

Doyle

    Headed to the county line

  • Joined: 18-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,322
  • Reputation: 2,024
HUDDLER

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:11 AM

Duke Energy sent me a whole case of them for free.  I won't be buying another light bulb for about 3 years.



#18 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • Joined: 24-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,573
  • Reputation: 3,647
HUDDLER

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:22 AM

They are much more expensive, and in my experience, don't last as long.


Try reading. Same lightbulb, different packaging.

#19 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:43 AM

It's because maybe some of us look at that packaging and laugh when CFLs packaging tells you it contains mercury.
 
http://www.ecy.wa.go...ight_bulbs.html
 
It's like the whole Ben and Jerry's dioxin controversy in the late 90s.  Ben and Jerry's preaching their "Eco-pint" packaging while the entire time having dioxin levels 2000 times what was allowed in treated drinking water. 
 
Want to make a difference?  Buy LED. But I'm not ready to completely outfit my entire house with LED.  Can't afford it as some incandescents have lasted years.  And for a while the LEDs threw off a shade of light I didn't particularly care for.  They have vastly improved, and I will be replacing some from time to time but I'm in no hurry. 
 
I also have some CFLs too.  Does the CFL with the "uber planet-saving" garb have an Hg on the box?

 
Maybe they should openly advertise the fact that CFLs have mercury and conservatives will buy them just so they can smash them in their backyard or something

In a study published last month on the National Bureau of Economic Research website, Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn concluded that providing feedback on energy use can actually backfire with some conservatives.

Costa and Kahn merged utility data from 80,000 homes with corresponding voter registration and donation records. The economists found that a Democratic household with green bona fides -- paying for electricity from renewable sources, donating to environmental groups and living in a neighborhood of fellow liberals -- will reduce its consumption by 3 percent in response to feedback.

Meanwhile, a Republican household that doesn't adhere to environmental behaviors will actually increase its consumption by 1 percent.

http://www.scientifi...e-saving-energy

#20 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,608
  • Reputation: 506
HUDDLER

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:45 AM

Maybe the real idiots are the ones that accept eco/planet saving advertising while being competely ignorant of which is truly more harmful to their home. 

hard to prove which is more harmful definitively.

 

Increase power demands require more coal to be burned, which releases more mercury and other chemicals into the air, which then finds its way into the water. The water in the Catawba River is so bad that people are advised not to eat the fish. Keep in mind that is the water people are drinking.

 

CFL bulbs are only harmful in your home if you break them.

 

Neither is CFL or incandescent bulbs are really ideal.

 

LED bulbs can finally be had for under $10 if you purchase online (under $20 in stores). Hopefully within the next few years they'll be under $5. I feel like that is the threshold where most people will finally be willing to buy them.



#21 catfang

catfang

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,855
  • Reputation: 1,541
HUDDLER

Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:41 PM

hard to prove which is more harmful definitively.

 

Increase power demands require more coal to be burned, which releases more mercury and other chemicals into the air, which then finds its way into the water. The water in the Catawba River is so bad that people are advised not to eat the fish. Keep in mind that is the water people are drinking.

 

CFL bulbs are only harmful in your home if you break them.

 

Neither is CFL or incandescent bulbs are really ideal.

 

LED bulbs can finally be had for under $10 if you purchase online (under $20 in stores). Hopefully within the next few years they'll be under $5. I feel like that is the threshold where most people will finally be willing to buy them.

 

CFLs also release mercury into the environment when they are disposed of improperly. 

 

I agree that while they save a ton of elecricity, CFLs are really not the best answer. 



#22 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,303
  • Reputation: 483
HUDDLER

Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:45 PM

Want to really test out things?

 

Do the same "study" with incandescent and LED.



#23 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • Joined: 24-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,573
  • Reputation: 3,647
HUDDLER

Posted 06 May 2013 - 02:28 PM

Its the same with climate change denial or anything remotely related, it goes beyond healthy skepticism to partisan cheerleading bullshit. That's really all there is to it.

e: and @ the mercury arguments, the study showed that they were willing to buy the EXACT same mercury-laden bulbs, even more expensive ones, when there is a label that mentions the environment.

it boils down to politicizing something like saving the environment

#24 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,810
  • Reputation: 2,515
Moderators

Posted 06 May 2013 - 02:34 PM

Why is it so many conservatives spend so much of their time looking for evidence to justify their lizard brain dictated behavior?