We all see the the benefit to recycling electronics. There are some very toxic materials involved in the manufacture of electronic components and while manufaturers are trying to cut out the use of those toxic materials, there is something to be said about replacement materials. Apparently, India’s government is reluctant to ban the use of materials such as lead solder and they are taking some heat for it. However, if you look carefully at their reasoning, you might see that the issue is not so black and white. Once again, we see that as gung-ho as we want to be in relation to taking care of the environment, many times there are other factors that require careful  research first.

It seems GE has made a tremendous breakthrough in LED lighting. This has the potential of reducing the amount of energy used around the world dramatically. And all this without the mercury involved in CFL lighting. Unfortunately, it appears GE isn’t thinking of putting these in the hands of middle and lower income consumers. Only the rich will be able to afford the luxury of curbing their electricity usage.

You see, GE thinks that US consumers will be willing to pay $40 – $50 per bulb to make the trade. A mid-size home in the US uses about 30 bulbs. Currently, you can buy a package of 4 incandescent bulbs for less than $2. At $40 per bulb, it would cost $1200 to retrofit your home. Anybody just happen to have $1200 sitting around to spend on light bulbs when you could spend $16 instead?

I know, I know, we ought to think more about the environment. The only thing is, most middle and lower income people can’t afford a lump sum payment that high simple to save a little of the environment.

GE talks in terms of long-term savings, saying the bulbs will last 17 years. Well, in today’s mobile society, people don’t stay in the same residence for that long. I guess people will just start packing up their bulbs and taking them with them when they move, provided they have already made the $1200+ investment.

So, GE seems to have gotten it half right so far. Good on them for the invention, now it’s time to rethink that pricing policy.

I have long held the opinion that carbon credit markets as proposed by Congress are more effective for speculators to make money rather than an efficient way to reduce emissions. Now, of all people/organizations to join me, an environmental group has spoken out against the prevailing legislation. As I have watched carbon market trading, their arguments certainly seem to be supported by who is trading in credits. Just when the political machine in the US is gearing up to try to pass carbon credit legislation, along comes a tough argument from an environmental group against it. Perhaps it’s time for other environmental groups to take a closer look at this carbon trading nightmare we are about to embark upon.

What are we, a bunch of grade schoolers? Regardless of your stance on climate change, one thing I think we can all agree on is that cutting emissions that pollute our air is a good thing. If you don’t, then you need to visit a larger city where air pollution is a problem. So, if we all agree on that, then what is the big fight between industrialized countries over carbon reduction targets? This “We’ll do it if you will” attitude is so juvenile. The whole Copenhagen deal is becoming a circus. Instead, why don’t countries just say, “We don’t care if you want to do it, we want to be a leader.” Take the initiative and show others how it can be done and it won’t be long before others follow suit.

First the Europeans were the leaders, now China is getting in on the fun, so where is the US in nuclear energy development? It’s been decades since the last nuclear power plant was constructed in the US. Why does the rest of the civilized world comprehend the benefits of nuclear power and we keep hiding our head in the sand?