Switching Light Bulbs

       In another attempt to go green, I have now switched many of my light bulbs to compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. Reportedly, these bulbs use significantly less energy (up to 80% less than incandescent bulbs), not only helping the environment, but also passing on energy cost savings to consumers. They are also said to last as long as nine years per bulb, saving on bulb replacement costs.
       It is said that if every American home replaced just one light bulb with an Energy Star CFL bulb, enough energy would be saved to light more than 3 million homes for a year, greenhouse gas emissions would be significantly reduced, and more than $600 million in annual energy costs would be saved
       We were already using the bulbs in a couple of places, meaning that we were perhaps already doing our part to reduce energy usage. But maybe it didn’t really count, because we had not changed the bulbs in order to be green.  Rather, we had done it because some of our lighting fixtures are rather difficult to get at, and it was appealing to think we might be able to wait nine years before having to drag out the ladders to change the bulbs again. Can one be green without intent?
       To prove my true determination to help the environment, a few days ago I made a switch in some of our other lighting fixtures, including two five-light-bulb lamps which had previously held only 40 watt incandescent bulbs. The resulting light is bright and a bit harsh – certainly brighter than before. But Tom and I like it, since the lamps finally seem to be doing what they were designed for – providing light. Indeed, the re-bulbed lamps now have made additional lamps unnecessary in two of our rooms, saving still more in energy use and costs.
       This change is one of the very “in” ways to go green. Indeed, the swirled fluorescent bulb has become something of a symbol of the green movement.
       I do have some concerns, however. As pointed out by a poster to this blog a few days ago, the bulbs contain a small amount of mercury. While some argue that the amounts of mercury involved are insignificant, others argue that the lightbulbs are “about as good for the environment as a toxic chemical spill”.
       Indeed, these bulbs are not to be simply thrown in the trash where they will become part of our landfills. They are supposed to be disposed of at special depots, similar to other hazardous chemicals. When the time comes, I will be willing to go through the extra effort of disposing of the bulbs properly, but do worry that not everyone will go the extra mile(s) to do so.
       And I am troubled as well to hear that other bulbs are being developed which might not contain the mercury. So what should an environmentalist do when the new, improved bulbs come out, perhaps in a year or two? Do we all replace our CFL bulbs years before their nine-year expiry date – perhaps adding mercury waste to the environment in large cumulative amounts and using additional energy for manufacturing, transporting and packaging the new bulbs so that we can all have the improved and less toxic “green” bulbs in our fixtures?
        It makes me wonder if it wouldn't be more "green" to simply wait until the next generation of energy-efficient bulbs is readily available.