Network for New Energy Choices: The C-Word
Mere discussion of the N-Word will have just about every [white] American wriggling in their seats. This effect was probably not lost on Grist contributor Mike Tidwell when he wrote "Consider Using the N-word Less" and it is certainly not lost on me.
The recent Grist feature is meant to highlight the problem we face with global climate change and, in a darkly comic way, highlight that we can no longer afford to remain as passive as we have on the issue. The crux of the argument is that it was serious legislation that changed the direction of civil rights in this country and not a handful of folks who said, "I have a dream" and so forth. Climate change being an issue of equal importance as civil rights, we need the same sort of federal legislative action to tackle the problem and not namby-pamby "action alerts" that say, "Change your light bulbs. Drive a little less. Do a little more."
I am hesitant to pen this piece, because on the crucial point I do agree with Mike Tidwell: We do need federal legislative action, and we need it very, very soon. It will be the defining moment in solving climate change. But we also need the general public to take individual actions, and it is important that these actions are not trivialized or diminished. Here is why.
Congress and the executive branch are not completely (extra emphasis on completely) independent actors, especially in this age of YouTube and instantaneous polling. There may be national candidates who decide to skip the Iowa caucuses, but try and find one without a polling budget or someone in charge of online media. For good or ill, everything is watched and tested; everything is measured.
Letters from one very specialized and homogenous group will fall on deaf ears if unmatched by the voices of regular light bulb buying consumers saying, "This is an issue that really matters to me and my soccer playing kids."
No significant federal legislation has ever been enacted without there first being significant signals from constituents that this is something worth acting upon. This has been true for the abolition of slavery, the Civil Rights Act(s), and the Clean Air Act(s).
Every corporation in America is in a scrum to be the next jolly green giant; this is so because the public demanded it of them. Last election cycle we saw the defeat of some politicians, in part, because of their environmental record. We are gaining moment in the environmental movement; is this the time to be telling people that their actions are ultimately insignificant?
Like the n-word, it is time that carbon becomes a nasty word in the American lexicon. This will not happen just because legislative action is taken, but it can not happen without it. Anyone who doubts that individual action does anything help inspire meaningful legislative action need only consider Rosa Parks, who on December 1st, 1955, refused to give up her seat on an Alabama bus. We should continue to be inspired by Ms. Parks’ individual action; and, like Ms. Parks, we should all consider taking the bus.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Once legislated, will there be neighborhoods where only certain residents (Gore, Prince Charles, Sting, DiCaprio, green bloggers, etc.) who can utter the “c” word without fear of retribution? Will they continue to enjoy private, chartered flights while the rest of us fear the gleaming alloy air-cars (thank you Neil Peart) driven by the environmental authorities should we burn any fuel?
How appropriate it is that you have a photograph of a CFL accompanying your article. How many years will it be after the banning of the “c” word and Edison’s invention before we have to add the “m” word to the dirty word list and call for more environmental legislation?
This program has been brought to you by the letter “m”. Can you say Mercury?
September 13th, 2007 at 5:05 am
Tidwell did pen an interesting article, one that actually has spurred some great discussion in the comments. While I agree with Tidwell on many points, such as the need for strong legislation and that “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.” I, like you, think that his downplay of individual and grass-roots efforts is detrimental (and somewhat disheartening) to the movement.
There is a place and a need for both forms of action.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I made a post over at “sustainablog” that is applicable here. I can not believe that you guys are so willing to be manipulated by “Big Lighting” in their efforts to monopolize an entire industry. I’ve pasted a section of the post here:
“Although many green companies are willing to let their products compete in an open market (when they can find a real one), others seem to be building alliances with groups and organizations seeking change via political action. For example, the manufacturers of CFL’s are either condoning or encouraging the environmentalists to rally the people behind their efforts to lobby the world’s governments to legislate bans on incandescent bulbs. Any such ban will ultimately force the public to adopt their CFL bulbs under the guise of lowering carbon emissions. As I posted on Green Options, a wholesale switch to CFL’s will ultimately result in having to deal with millions of pounds of mercury from spent bulbs. These manufacturers no longer want to offer the public a lighting alternative, but rather want to gain an advantage via regulation; even before weighing the potential consequences. It is true that CFL’s may help to meet future government mandated CO2 emissions goals, but what about the current regulations on heavy metals? Is it smart to jump on one bandwagon at the expense of another? Consider again the last sentence of my first paragraph. CFL’s are not manufactured by Joe Entrepreneur of Joe’s Fluorescent Bulbs but rather by large, multi-national conglomerates with considerable political pull. In this specific case, will government mandated use of CFL’s really encourage market solutions or provide an opportunity for complete monopolization of the lighting industry?”
If you would choose to read “The Marketing of Evil” by David Kupelian, you would gain an understanding of how the money makers convince the money spenders to spend their hard-earned cash on their products. He details how the soft drink, clothing, and other industries are less inclined to react to trends than to create the trends. The same thing may be going on in this situation.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Bobby–
You’re perpetuating a myth — CFLs lower the amount of mercury released into the environment, especially in the US because of our reliance on coal.
Green Myth-Busting: Mercury and CFLs
Jeff
_______________________________________
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
Senior Editor
Green Options
jeff@greenoptions.com
September 13th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
I was not attempting to perpetuate a myth, just making the point that CFLs may not be the absolute, best option. I do like ScienceWins’ “fuzzy logic” comment at the bottom of your link. He seems to have picked up on what you like to call circular reasoning in this myth-busting article. Personally, I just don’t believe that the possibility of lowering mercury emissions from power plants justifies the need to LEGISLATE an increase in the amount of mercury in one’s home; and ultimately create another waste stream with which to deal. I also can not believe that freedom-loving greenies are willing to endorse the potential monopolization of an entire industry. I guess that you could say that I am for lighting choice, although that may not sound very conservative if extrapolated to the abortion issue.
