Tidwell on Climate: Forget the Darn Light Bulbs
Posted by anne on 05 Sep 2007 | Tagged as: Mike Tidwell, renewable energy
Enough with the bloody lightbulbs already!
By Mike Tidwell
Published in Grist, www.grist.org
04 Sep 2007
Strange but true: Energy-efficient light bulbs and hybrid cars are hurting our nation’s budding efforts to fight global warming.
More precisely, every time an activist or politician hectors the public to voluntarily reach for a new bulb or spend extra on a Prius, ExxonMobil heaves a big sigh of relief.
Scientists now scream the news about global warming: it’s already here and could soon, very soon, bring tremendous chaos and pain to our world. The networks and newspapers have begun running urgent stories almost daily: The Greenland ice sheet is vanishing! Sea levels are rising! Wildfires are out of control! Hurricanes are getting bigger!
But what’s the solution? Most media sidebars and web links quickly send us to that peppy and bright list we all know so well, one vaguely reminiscent of Better Homes and Gardens: “10 Things You Can Do to Save the Planet.” Standard steps include: change three light bulbs. Consider a hybrid car for your next purchase. Tell the kids to turn out the lights. Even during the recent Al Gore-inspired Live Earth concerts, the phrase “planetary emergency” was followed by “wear more clothes indoors in winter” and “download your music at home to save on the shipping fuel for CDs.”
Nice little gestures all, but are you kidding me? Does anyone think this is the answer?
Imagine if this had been the dominant response to racial segregation 50 years ago. Apartheid rules across much of our land and here are three things you can do: Take time, if possible, to feed three negroes who seek food at your lunch counter each month. Consider giving up your use of the N-word, or at least cut down. And avoid vacationing in states where National Guardsmen are needed to enroll blacks in public schools.
Obviously, there are times in history when moral, economic, and national-security wrongs are so huge that appeals for voluntary change are not only wildly insufficient but are themselves immoral as a dominant national response. By 1965 we had appropriately banned racial discrimination in housing, employment, voting, and other realms of national life. The majority of Americans understood this to be the only appropriate response to a colossal national injustice.
Meanwhile, global warming represents an even greater source of potential human suffering, not just to us, but to all humans — and not just now, but for centuries to come. And yet there is precious little popular discussion of banning the abusive practices that directly create violent climate change. Like Jim Crow practices, we must by law phase out completely the manufacture of inefficient light bulbs and gas-guzzling cars, as a serious start to fighting this problem.
Next time Aunt Betty goes to buy bulbs at the CVS, there should only be climate-friendly fluorescents for sale. When she shops for her next car, there should only be 50-mpg models across the lot, the sort even Detroit admits it can readily build.
Of course, there are politicians and activists already out there passionately calling for dramatic statutory responses to global warming. But they are mostly drowned out by the “10 Things You Can Do” chorus. And it turns out the voluntary “green your lifestyle” mantra may in fact discourage even individual change. One British study found that people tend to respond in one of two ways when told simultaneously that global warming is a planetary emergency and that the solution is switching a few light bulbs: they conclude that a) the problem can’t be that big if my few bulbs can fix it, so I won’t worry about any of it; or b) I know the problem is huge and my little bulbs can’t really make a difference, so why bother?
While I do believe we have a moral responsibility to do what we can as individuals, we just don’t have enough time to win this battle one household at a time, street by painstaking street, from coast to coast.
Here, finally, are the only facts that matter. First, global warming is a full-blown emergency and we have very little time to fix it. Second, ours is a nation of laws and if we want to change our nation — profoundly and in a hurry — we must change our laws. I’d rather have 100,000 Americans phoning their U.S. senators twice per week demanding a prompt phaseout of inefficient automobile engines and light bulbs than 1 million Americans willing to “eat their vegetables” and voluntarily fill up their driveway and houses with the right stuff.
The problem at hand is so huge it requires a response like our national mobilization to fight — and win — World War II. To move our nation off of fossil fuels, we need inspired Churchillian leadership and sweeping statutes a la the Big War or the civil-rights movement.
So frankly, I feel a twinge of nausea now each time I see that predictable “10 Things You Can Do” sidebar in a well-meaning magazine or newspaper article. In truth, the only list that actually matters is the one we should all be sending to Congress post haste, full of 10 muscular clean-energy statutes that would finally do what we say we want: rescue our life-giving Earth from climate catastrophe.
