What I find entertaining is how much CFL's and FL's suck in general, and how they bug my eyes. Can I keep my incandescent bulbs, and can they just keep making them instead. The rest of the enviro-hippies can buy whatever they want.

So if those CFL light bulbs are toxic and dangerous, does that mean 4 foot fluorescent light bulbs are weapons of mass destruction?

Compact Flourescents actually release less mercury into the atmosphere than an incandescent because the power generation causes more mercury released into the atmosphere (avg 5.8 mg in the life from power generation) compared to CFL (avg 1.8 in the life- 1.2 from power and .6 from power generation) Manufacturers of CFLs are also reducing the amount of mercury every year, and if recycled properly the mercury going into landfills is none. While LED's are great in some applications, the price is too high right now to make it practical and the light is very cold making it unattractive to the average person.

I totally agree that incandescent bulbs should be phased out (and they are doing so here in Canada) but I think LED light bulbs aren't yet in a position to replace CFLs. Once some of the problems are worked out, however, a move to LEDs would be best for everyone.

CFLs are pretty much a scam.

I look forward to cheap LEDs.

1. You are the one who listened to an authority telling you to turn off your lights; without asking yourself whether it made sense or not.

2. Why is my opinion equivalent to resent, in your mind?

3. A 15 watt CFL at $0.05 kw/hour is approximately $0.00075 off your power bill. That is less than 1/10th of a penny. Even if you turned off 66 lights, you would only have saved 5 pennies; and given that your power company rounds to the nearest penny, your power bill actually won't be any different this month. Still, why do you think I care about your power bill either way? I don't.

So to summarize,

During Earth Hour, citizens did not perceptively reduce their power bills, they did not reduce power generation or emissions from power plants, they increased carbon emissions by burning millions of candles, and nobody, including the power company, even knew their lights were off. You are free to participate in Earth Hour, but for these reasons, it is not "anti-environmental" of me if I do not participate, nor is it if I think it is a poorly thought out idea.

Sorry to be ants at your picnic, but I thought you should know the truth. After all, knowing is half the battle.

<embed src="http://i39.tinypic.com/15836s5.png">

>> ^rougy>
It must be the authoritarian in you who expects somebody to tell you what to do,

and who resents millions of strangers across the globe participating in an activity unsanctioned by the power companies.

Like it or not, my power bill will be smaller this month as a result of my participation.

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/03/27/does-lighting-candles-for-earth-hour-defeat-the-purpose/

"Depending on where you live and what wattage bulb you use, lighting a candle instead of a CFL could result in a net increase of CO2 emissions. In California, a CFL will emit about 5 grams per hour. In Kansas, it’s almost 13 grams."

Looking at this map, if you live anywhere in a red or orange region, you will actually increase C02 emissions by using a candle rather than a compact florescent for lighting during "Earth Hour."

<embed src="http://i39.tinypic.com/raxf8i.png">

Saving the earth is a good idea...but make sure the physics make sense.

Whoops - sorry about the wrong tag edit. It looked like arena football in the U.S., but it turns out this was a CFL game between Toronto and Winnipeg.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Arena Football, touchdown, fail' to 'Canadian Football, CFL, touchdown, fail' - edited by jonny

CFL is great for touchdown celebrations.

Good for marijuana growing, that's where the market lies I think.
Otherwise this is not very sustainable, even though he uses huge CFL lights, he is using a lot of energy that's freely available outside. Unless its powered by renewable energy this is not very green.

Meh, you can buy CFLs made in California:
http://www.lightsofamerica.com/

If the senator really wants to prevent people from mercury poisoning, he should be voting against Coal Plants and incinerators:
http://www.tva.gov/environment/air/ontheair/merc_emis.htm

Granted, I don't think it should be banned, I just think that we should tax incads.

Apart from the useless "Red Scare" garbage and the insulting constitution thumping, the congressman from Texas raises a good point about Congress passing a law mandating CFLs without providing for recycling plans or an awareness campaign regarding their toxicity. I imagine some of this will sort itself out by 2014 as the issue gains more press, similar to the information "crisis" surrounding the digital television conversion going on today.

No, he thinks Edison's bulb should remain because CFLs are poisonous. That, and the new law would require all Americans to buy something that is only made in China. Like they don't already get enough of our money.

I've heard that the amount of mercury in a CFL is less than the amount that would have been released from a coal-fire plant to power an incandescent.