No- you need to understand the original post I posted as well as the influence of politics, political powerbrokering and money motivations behind such matters.
For one- look at the "global warming" issue, you can get all sorts of grant money to research for things that "support" the notion of global warming being caused by man. You will not find much money, and certainly none from the UN or any of it's NGO's to further the notion that what is pointed at as evidence of global warming is actually just a natural cycle, or naturally ocurring phenomena that man had little or no influence on.
Regardless of one's position on that matter, there is a lot of seed money out there to protmote the suggestion there is impact by man, the actual fact of it existing or not is not worth debating here because I am using that as a demonstration of the framework of manipulation.
Sure, there are all manner of graphs to "support manmade global" but not one of them is an accurate representation because the "evidence" of the graph data is manipulated to support the conclusion, not to be independant of it. Which is why you ofte the overlay of population in billions scaled in a way to show a steep increase, and the carbon dioxide graph, which is addressing a change from .04% to .05% (the decimal point takes it from parts per 100 to parts per 10,000)
You see the graphs showing significant slope upward, yet, the difference when one looks at the scaling is less than .01%.
Then there is the "Piltdown Man." There were many books written on the subject and not one of them being dissent.
But I direct you back up in the thread- where it is mentioned the incandescent light bulb happens to be a heater that produces useful light. It does. No argument. I live in an area where there is heating requirements for the better part of a year. there is therefore a heat gain factor in lighting with incandescant lights. Once you remove that heat gain, you have to replace it. The argument of it being valid for those heating with electricity only is specious at best. SO there is omething magic about LP heated air that makes it different from electrically heated air, which makes it different from air heated by wood, etc?
Fact is, if you remove the heat source of incandescant lighting from the home, you have to make up for it somehow in order to maintain the same room temperature. You are therefore increasing the load- now matter how big or small, on the homes heat plant. The net gain is truly zero.
How much difference one sees is going to vary because we all use electricity differently. The net result, no matter how many happy feeling book titles you present, remains that the net impact is at best zero. But to ban incandescant lighting as Australia has, and other countries, is only political posturing by the politicians. Most people actually are likely to use more electricity as a result of CFL's, a side issue, but for many of the reasons cited to above in several posts.
Show me the links to the raw data. I will make my own decision. Books just represent one author's filtering based on political and monetary influences.
You still have to factor in the matter of the costs for the specialized handling cost. I can tell you 11 million dollars (US) is added every week to New York City's waste collection services (not including equipment and infrastructure costs or amortizition costs of wear and tear) because they do not single stream their waste handling. That 11 Million dollars number is based on the year of their trash haulers strike several years ago.
People never want to talk honestly about the costs involved in recycling. This is where the percieved benefit of CFL conversion fails. Picture 1 million people in the US each year making a special trip in their car to dispose of 1 CFL. This turns the carbon equation on it's ear. And this happens, I have worked at regional recycle events, and I know the waste handling costs are considerable. I also read numerous trade magazines on various aspects of the subject of recycling, waaste, biofuels, and others.
But NO WHERE am I saying nor have I said there is no benefit in the US sunbelt, Australia, or elsewhere. Read my post and understand it. In those areas where the heat plant is not in use for much of the year, and cooling systems are employed, in those areas, there is no question of benefit because it reduces the amount of heat needing to be removed from the home- but the better solution is LED lighting.
Understand the original post before you pose and posture. Post your cost graph links because I want to see them and make my own decision because statistics can be manipulated and most are when the UN and money are involved. Few understand the bigger threat is actually Hydrogen Sulphide- not carbon or it's compounds.
