Is "Green" Really Green?

"Green" this; "green" that. It's all you hear in some circles. And frankly, most of those who are talking do not have a clue - either that, or they are just being dishonest.

Most "green" solutions are not green at all.

Take electric cars. One of the first things we learn in middle school science class is that converting energy always - ALWAYS - results in a net loss. To make electricity, we need to expend even more energy than we get in return. Now, I may not be a genius, but to me, a loss is a loss, and not a gain. If we have to burn more fossil fuels to make electricity, then the "green" cars are actually polluting the air even more than those that run on petrol.

Ethanol: Same thing. Major universities have completed studies that prove that we actually burn up to 1.7 times MORE fossil fuels in the production of ethanol. Plowing the fields. Planting. Irrigating. Harvesting. Transporting. And only then do we incur the huge energy expenditures in processing it. Every stage requires the burning of fossil fuels.

Then these new light bulbs: they don't tell us that fluorescent lights require mercury - a very toxic substance. And when asked about this, they say, "It's minimal." But not so minimal that the government requires they be disposed of as hazardous waste, and not simply tossed out. 

OK, so let's assume there is a "minimal" amount of toxic mercury in a fluorescent bulb. My next question is, "How minimal is it?" when, by mandate, hundreds of millions of these fluorescents will soon be in use. Multiply even a "minimal" amount by hundreds of millions and I somehow do not think it is minimal anymore. So, upon disposing of them, how "minimal" will be the environmental impact of all that mercury. And that is only the first set of questions. What about these facts: 

1) Each CFL bulb uses about 10 times as much glass as an incandescent bulb, and making glass requires substantial fuel use. Multiply all that extra glass - and the cost to produce it, and the pollution created to produce it - by hundreds of millions of bulbs. Do you REALLY believe the environmental impact is still minimal? 

2) If these hundreds of millions of bulbs will have to be disposed of as toxic waste, what is the cost of such disposal? Very few communities have accommodations for disposing of hazardous waste. So, you must either travel a considerable distance each time you blow a bulb (and use a lot of gas and oil) to dispose of them, or pay someone $15 plus shipping to dispose of them for you. 

All in all, perhaps it is time for someone who is not pushing a liberal agenda to figure out EXACTLY what is the environmental impact of hundreds of millions of these bulbs, compared to incandescent bulbs - adding up the additional production costs, additional disposal costs, and the huge amount of mercury that must be dealt with - and the cost incurred in doing so. And all for a bulb that produces a very inferior kind of lighting.

I think it is time that we stop looking at the surface of something, and begin looking deeper into things. We need to start extrapolating into the future, by thinking, "If I do this now, what will be the probable effects later on. How will it affect other things?" (Bear in mind that ethanol has caused huge price increases in almost everything we eat and drink because it creates a shortage of corn, used to feed animals, from which we get meat, dairy etc. That means your cheese pizza is costing more. And milk is up to $5.00 per gallon!)

But be forewarned - the foolish (or dishonest) "greenies" won't like that sort of thinking. And they will argue with and dispute the facts. Frankly, they have bought into a lot of BS, and now refuse to back away. Good luck if you choose to try and sway them with the facts.