

What hackers can teach 'greenies' - sleepingbot
http://faircompanies.com/blogs/view/what-hackers-can-teach-greenies-and-sarah-palin-as-eco-model/

======
CWuestefeld
Perhaps resistance to the Green movement be a combination of

1\. Plans for change are coopted by the government as a means of consolidating
political power.

2\. Plans for change are coopted by business as a means of rent seeking.

3\. So many of the alternatives that are advocated are really no help at all
(e.g., pollution due to production of the high-tech materials)

4\. Recommendations are obviously stupid (e.g., contra the green movement, CF
bulbs do not save energy during heating season, so are net polluters)

5\. "Green" has become a meaningless buzzword, rather than indicating that
anything of moment is being accomplished.

When people see these things happening, is it any wonder they become jaded?

~~~
wooster
"e.g., contra the green movement, CF bulbs do not save energy during heating
season, so are net polluters"

Not so much:

"""It's true that incandescent bulbs give off heat that can help to keep your
home warm. But, Rubinstein[0] points out that it's only a tiny amount. There
are a number of factors that can impact the amount of money and energy you
save by switching to CFLs (or other more efficient lighting).

If you live in a cold climate (in an insulated house), losing ambient heat
from those old inefficient incandescent bulbs may increase your heating bill
slightly, but you'll save more on overall energy costs because of the
electricity you'll save on lighting. If you live in a warm climate, you might
even rack up more savings since you won't need to use as much air
conditioning. Rubinstein's bottom line: You're almost always going to save
money when you replace an incandescent with a CFL, but you may not save quite
as much during the heating season in a cold climate."""

[http://green.yahoo.com/blog/the_conscious_consumer/70/three-...](http://green.yahoo.com/blog/the_conscious_consumer/70/three-
cfl-myths-busted.html)

[0] <http://lighting.lbl.gov/>

~~~
CWuestefeld
Do you have a better citation than Yahoo!? Because this one offers absolutely
no explanation. And since it flies in the face of what I know about
conservation of energy, I think it needs a pretty darned good explanation.

You'll note that your citation says "energy costs", rather than "energy
consumption". This is likely true because the cost of energy is higher when
delivered in the form of electricity than when delivered in the form of fuel
oil. But that's a pure cost saving question. It says absolutely nothing about
how "green" this is: the net effect on the environment of using the two types
of bulbs _independent of costs_.

There is the possibility that the heat generation by my furnace is much more
efficient than that from the electricity by way of the bulb, but I doubt that
is significant (unless I have a heat pump and live in a temperate area where
that can work very well?).

------
jfager
An entire article about waking up to the reality that people respond better to
a depoliticized environmentalist narrative, bookended with Sarah Palin as
linkbait in the title and punching bag in the closing paragraph. Brilliant.

