The Southern Highland Reader

CULLOWHEE–David Henderson, a professor of environmental ethics at WCU, went to bat for light bulb choice in the Washington Post yesterday, arguing that forced use of compact fluorescent bulbs isn’t such a bright way to achieve green progress.

The story has generated over 100 reader comments.

Here’s an excerpt:

The environmental benefits of using only compact fluorescent bulbs are indirect — and less than what could be realized by changing standards governing, for example, coal use. Consider: The benefit of “reducing inefficiency” depends on where the energy is coming from. Improving efficiency without eliminating a harmful source may just free energy that is then used elsewhere. If there is no net reduction in energy use, where is the benefit? Direct regulation of harmful activities, such as putting firm limits on carbon emissions, is more likely to achieve the desired environmental result. (And this would only indirectly influence my bedroom decor.) A great deal of the wasted energy in lighting comes from excessive nighttime lighting in public spaces, which is an excellent issue for government to address. Banning traditional light bulbs as used in private homes seems an effort in the name of environmental protection that has very little payoff.

Here’s Henderson’s piece.

Tags: carbon emissions, compact fluorescent bulbs, Cullowhee, Environment, light bulbs, lightbulbs, nighttime lighting, Washington Post, Western Carolina University

Related posts:

1. Washington Post on NC health care crisis
2. WCU’s Herzog defends th’ honnah uh suthun dawgs.
3. Senses of place: Obligatory kudzu post
4. Columnist defends Cullowhee’s sports-city-icity
5. WCU poli-sci prof run up the AJC flagpole

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.