On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:46 -0500, Martin wrote:
> I haven't added it up, have you? 

Nope.

> It's a moot point then. 

Why is it a moot point? Just because I haven't done the math doesn't
mean it isn't important to at least CONSIDER factors a particular car
has on this planet beyond emissions.

> How can you say 
> that because it has more parts, it's energy efficiency is therefore 
> negated? 

I never said that it was negated, only that it isn't as good as
emissions alone say it is.

> It's a terrible claim to make without backing it up. Same with 
> your mention of CFLs.
> 
> From: 
> http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2007/08/mercury-compact-fluorescent-cfl-bulbs.html
> 
> "Ironically, coal fired power plants emit mercury, and using CFLs 
> reduces the amount of electricity used and therefore the amount of 
> mercury emitted. 

Again, another example of a limited view of benefits. Note I'm not
denying there are benefits, only that I become VERY sceptical when an
organization concentrates on only one tiny factor of a much larger
problem.

In this case they are only considering ONE "bad" thing, mercury. Second
they are only considering the energy needed during the use of the bulb
(and another nitpick is they are assuming the energy comes from coal,
depending where you are very little of your energy may come from coal).
There is zero mention of how much energy and "bad stuff" was needed to
make the CFL, nor the energy/bad stuff needed to properly dispose of the
bulb.

> I really don't understand how people can claim that because new energy 
> saving technology has side effects, it must be worse than what it's 
> benefits are. 

I NEVER said that. I only raised the fact that pretty much every time
somebody claims something is "better" they always base the "better" on a
VERY small section of the impact that item has on our planet.

> Everything in our modern (or NOT so modern) society has 
> detrimental environmental effects. 

True. My problem with our society is the moment something seems to have
a small advantage it's blasted to the top of the "you should use this"
pile without a proper examination of the ACTUAL effects that item has on
the planet.

The Prius is a perfect example of this. The ONLY thing people latch on
to with the Prius (and other hybrid vehicles) is it's mileage (which
isn't even that good). They completely ignore other factors that COULD
make the Prius a WORSE choice for the planet. I'm NOT saying it IS
worse, I don't have the data, I just want to point out that just because
everybody SAYS it's better, basing their opinion only on emissions,
doesn't make it so. 

Perhaps the most telling thing of this thread is how violently people
seem to respond when someone asks them to reconsider whether something
is actually as good for the planet as they think it is.

TTYL
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist