In an article in The Wall Street Journal, Brian M. Carney made some points that would have seemed like a good argument against a new energy bill that would require people to start using more of the CFL and LED light bulbs in place of the old and inefficient incandescent light bulbs. His argument may have seemed to be correct to someone who didn’t know any better, too bad for him my environmental sscience class did. Carney’s argument is full of holes and omits quite a few key factors that make a great difference in whether the phase out is a windfall for the light bulb makers, like Carney argues.
Carney argues that the new energy-efficient light bulbs cost ten times more than the regular incandescent light bulbs and only last four times as long, which he believes is a way for the companies that make the light bulbs to take advantage of the situation to make a huge profit. But one of the reasons his argument is flawed doesn’t even have to do with environmental science really. It has to do more with economics and that is the manufacturing cost of the new light bulbs. They are obviously more complex technology and therefore require more resources and cost more to manufacture. This fact alone takes care of much of the increase in cost, but the new light bulbs also use less energy when they are on, which saves the person using the bulb money as well as that less coal needs to be burned to keep the bulb on for the same time. This fact opens up a multitude of benefits for the public and the environment.
Because the bulbs last longer, there will be less of them to throw away, which will reduce on the amount of landfill space taken up by light bulbs. Because less coal needs to be burned in order to keep the light bulb going, less of the negative effects of burning coal will be experienced. These effects include less particulate matter (small solid particles that, if breathed in, can affect the function of the lungs) will be put into the atmosphere. Also, less radioactive emissions will be put onto the air which could immediately affect the health of those living in the immediate area of the plant. Because less coal needs to be used, less needs to be mined and that cuts down on the amount of habitat destruction needs to be done in order to mine and transport the coal. If the energy is coming from a nuclear power plant, less radioacive material neeeds to be used in order to run the plant and that again means less habitat destruction through mining and transportation of materials. With less habitat destruction, there will be less affect to endangered species or of adding new endangered species, since the main cause of species becoming endangered is habitat destruction. With so much less harmful greenhouse gases coming from power plants, there will be a reduction of global climate change. With all of these benefits and the difference being simply paying a little more for a light bulb, I think that is a “pretty good trade.”