Like what you've read? Check out these related posts:
24 Comments »
on 05 Sep 2007 at 4:02 pm 1.shannon said …
I couldn’t agree more that personal actions are a pale excuse not to act at larger scales. Individual choices can be thwarted into the greenwashing that is part of “aspirational lifestyle marketing”(see George Monbiot, http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2007/07/introductions-are-in-order-george.html).
Another great example of the deflection from the real issues in global warming is the obsession with carbon sequestration technologies in lieu of meaningful reductions (see Desmogblog, “Deniers propping up carbon sequestration as political lip service” http://www.desmogblog.com/deniers-propping-up-carbon-sequestration-as-political-lip-service). This type of solution is being promoted by Yvo de Boer at the UN (http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2007/08/de-boer-disses-carbon-reductions-for.html).
However, I do believe actions at all levels are important and I would not criticize personal actions that CAN have a major impact. This is the archetypal argument between activism and lobbying-focused groups versus community service and outreach types of groups. But both are necessary to each other. Activists tend to get publicity for an issue and generate legislation, but they tend to win few friends in the mainstream. Service and outreach groups generally create an acceptance level of issues within the general public. I coordinate the Maryland Carbon Rationing Action Group http://www.carbonrationing.org.uk/maryland and see our collective personal choices as inspiring and complementary to other forms of action. Action at any level inspires further action.
That being said, Congress needs to act NOW.
on 06 Sep 2007 at 10:10 am 2.Arthur Coulston said …
word
on 06 Sep 2007 at 10:25 am 3.Yakov said …
I too believe that asking people to use different lightbulbs is silly. People should be able to use whatever lightbulbs work best for them! The problem (in this case) is, perhaps, that not all the consequences of using normal incandescent bulbs are included in the price. If energy costs reflected these externalities, we wouldn’t have a problem. So the solution is increased taxation on energy (at least, energy derived from processes that cause losses to the general population, say by release of CO2, mercury, or destroying the environment by extraction practices), to the point where people are paying the full price of their usage. At that point, people can choose to use a greener form of energy, or buy bulbs that use less energy, or continue what they’re doing now, but at least pay back the public for the damage they’re causing! Problem solved.
on 06 Sep 2007 at 10:31 am 4.Jim Blowers said …
I found this article somewhat of a disappointment. You said first that energy-efficient light bulbs and hybrid cars were hurting the effort against global warming. I thought for sure you would say that hybrid cars required a lot of nickel or lithium for their batteries and so this would lead to a nickel or lithium shortage, or that use of energy-efficient light bulbs would lead to shortages of mercury or would lead to a problem of disposing of spent bulbs and their mercury, a toxic substance. I thought you might even mention peak oil. But all you did was say essentially that we need hybrid cars and fluorescent lamps but that we need them to be mandatory, rather than voluntary. As I just said, if everyone uses hybrid cars, shortages of critical minerals could result. Further, there are many places where fluorescent lamps cannot be used, as in tightly enclosed places, in certain lamps where the shade won’t fit, or in some outdoor locations (the instructions to all of them say that you can’t put them outside unless they are protected somehow). If only fluorescent bulbs were available, many lamps and other fixtures would find their way to landfills. So we should be careful that we are right in making mandatory standards before we do them. In the meantime, voluntary standards can work to some extent.
on 06 Sep 2007 at 10:44 am 5.Steve Davies, Takoma Park, Md said …
Mike–
I completely agree with you. Didn’t read the whole piece because I wanted to check to see whether CCAN’s web site still has its own “10 things” list. I ran across it abt a year ago, and it’s still there under “Personal Action” as a link to an about.com site. CCAN should have its own list
http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/pages/page.cfm?page_id=28
After seeing it, I did a quick survey of “things you can do” lists on the web and found they were almost all virtually the same — get a hybrid, use compact fluorescents, try not to drive so much. Hardly any mentioned line-drying of clothes, which I think is pretty easy to do , but is more action-oriented than changing your light bulbs. Nor did I see any mention of composting.
With the bulbs, you buy em, screw em in and forget about em. The car — you buy it and feel good you’ve got a hybrid (and I wish I had one). But the clothes and the composting — man, that’s a lot of effort!
People — especially including politicians — like to go for easy fixes. Except with global warming, there are none. It’s going to take sacrifice.
on 06 Sep 2007 at 10:58 am 6.Joe Adams said …
Mike is right on, of course, about “Forget the Darn Light Bulbs.”
