HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING TO IMPROVE THE EARTH TODAY? HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY?

I replaced several of my incanescant bulbs this morning with flourescants, took out the recycling, reused my foam coffee cups, still working on getting mom to switch to e85;^]

NICE...KEEP IT UP!

Switching from regular light bulbs to fluorscent bulbs is trading one environmental problem for another. Each fluorscent bulb contains some murcury. When you consider the number of bulbs that will be thrown away in the next 20 years or so, this is going to create a huge problem in landfills everywhere. Yet this is a problem glossed over by the environmentalists in their race to grab headlines. We had better figure out what to do with the spent bulbs now or long term we have once again shot ourselves in the foot for shot term gains.

Well considering each florescant bulb lasts five years, I'd say it's much less a problem than the current hogging incandescants;^]

Mercury lasts a lot longer than 5 years, it is extremely toxic and your answer shows the total lack of concern that I wrote about. Short term = gain, Long term = huge problem that all the pseudo-environmentalists refuse to address. 25 years from now I probably won't be here but my kids and my grandkids will be and they will have to live with or clean up the mess because the environmentalists today could not pull their heads out of their rectums and address this problem.

maybe we should dispose of modern ways and go back to the 1700

lifestyle

i think i could do that

lol.. Half the water supplys have more mercury than those bulbs have, a problem, but proper disposal at the landfil greatly reduces the problem. I already know this stuff, and again, all the current the incandescants use up is a much bigger problem because there's no work around for it, it just hogs energy. I've got one bulb here that's been running strong for a full 7 years, so I think I'll stick with the obvious choice;^]

I don't think they are going to go for killing whales for lamp oil like they did hundreds of years ago. All I am saying is the time to address the mercury problem associated with fluorscent lightbulbs is now not when it bites us in the ass 25 years down the road.

Our environmental response needs to become proactive not reactive. If we are going to save this planet we need to address the possible long term consequencrs of our short term solutions otherwise we are just rearranging the furniture on the Titanic.

If you think you have done your part by changing a few lightbulbs so you can run around telling everybody how "green" you are then you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

Funny, I consider people being all negative part of the problem. You're making it out to be much worse than it is, the key is a "little" mercury, it's not that much, if you're worried about mercury you'd be far better addressing the mercury in the water supplys, that's where the real mercury problem is.

Gotta love the anti enviromentalists calling any of their sollutions part of the problem..lol. Again, incandescants create the bigger problem. But if you insist on being so negative I can ignore easy enough, I do my small part & don't need your aprooval. God bless;^]

I pet a dog today and it was happy!

A little mercury multiplied by a billion bulbs times 25 years is a whole chamber pot full of mercury but nobody seems to care. Go ahead and ignore the problem then when your kids are grown they can worry about it.

Why is it that anytime anyone points out a problem with the current environmental "flavor of the month" process they are labeled at being negative.

I was involved in environmental clean-up when you were still in 3 cornered pants and I actually HAVE done something about cleaning up the environment besides changing a couple light bulbs and then shouting to the world how "green" I am, while totally ignoring the problem that those light bulbs are going to create.

The solutiion to the problem would be to require proper disposal of the bulbs but that would require a bit of effort and expense so it won't happen.

I ate left overs...

Garden...the whole problem is the word "green"....it does not mean clean...it means money, greed etc. Although most enviromentalists have good intentions, they are brainwashed and led by people who want to make money through deceit. As Einstein proved over a hundred years ago with his E=Mc2 formula and his Theory of Relativity, which in laymans terms says Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, just transformed. In essence what ever energy you put into something is all that you will get out of it. Electric cars are a great example, although they sound like a great idea for the enviroment...most do not look past the simple fact that the industrial energy used (and the polution) to mine the lead (for lead batteries) or Lithium (for lithium Ion batteries)is incredible, not to mention the "carbon footprint" to refine and manufacture these batteries, then you also need the energy to charge these batteries. After 3-5 years (average life for a lithium Ion battery) they must be disposed of, with an average between 12 and 26 batteries per car the toxic waste from millions of cars would be astronomical.
There are really only three "clean" sources of energy, Solar, Wind and Fission (not to be confused with fussion) and all three have draw backs. Solar which is "re-newable" and in great abundance, but we need so much to make a little energy, in its current form, the prospect of powering cities or even transportation solely on solar power is not feasible...at least not in near future. Wind is another clean energy but also has a slow and minimal return...it takes almost 10years for one windmill to produce the energy it took to mine, smelt and cast the steel used in the windmill. Fission is the ultimate clean and re-newable energy, but unfortunately it has only been expressed in theory and in very minute instances in research labs with little control or confirmation. The whole eniromental clean energy craze is just a dog and pony show, a shell game where you use one form of energy to create a "clean looking" energy. In the end, wether it be electric, hydrogen etc..you will need as much energy to create a "new" form of energy..period. Unless of course you can prove Einstein wrong

What about all those windmills in california? and in Holland??? Dont they create power?

I smoked some weed today, its all natural.. burnt down a recycling center, let all my vehicles run all day, and killed three dolphins

gypsy..re-read..its all there

I did read.......but you said minimal.......I thought it would be more than that.

Gypsy..what about all the days there is not enough wind

this is why god invented midgets....