Flourescent Lightbulbs: A Bright Idea?

Hey Mr. Green,

In the past few years we've been encouraged to replace incandescent lamps with fluorescents. It makes sense, because the fluorescent takes only 25 percent as much as energy to operate.  But an incandescent bulb is relatively simple in that a thin tungsten wire is its light source, whereas a fluorescent lamp is far more complex requiring a very high voltage starter and a complex, coated tube. The extra materials needed (including mercury) never seem to be mentioned in bulb comparisons that discuss only fluorescent wattage. So I wonder whether fluorescent bulbs are really as energy-efficient as they seem.

–Bob in Tustin, California

Inquisitive folks like you have begun wondering about the total environmental impact of a given product, including the hidden costs. These questions can be very complicated and difficult to answer. In the bulb world, the answers are harder to find than usual because of manufacturers' reluctance to share information with us media dimwits.

But some life-cycle-analysis researchers have managed get a good look at the energy impacts of making bulbs. Fluorescents do require more energy to make, but still come out way ahead in net energy savings; only about 7 percent of the total energy used by a fluorescent over its life is consumed in manufacturing and other processes. Less than 1 percent of this is needed to make incandescents. But since, as you point out, fluorescents use only 25 percent as much energy to operate, so they still come out much more efficient even when you add in that extra 7 percent.

Regarding mercury, it's the source of a lot of confusion and controversy about fluorescent lights. You do need to recycle your fluorescent lamps when they perish because they do contain a small amount of mercury. Granted, even if all household bulbs were fluorescent and all of them ended up getting smashed, the net emissions would still amount to only about 6 percent of the mercury emitted by coal-burning power plants. That said, however, no amount of mercury is safe. For a comprehensive look at how to recycle fluorescent lightbulbs, go to lamprecycle.org.

Fermentation Emissions

Hey Mr. Green,
I was touring Napa Valley's famed wineries with my sister and she got worried about the emissions from the fermentation. So how much carbon dioxide does it take to make all that two-buck Chuck?  --James in Berkeley, California

Tell her to pour a glass and relax. Having a bottle of wine a day would total only about 50 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per year (though there's no telling what that'd do to your liver). By contrast, the average car pumps out 10,000 pounds annually. So don't just avoid drinking when you drive--avoid driving to get your drink.

Advice About Auto Care

Hey Mr. Green,
Is synthetic oil greener than conventional motor oil? --Gentry in Sacramento, California

"Synthetic" is a dirty word to some nature lovers, but it's actually a better choice than "real" oil. While synthetic oils take twice as much energy to produce than do ordinary lubricants, they need changing less often, so there's a net savings in total energy and oil consumption, typically 4.5 gallons per year. This is why the EPA favors synthetics.

But energy for motor oil is probably less of a problem than do-it-yourself mechanics who dump drained oil instead of recycling it. More than 345 million gallons of lubricants are improperly disposed of each year--enough to pollute trillions of gallons of water. To find out where to recycle oil, call (800) CLEANUP or go to earth911.org. 

Advice About Wrinkled Clothes

Hey Mr. Green,
I recently got an Energy Star washing machine. To make the switch complete, I also put up a solar dryer (i.e., a clothesline). But now my work shirts look all wrinkled, and I feel compelled to iron them--which I never did after pulling them out of the electric dryer. What is the greenest solution: ironing or using the dryer just for that load of shirts? --Ramona in Crownsville, Maryland

Before addressing your pressing needs, let me congratulate you on having an Energy Star washing machine. Those babies save lots of money, energy, and water. You'll net up to $550 in operating costs over its life at today's utility rates. They're at least 40 percent more energy efficient than other washers. And while conventional machines use up to 40 gallons of water per load, Energy Stars cut it down to 25; smaller models whittle it to a measly 10. The EPA's Energy Star program, by the way, represents your tax dollars working to save energy sources instead of fighting wars over them.
Two other tips about being green while getting your clothes clean: (1) Use the warm or hot setting only for heavily soiled items--most people don't know that up to 90 percent of a typical washer's energy consumption is dedicated to heating water. (2) Front-loading washers don't use as much water.
Now as for those wrinkles, unless you are very slow or inept, the iron takes less energy than the dryer. A dryer's typical 45-minute cycle takes 3.3 kilowatt-hours. An iron that's been on for 60 minutes uses about 1.2 kilowatt- hours. So even if you squandered a whole hour ironing, you'd still consume less energy than if you ran the dryer.
Some readers claim to achieve Botox-level erasure of clothesline-induced wrinkles by letting clothes get almost dry on the line, then flipping them in the dryer for just a few minutes. As a hypercasual (some would say slovenly) creature who rarely dons anything unrumpled, I can't personally vouch for this technique, so I'll leave the env-iron-mental R&D to you.