On the other hand, the people interested in taking personal steps to reduce their footprints are also the people most likely to take advocacy steps.
That’s why we have a new section at http://www.baltimoreclimate.org where people can get public credit for both the personal and advocacy steps they take.
(And it’s human nature to do more when you get public credit as part of a community).
It’s at http://www.baltimoreclimate.org under ‘Personal / Group Initiatives’ – ‘Personal Initiatives.’ (We expect to see many citizens listed here soon).
BTW, anyone who wants to help out as a volunteer (from your own home if you want, on this or other projects, regardless of where you live), please contact us at mail [at] baltimoreclimate.org
- Joe
on 06 Sep 2007 at 11:06 am 7.Rich Reis said …
I agree with Mike. I recently gave a talk at the Washington Ethical Society entitled “Stretch Goals for the Environment” outlining this very problem and proposing possible solutions. In it, I make clear that there are no easy answers and we can’t proceed on a business as usual approach. You can find an mp3 of my talk at http://www.ethicalsociety.com then Sunday Services, then Archives.
I thank Mike for providing the inspiration for that talk and hope that people can move beyond discussion to real action that will truly address this global problem. Beyond hoping, I work fervently toward that end and urge others to do the same.
on 06 Sep 2007 at 11:12 am 8.grs said …
I loved this commentary when I listened to it on (in?) the Podcast and I still love it. I plan to always DO all the little things that are good to do and I think it would be great if everyone chose to do so as well, but relying on moral suasion is absurd and not what we do with respect to any other real problem.
on 06 Sep 2007 at 11:50 am 9.labor against warming said …
great article! if you’re really concerned with climate change and other political issues, the only real solution is organizing. drop the fluorescent light bulbs and learn how to organize.
on 06 Sep 2007 at 12:21 pm 10.Andrea Ronhovde said …
Presidential leadership is what is needed most of all to achieve Congressional action and policy changes. Al Gore represents that potential leadership. We should all be doing everything we can to get him into the race and let him know he has grassroots support.
Great article, Mike Tidwell! Echoes the frustrations of many. And I agree with Shannon, efforts at all levels are important and being watched by those in power.
Draftgore.com!
on 06 Sep 2007 at 12:56 pm 11.betty said …
There are plenty of things that can be done to reverse the adverse effects of global climate change. First, it’s important to make those who deny the existence of global warming into pariahs, or at least to show their ulterior motive for their positions [commercial, corporate, political, religious]. Scientists may not be entirely certain about the exact causes of global climate change [fossil fuels, loss of forests, mine fires, pollution, etc.], but there are plenty of things we can do to reverse the very real effects.
Next, plant trees, billions of them, with diversity; or allow the cut forests to regrow in their natural progression. Clear cutting forests all over the world eliminates the plants that breathe carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. Put it into law, with incentives for developers and land owners.
Restore public transportation systems, and provide incentives to rebuild Main Streets, reducing suburban sprawl. Require this in national codes for zoning and building. One reason towns like Takoma Park, and other metro DC towns in Maryland, are such good places to live is that many residents can walk to places in town, instead of driving, and can take the DC Metro trains and buses in the region. Since the transportation lobby forced US cities around the country to dismantle their public transportation systems in the 1950s, a “people’s” lobby can pressure Congress to rebuild them.
When we built our solar house in 1980, there were federal tax incentives to encourage and reward us, as a $3300 tax credit. Yet, for years we’ve been seeing propaganda that tells others that solar is dangerous, doesn’t work, is strange looking–even ugly. That propaganda was funded largely by “astroturf” groups like the US Council for Energy Awareness–the nuclear power industry, also the coal and petroleum industries. In the early 1980s, there was a commercial touting, “The sun will come out tomorrow”, saying that solar energy was 30 years in the future, so we needed “clean” nuclear power. It’s almost 30 years later, the incentives are mostly gone, and relatively little has been done nationwide. If every new house/business/factory that was built since the early 80s had 50% solar/renewable energy sources [ours has around 80%], we could have saved $billions in energy costs, and reduced our dependence on imported oil.
