Foxfyre wrote:
So let's see. If replacing one bulb would accomplish all that, if we replaced ALL the bulbs currently in our home with CFLs, I think that would be a total of 32 bulbs give or take one or two in my house, According to the calculations in the quoted paragraph, we would then be saving enough energy to light more than 96 million homes and reduce greenhouse gas emissions the equivalent of that produced by more than 25.6 million automobiles. That would pretty much take care of all the energy needed for virtually all the homes in the USA and an offset of emissions for around 1/3 or so of the cars.
If it would be that easy to reverse AGW and/or meet IPPC standards, why wasn't that one of the suggested mandates?
Or did whoever wrote that miss something?
I think we could call it enviro-math. Some of the figures I hear, I intuitively know they are probably full of it, but don't care to waste my time checking it all the time. With as much "rain forest" that was being cut down there for a while, there would have been no rain forest by now. Funny, we don't hear that one much anymore. I still remember when I was a kid in the 50's, all the topsoil would be gone in 10 years or so at the rate of erosion due to farming, but lets see, that has been 50 years ago now, and there still seems to be lots of dirt across Oklahoma and Kansas, or anywhere else.
I love the carbon credits math. All we have to do is plant enough trees and I can still drive my gas guzzlers, jetset like Gore, and I can be a net energy gain. Enviro-math. That would be a good term. I haven't looked it up, so there might already be a term coined for it.