Comments on: Why The Washington Post Is Wrong About Going Green In Small Ways

By: Chuck

Chuck — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:50:01 +0000

I will touch on just one part of the article about going green in small ways.
I have been using an electric lawn mower for more than 20 years. Recently I changes to a mulching mower (no waste to landfills). I have also been composting. I started with a worm farm. It takes very little space and almost everything that comes out of the kitchen goes into it. I also use shreaded paper, thank you junk mail and bills. About 6 months ago I made my own composting barrel. Everything I could get my hands on went into it, especially old plants and items too big for the worm farm, such as watermelon rinds. When I start to plant this spring I will have as much compost as I need.
I am no finatic but I try to do my part. If more people, who have the space, would do something like composting, we could reduce the amount of trash going to the landfills. Also RECYCLE!!

By: Dream Green Weddings

Dream Green Weddings — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:53:12 +0000

Joe, thank you for being my voice today. I was baffled after reading that article yesterday. I always tell couples that making simple sustainable choices when planning their wedding can make a difference, and I truly believe that. You can’t tell me that with 2.5 million weddings per year that reducing the waste, even by 10%, wouldn’t make an impact. We’ve come too far to turn back now :-)

By: Joe Barrios

Joe Barrios — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:02:27 +0000

Peter, your comment is frankly misinformed in a lot of ways.

Light bulbs and TV sets do not by themselves give off CO2, but the coal and fossil fuel used to generate electricity for them do.

Your comments about CFL’s is simply incorrect. The energy that goes into the lifecycle of bulbs (including their manufacture) is well known and considered. See, for example, this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/business/energy-environment/30led.html , which while it’s for LED bulbs is still on point as far as analyzing the entire life cycle of bulbs.

I do not think that consumers’ willingness to pay for something should be the ethical standard we use for anything, including what we do about energy. Consumers are willing to pay for just about anything without regard for (or without realizing) other ethical or moral consequences, like the impact their choices have on the environment (that’s what environmentalism is all about, teaching consumers about the consequences of their choices.)

The amount of energy available is not even relevant to the article, since it’s about global warming not energy shortages. Your beef seems to be that incandescent bulbs are being banned in some countries, which also isn’t the subject of this article. So I’m not sure what your point is in posting here….but please do get your facts straight!

By: peter dublin

peter dublin — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:16:58 +0000

I agree that people can gain and be happy from saving at personal level
But I disagree about consumer bans to achieve it…

Re switching from light bulbs to CFLs,
the supposed saving don’t hold up for many reasons
( power factor, heat factor, lifespan, brightness, lifecycle etc
comparison using governmental and institutional references
http://www.ceolas.net/#13x onwards )

In any case, there is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with CO2 emission
limits set as deemed necessary)
and consumers – not politicians – PAY for energy and how they wish to use it.
Notice: If there WAS an energy shortage, its price rise would
– limit people using it anyway, and make renewable energy more attractive
– make energy efficient products more attractive to buy.
No need to legislate for it.
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x

And since when do light bulbs, TV sets etc give out any CO2 gas?
Not like cars.
And cars are taxed.
They could of course tax the bulbs etc, and lower the tax on energy
efficient alternatives.
Governments make money on the reduced sales, they can pay for CO2
emission processing and renewable energy, and consumers keep choice.
Taxation can be lifted when enough low emission energy is in place.

The taxes are unjustified, but better for all than bans.

Few seem to know about the industrial profit politics behind the supposedly environmentally justified bans
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax

By: Green Bride Guide

Green Bride Guide — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:04:48 +0000

I totally agree! Our tag line at The Green Bride Guide is that “Every Choice Makes a Difference.” I really believe this. I often use the example of disposable aisle runners. If every wedding THIS YEAR in the USA used one, they would circle the globe twice. Small choices do make a difference. Keeping the bigger picture in mind is essential, and I agree everyone should be more politically involved, but we should never give up trying to make our individual actions less harmful for the planet. Thanks for the great post.