When I travel outside the US I see solar and renewable applications that we could do, but most Americans don’t. In the Yucatan, many buildings have simple solar water heaters. In the eastern Mediterranean, only a minority of buildings don’t have solar panels to heat water. Most buildings in the US can have solar hot water in some form. Solar energy is not just for warm climates, either–take Denmark as an example. There are wind farms in Europe, yet groups in the US, most recently in Delaware, are screaming “NIMBY!”–not in my backyard–because they believe the propaganda that contemporary wind farms are dangerous [they're not] or that they’re loud [they're not]. Farmers in the upper midwest have figured out that they can make money by renting some space for cell phone towers. They can do the same with wind turbines. They/we also need federal laws and incentives.
Our own national security depends on energy independence and reducing pollution. With no more oil wars and clean water and air, we will have plenty of funds to restore communities and improve our quality of life–and maybe even get a real tax cut. However this needs to be done worldwide with legislation and incentives.
References:
http://www.itsasprawlworld.com/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/civ4ic/Solar_Age_0784.html
http://www.schrag.info/research/greatsocietysubway.html
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/courses/geog100/Cause-IgnoranceUSCEA.htm
http://www.geocities.com/civ4ic/Wind_Gen.html
on 06 Sep 2007 at 1:29 pm 12.Danielle Meitiv (Silver Spring, MD) said …
AMEN! I am amazed when time and time again environmentalists of all strips shout about the coming catastrophe of global climate change and then assure us that all it will take are a few strategically changed light bulbs to avert a crisis of biblical proportions. No wonder the pubic is having a hard time understanding what needs to be done!
It’s like wiping down (not even rearranging) the deck chairs on the Titanic – or whatever the appropriate tiresome metaphor is – while the iceberg looms. While some folks claim that encouraging small actions – like changing light bulbs – leads to larger actions, I disagree. It is an irrefutable fact that changing every light bulb to a CFL and every car to a high-performance hybrid will do little to change the trajectory we are on – much more needs to be done. Instead, changing light bulbs, or combining trips, buying hybrids, etc, lets people off the hook, givse the impression that small actions will make a difference, which is patently untrue, AND prevents us from having a discussion about where we need to and want to be heading to REALLY make a change. The American public deserves the truth: that preventing catastrophic climate change will require some MAJOR rethinking of our society’s priorities and our economy’s direction.
We do our countrymen and women a great disservice when we (including those of us in the well-meaning environmental community) downplay the real risks and choices that are to be made. Some would argue that we all do this b/c we don’t want to scare people with “gloom and doom” but that is (1) patronizing and (2) shows a serious lack of creative thinking. That mindset assumes that averting catastrophe means sacrifice rather than change. Can we continue along our current path, live our current lifestyles and avoid catastrophe? Absolutely not. But who said this society, this lifestyle, this version of the American Dream is as good as it gets? While there are many who would like us to believe that it is – particularly those who benefit most from our current unsustainable, consumptive lifestyle – we now have an unprecedented opportunity to explore how else we can live and grow and thrive without jeopardizing the lives of our children and the very biosphere in which we all live.
Let’s start the real discussion, get those creative juices flowing and forget about the damned light bulbs.
on 06 Sep 2007 at 7:07 pm 13.lincoln said …
We are approaching a watershed, and Mike’s Grist article ridiculing the painless “ten things” mantra that he himself has chanted and that CCAN still advertizes is indicative of the kind of re-evaluation that is beginning to happen in the activist community. We are simply not going to be able to continue in the manner to which we have become accustomed. As economic and ecologic limits are reached, the magic solutions of resource substitution and human creativity will fail to maintain even the illusion of ever expanding wealth. We will have to make do with less, much less. The sooner we figure out how to do that, and individually and collectively begin the transition, the less painful it ultimately will be.
Substituting CFLs for incandescent lighting is only a good thing if the number of lights remains the same. What we really need to do is reduce our usage of artificial lighting, period. We already have all the cars we will ever be able to use. We do not need to buy or make any new ones. The same goes for roadways and bridges and airplanes and airports and wars. We need to fix what we have, and use it judiciously and sparingly, so that it will last as long as possible.
I feel Mike’s oft expressed optimism wearing thin in this missive. He knows that rapid anthropogenic climate change is occurring, and that it is accelerating. A tipping point, likely several, have been reached and passed. The jig is up. Even if humans were to cease burning fossil fuels immediately, the processes we have set in motion will ensure that the globe continues to warm far into the future, until a new climatic equilibrium is reached. Compared to the climate forcing potential of the ever increasing amounts of methane now seeping from melting “permafrost” and subsea clathrate formations, the remaining half of the fossil hydrocarbon legacy that we have not yet put to the torch is truly minuscule, especially at the declining rates that we can expect to extract it.