The Right-to-Dry Movement

Sometimes a bit of back-and-forth with you, beloved readers, can bring up useful and even thrilling ideas. Consider the following, wherein you'll read of a revolt against uptight homeowners’ associations that forbid clotheslines. The exchange starts with an idea for improving dryer efficiency and ends with a bold pro-clothesline stance. 
 
Hey Mr. Green,
In Phoenix the outside air is very hot and dry in summer. If a hot-air dryer for clothes could use this air as the intake, then it wouldn't need as much energy to dry the clothes. Does this make sense? --Joseph in Chandler, Arizona

Your idea of using warm, dry air coming into the machine sounds interesting. I don't know how much energy it would save, and it will take some serious calculating to figure out. But surely if a dryer is drawing indoor air at, say, 68 degrees and quite likely higher in humidity than the 110-degree outside air, there has to be some sort of savings. The big question would be whether the energy savings would justify the cost of fitting the dryer (and the house) with a duct to bring in the outside air.

If I succeed in figuring this out, I'll let you know. Of course I remain a staunch advocate of the common-sense, old-fashioned, solar-drying clothesline!

Hey Mr. Green,
Thanks for the feedback. Our homeowners’ association has a specific provision against using clotheslines, but I think I should start using one anyhow. I grew up in cold, wet, windy Ireland where everyone used a clothesline, and moved to hot, dry Phoenix where hardly anyone uses one. --Joseph in Chandler, Arizona

Well, I've got just right ally for you: the Right-to-Dry Movement. Yep, some sensible folks are fed up with those silly anti-clothesline rules and they're fighting back with a refreshingly amusing campaign to liberate clotheslines and restore them to their once-glorious place in the American landscape.

I'm quite fond this cultural zinger from Helen Caldicott: "Where in Victorian times, clotheslines were ubiquitous, Mrs. Brown's brassiere blowing in the breeze has apparently become scandalizing to some modern Americans. A strange brand of prudery has made it impossible for some people to conserve energy and money by using a clothesline."

Let linen flap defiant!

Is Traveling Bad for the Environment?

Hey Mr. Green,
If global warming is so catastrophic, and so manmade, then why does the Sierra Club engage in such monumental hypocrisy, such as:
1. SIERRA magazine ads for travels. I mean, if we're ordered by the Green Police to "cut back emissions 80% by 2050," even as the world population grows about 40 percent, all discretionary travel is out of the question. 
2.   Giving patches for climbing 25 peaks and 100 peaks, all of which have to be driven to.
Please stop the AlGorian hypocrisy. --Alan in Irvine, California

I certainly share your concerns about air travel, which now accounts for more than 3 percent of global-warming gas emissions. I also share your skepticism about the woes of senseless driving. May have to hit the Dramamine to combat motion sickness from just thinking about it. Ideally, we might all follow the example of Sierra Club founder John Muir, who hoofed it 1,000 miles from Louisville, Kentucky, to the Gulf Coast, and logged 300 or so on a tramp from San Francisco to Yosemite. But Muir was young then, and had a lot more time on his hands than today's average traveler. And even he had resort to railroads and ships in his efforts to study and protect the natural world.

If you look at the big picture, you might find that travel is not as irresponsible as you think. The Sierra Club has always encouraged people to experience the natural world. This remains an important goal, as expressed in the Club's mission statement: "To explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth..." More than 100 years' experience has shown that when people actually get to a place and "explore and enjoy" it, they are more likely to help protect it than if they hadn't encountered it firsthand. Therefore, emissions generated by trips may be a relatively small price to pay for environmental-protection efforts that such excursions can inspire. Moreover, some types of travel, like eco-tourism, can actually protect the natural world.

If you book a trip with Sierra Club Outings, you can calculate the approximate amount of carbon emitted by your travels, and contribute a corresponding sum toward an innovative wind-energy project to offset your emissions.

The Club’s overall efforts—including successfully supporting new fuel-economy standards, opposing coal-fired power plants, and supporting alternative energy—are reducing emissions by thousands of times the amount generated by the travels it promotes.

Regarding air travel in particular, the Club's support for transit developments like California's high-speed rail will result fast, efficient alternatives.

At the local level, Sierra Club chapters have opposed regional airport development for a variety of reasons (short flights consume more energy per passenger mile than long ones). Here are just two examples of successful local Club opposition to airport development.