Now, if you want to talk about dependence on coal, let’s talk about China:
http://energy.er.usgs.gov/health_environment/mercury/mercury_china_emissions.html
Lastly, check out what Tesla was up to decades ago:
http://earlyradiohistory.us/1917tes.htm
Wikipedia had this to say about Tesla’s wireless energy device:
“Both Nikola Tesla and Hidetsugu Yagi attempted to devise systems for large scale wireless power transmission. Tesla succeeded,[22][23][24][25][26] but his investors saw no way they could profit from it because the consumption could not be controlled for billing and so not only refused to fund construction of larger transmitters but had the existing ones dismantled.”
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission
I wonder what we may have been throwing away all those years ago. I am no Tesla expert, but his work is most intriguing.
September 13th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
In the 5th grade Lynn Reid Banks, author of The Indian in the Cupboard series, visited my class. She asked us, "What color is the cupboard?"
To which we all replied, "Brown. It was made of wood."
Indeed, the cupboard on the cover of the book was made of wood and was brown. However, the cupboard that Ms. Banks had described in her text was actually more like a medicine chest, it was white.
In my essay/diatribe/musing I never once mentioned a compact flourecent bulb, and certainly did not say: "government mandated use of CFL’s "
I suppose the picture of the CFL could give people the impression that I am a soldier for "big lighting" Although, if you puruse the NNEC site you could find an article rating and grating the various pros and cons of CFLs and what DIFFERENT brands have to offer.
Rather, my intent was not to sell bulbs, but to connect with people who might buy them, in an effort to draw them in to the conversation, rather than continue to exclude them.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
To follow up on Shaun’s comment, he didn’t pick the image of the CFL; I did. I thought it was appropriate for the ideas he discussed about individual actions… and that’s all I meant.
Jeff
_______________________________________
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
Senior Editor
Green Options
jeff@greenoptions.com
September 13th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
I think it’s hilarious how people are so against CFLs. It’s like "from my cold dead hands will you pry my incandescent." They’re light bulbs. That save money. And reduce emissions. Where’s the issue? Are people that emotionally tied to incandescents?
I thought the same thing when my husband and I were driving across Kansas to Colorado. There are about three radio stations west of Lawrence, and we were listening to Rush Limbaugh as a joke. He was ranting about CFLs and saying that they would bankrupt the poor and elderly. Because Rush Limbaugh is always looking out for the impoverished and the elderly. He also claimed that next, the liberal treehuggers would ban air conditioning. Logical train of thought.A
As far as "big lighting" somehow brainwashing me into buying CFLs–the same companies that make regular bulbs make CFLs. They’re making their money either way. And why wouldn’t environmentalists rally around the greener product? It’s like, if Honda and Toyota are making more fuel-efficient cars, then I am going to buy their product. That doesn’t make me a victim of marketing. It makes me a savvy consumer, if fuel efficiency is something that is a value for me.
It’s the planet, people. The only one we have. Why were Americans so willing to make sacrifices during wars, but reluctant to do so for a global crisis of a different kind? Don’t we want to err on the side of caution?
September 13th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Shaun, my apologies on Jeff’s behalf for his setting you up. He knew that I would take the bait.
Anyway, I do not appreciate the inferrence that I just looked at the picture. You wrote:
“We do need federal legislative action, and we need it very, very soon.”
and
“Letters from one very specialized and homogenous group will fall on deaf ears if unmatched by the voices of regular light bulb buying consumers saying,”
If you put together Jeff’s photograph, your quotes, and the news regarding calls in the EU to ban incandescents, you can probably figure out my perception. The argument has become less scientific than political. The only thing that will be accomplished by additional legislation is greater regulation of us serfs. If you think the Patriot Act is invasive, just wait until they monitor every household’s energy signature. Since the noteworthy green apologists are not walking the walk now, what makes you think that they will after the laws are passed?
Kelli, I never said that I was against CFLs. I said that they may not be the perfect solution. You really should look deeper into the reasons why those lighting companies want you to buy CFLs. The bulbs may last a bit longer and save a little energy, but don’t they have a higher initial cost? Maybe big lighting is just profiteering off of mass hysteria. BTW, no one mentions the amount of phosphorous in those CFLs.
Ultimately, if I prefer another lighting choice for a certain application, I should have the freedom to choose. I have found that halogens provide the best light for my woodworking habit; probably because it mimics sunlight the best. Incandescents are great for reading and doing homework. Fluorescents are acceptable for general lighting, especially areas that require near continuous illumination. Should I be forced to risk power-tool amputation or eyestrain-induced migraines for your belief in an impending doom, which the planet will survive with or without you and me?
Anyway, you guys keep fighting the good fight.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Carbon is not (and will never be) a taboo in the sense of certain curse words that have given rise to the whole "-word" postfix as a general flag for a term that may be contentious. "X-word" raises the term in question to a level of controversy and debate (and certainly gets the arguments going, as seen above).
But carbon is not something that can be excluded or marginalized, like some random epithet. Carbon is fundamental to life. Remember the "carbon cycle"? How about "carbon-based life forms"? That’s us. We’re part of that.
Thinking of carbon as a pariah topic overlooks the fundamental fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a raw material for photosynthesis. Carbon is a more complex topic than that. We need to avoid the oversimplistic thinking that all carbon is bad.