Unfortunately, though Mike has realized that despite the determined efforts of many dedicated, informed and caring people, there simply isn’t enough time to win the battle through education and persuasion, he is unwilling to abandon the line, to retreat to a more defensible position, not one of mitigation even, but rather accommodation to certain catastrophic change. In other words we need to figure out what we are going to do. Not what we are going to do about the problem of rapid anthropogenic climate change. We are not going to be able to “fix” that problem. Not through cooperation. Not through coercion. It is not going to happen. It is too late. Sorry Al. We are going to have to figure out what we need do given the new reality that we have created for ourselves. We need to begin planning and we need to begin the transition. Now. Individually, firstly; and collectively where possible. Anything else is tilting at windmills. A similarly misguided effort at fixing problems that are too large to solve is the current tragic drama playing out in the formerly fertile crescent to the annual tune of a trillion or better denominated units of exchange that will now never be available for the really necessary work ahead of us. You should know better than to get on that bandwagon Mike.
on 06 Sep 2007 at 10:10 pm 14.Khlaire Parre said …
Excellent article. Now that the ‘light bulb has been turned on’ in the minds of many, it is time to step it up. Thanks Mike, for leading the charge.
on 10 Sep 2007 at 12:52 pm 15.Ed Osann said …
Mike, you’ve gotten our attention. But the urgent need for major action to combat climate change calls for using all the tools in our toolbox, both voluntary measures and mandatory requirements. Far from being mutually exclusive, there is a complementary relationship between voluntary actions and well-crafted mandates.
When consumers and businesses seek out energy-efficient products and equipment, they encourage manufacturers to gear up production and move niche products into the mainstream. When this process is structured through programs like Energy Star of the US Green Building Council’s LEED rating system, suppliers have specific technical criteria they can work with and consumers have well-recognized labels to look for. These programs encourage innovation by allowing manufacturers and early adapters to easily hook-up. The manufacturers typically charge a premium and the consumers typically still save money.
In effect, voluntary measures are the seed corn for mandatory measures. Yesterday’s Energy Star specification can become tomorrow’s minimum efficiency mandate, at which point the voluntary specification can be reset to a higher level as well, and the process repeated. Exactly how long a voluntary specification should be in place before becoming mandatory is a matter of judgement for each product category, but the stair-step improvements in energy efficiency outlined here can continue through many future iterations, as economic and technical factors continue to evolve.
What’s worked for refrigerators has not worked for motor vehicles. Not because we’ve tried and failed, because neither structured voluntary programs nor efficiency mandates have gotten any political oxygen for the last two decades due to the stranglehold of the companies formerly known as the “Big Three” (now simply the “Detroit Three”) on US public policies (aided by their $15 to $20 billion advertising budgets). Detroit’s inbred culture equated fuel economy with “econo-box” and failed to wrap energy efficiency into desirable new products. We became a nation awash in cup holders even as we deployed troops to the oilfields of the Middle East.
In 2007, anyone in the market for a new or replacement appliance who doesn’t buy an Energy Star labeled model is an idiot. But only an idiot would believe that simply purchasing an Energy Star appliance, an armload of compact fluorescents, or even a gas-electric hybrid will “solve” the climate challenge. We need new efficiency standards for lighting (now pending in Congress), we need new efficiency standards for motor vehicles (also pending in Congress), AND we need a growing portion of people to get out in front of these minimum standards by making thoughtful decisions about consumption and continuing to seek the most efficient products that meet their needs.
on 10 Sep 2007 at 2:44 pm 16.Albert said …
Did you see this quote of Nadia Conners, co-director of “11th Hour”?:
…
This isn’t about changing a light bulb anymore – this is about changing who is in charge in the government and in our corporations.
Global warming is only part of the problem. The real problem is our relationship to the planet, the fact that we treat it as a disposable resource and an endless dumping ground for our waste. CO2 emissions are one kind of incredibly damaging waste. There are other toxins and pollutants harming our air and land. Our ravenous industrial process is digging up the world and turning it into waste thus creating a convergence of crises. We have overshot the limits of this planet and therefore we, as a species and civilization, are hanging in a precarious imbalance with our future. If we don’t fully recognize our environmental problems as a product of the way we are thinking, as a product of our very consciousness then I don’t think we have much hope to turn things around. We are so far beyond the check list of the top ten things you need to do to lessen your impact we have to dig deep and get into real societal transformation and that requires looking into our very nature.
…
Ultimately, I believe social movements have the capacity to change the course of history. Social movements in this country abolished slavery, gave women the right to vote and abolished segregation. The fact that we have been turned from citizen to consumer in the last few decades has disconnected us from the very real political power we all have. Some days I think we are lost in a vacuum of isolated consumption – reality just beyond a veil of white noise. We have to pierce this veil in order to wake up politically and artistically.
on 11 Sep 2007 at 10:22 am 17.Matt Reid said …
Mike:
OK. Enough. I have been a lightbulb sceptic since day 1, over 20 years ago. I understand the science behind Global Warming but I really do not understand what what needs to be done to help this. I do not mean change what we are not going to change, or cannot, (I have 4 children already quite alive).Change in our can happen fast. We as a country had to change our habits very fast for the Great Deppression and WWll, and we did. I hear a lot of bitching and moaning that people do not want to change, or change fast for Global Warming .
Do we even have a choice? I tend to be a sceptic on that question because deep down I do not think we can change fast enough for Global Warming changes.
I made some basic changes to my lifestyle, enough to assuage my guilty conscience. I am changing now because I think what we do now counts for a lot later. I use technology but I am computer illiterate, or a technophobe. I am willing to change fast there. The good news is that all my children are better about technology than I am. Things they take for granted were inconcievable “in the day” that I grew up.
I have a staunch environmentalist, older daughter and an older son, who leans that way. I do not need a lecture on population…It is to late for me, and I am a friend on Global Warming…but I am at a loss of what to do and I have been a “Greenie” since the seventies and was predisposed to the “Green” lifestyle in the sixties as an older child. Yet I still have 4 lovely children who I believe will be leaders on this issue and I would not change that for anything.
“Brave New World”, or Not! So what do you think we have to do Mike?,since I ,like you, really care and you have a large following on a really significant issue!!!
on 13 Sep 2007 at 11:52 am 18.Climate Today » Choice Is Nice But Impact Means Mandatory said …
[...] Next time Aunt Betty goes to buy bulbs at the CVS, there should only be climate-friendly fluorescents for sale. When she shops for her next car, there should only be 50-mpg models across the lot, the sort even Detroit admits it can readily build. Demand that Congress step up the fight against global warming — visit climateemergency.org http://grist.org/feature/2007/09/04/change_redux/index.html
on 17 Sep 2007 at 4:59 pm 19.lincoln said …
George Marshall in the Guardian asks:
“Can this really save the planet?”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/13/ethicalliving.climatechange
A bit of a discussion can be found at:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/ethicalliving/2007/09/whats_wrong_with_turning_light.html
Back at Gristmill Social scientists respond to Mike on
the power of voluntary actions:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/11/13338/9554
Links to these and other related articles at:
http://www.energybulletin.net/34788.html
on 25 Sep 2007 at 10:18 am 20.HARRIET SMALL said …
IF A LITTLE LIGHT ON THE SUBJECT WILL DO IT. I’M ALL FOR IT.
on 24 Nov 2007 at 1:30 pm 21.Don’t Turn Down the Heat « No Time to Waste said …
[...] to work and changing your light bulbs may make you feel like you’re a part of the solution, but you’re not really making a difference. No matter how many of us stop driving gas guzzlers, swap out our incandescents and eat local, we [...]
on 13 Feb 2008 at 2:47 pm 22.David Lawrence said …
Hi,
I am trying to reach a person named Khlaire Parre who responded to your article. She apparently installed solar cells on her house and sells all of the energy back to the power company and I hope to talk with her briefly about her experience and to encourage my power co-op to start a program that replicates hers. Can you put me in touch with her?
David Lawrence
Davelaw@aol.com
on 10 Jun 2008 at 12:49 pm 23.Fluorescent light bulbs said …
When the sun goes down artificial lighting such as fluorescent light bulbs and incandescent light bulbs is as essentially important as the sunlight to light our houses at night. Such lighting fixtures is a key part of interior design, and with a proper lighting plan, it can enhance task performance and aesthetics.
on 20 Nov 2008 at 4:35 pm 24.CCAN Blog » Chevron’s New Ad Campaign: “I Will Point Out Hypocrisy.” said …
[...] truth is, personal action isn’t going to solve the climate crisis. Remember Mike’s article from earlier this year? Chevron’s ad campaign is just another way that big oil is trying to make us complacent so that we [...]