I wrote some months ago about the impending start of the phase-out of the incandescent bulb.

It’s here. In addition to massive biofuels subsidies, ridiculous fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, and other steaming, wafting piles of scientific nonsense:

One portion of the bill sets new efficiency standards for appliances and will make the incandescent bulb—invented two centuries ago and improved and commercialized by Edison in the 1880s—virtually extinct by the middle of the next decade. The bill will phase out conventional incandescents, starting in 2012, with 100-watt bulbs, ultimately ceding the lighting market to more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs and light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

Rather than creating incentives to switch to the more energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) now common on the market, governments around the globe are adopting various timetables to phase out or ban the incandescent light bulb.

I’m not entirely sold on the case against the incandescent bulb. Yes, they’re energy hogs, with a mere 5% of the energy they consume emitted as light and the rest wasted as heat. (Okay, sometimes that heat isn’t wasted; reptile tanks usually make use of it.) I could conceivably realize some savings in my electricity bill by switching to CFLs entirely.

And I have, to a degree. My outdoor bulbs would burn out once a month because of broken filaments caused by the vibrations from regular training flights conducted by the nearby air force base. Tired of wandering around the house to change bulbs, I switched all my outdoor lights to CFLs, which have no filament to break. And the woman who fixed up my house before I purchased it did install some fixtures that take nothing but energy savers. Other fixtures will take either, and as the incandescent bulbs burn out, I replace them with fluorescent ones.

But (you just knew there was a “but” coming, didn’t you?) I haven’t made the switch completely, and it’s not for a lack of effort. Not every lamp in my house is accepting of the newfangled CFLs. I have two lovely lamps in my living room, each of which takes two bulbs, that stubbornly refuse to play nice with the new ones. I have two halogen desk lamps that also won’t make the switch. CFLs aren’t generally dimmer switch-friendly. I haven’t tried CFLs in my motion sensor lights, but then again, I haven’t seen a flood light or a small candelabra light that isn’t incandescent. When I start having to consider replacing multiple lamps and light fixtures as well as the bulbs in them, the meager cost savings in energy flies right out the open window.

New fixtures? Strike 1 against the CFLs.

CFLs have hefty transaction costs, even when all your lamps and fixtures play nice with them. Right off the bat, they’re damn expensive to purchase. I can buy 8 incandescent bulbs for less than the price of one CFL. And they’re not easily disposed of. You can’t just throw them in the trash–they require hazardous material disposal because of the 5 milligrams of mercury in each bulb. Some hardware stores have take-back programs for CFLs, and in many places, the local dump will take them, but either way, that’s an extra errand for me because I can’t just drop it in the trash or recycling bin and be done with it. If every household were using CFLs, trash hauling companies might begin accepting them at the curb, but I wouldn’t count on it.

And where does that mercury end up? Some studies suggest that despite their mercury content, CFLs would net a decrease in mercury released to the environment because (in theory) fewer coal-fired power plants would be operating, therefore releasing less mercury. Sorry, but I’m not buying it. Because power plants are quasi-governmental, there’s no way they’d be allowed to close solely because of lower energy use. And it doesn’t factor in the amount of extra mercury ending up in the environment because many folks are ignorant of the fact that CFLs can’t be disposed of like regular bulbs, or the danger to your household should one break before you’ve disposed of it.

Mercury hazards and an extra errand just for disposal? Strike 2.

Lastly, color me skeptical that anyone is likely to realize lower electricity rates from energy conservation. Energy rates aren’t subject to the laws of supply and demand, largely because of *gasp!* government interference. Local monopolies dominate the market. If I want electricity, I either hook up to the sole local provider, or I sit at home reading by candle light. I can’t do business other energy company whose practices and rates I find more reasonable. If use and demand fall, rates still increase. As an example, during a particularly dry 2001, Seattle Public Utilities strongly campaigned and encouraged folks to use less water. The public responded favorably by significantly cutting consumption. And at the end of it all, what did SPU do? Because so little water was used compared to projections (which are synonymous with budgets), SPU lost money and needed to raise water rates. I suspect any drastic reduction in energy use would net the same reward. And what incentive does any public utility have to keep energy rates low? When was the last time you’ve seen one petition the public utilities board for a rate decrease?

And not only that, I’m willing to bet the energy savings is a farce similar to the lies that brought us low-flow toilets. Toilet flushing in America is completely insignificant when you consider water consumed by agricultural and industrial uses. Nothing. We could all start doing our business in the woods behind the house, and statistically speaking, water usage wouldn’t go down at all. I suspect, though I have no evidence, that energy wasted by incandescent bulb usage is much the same–an insignificant blip next to energy spent by industry and air conditioning. Why bother with all this if our net gain as a nation is using 0.001% less energy than we did before?

Liars dangling the carrot of lower energy bills and energy consumption? Strike 3–YOU’RE OUT!

So, with the prospect of a phase out of the incandescent bulb looming, I’m doing the only thing I can–hoarding incandescents. It’s incredibly ironic that congresscritters spend so much time talking about creating incentives to become more environmentally conscious, yet the incentive they’re creating now has driven me to do exactly the thing they don’t want me to do–buy incandescent bulbs, in larger quantities than I would otherwise buy. If those idiotic fucks in Washington think I’m going to replace all my unacceptable lamps and light fixtures or spend serious cash having them retrofitted to accept CFLs because “incandescent bulbs are bad, mkay?”, they can kiss my ass.

From Steven Milloy, publisher of Junk Science:

The U.S. Government has finally begun to reverse policy on the insecticide DDT. Let’s hope that this policy shift represents the beginning of the end of what can only be called a crime against humanity: the decades-old withholding of the world’s most effective anti-malarial weapon from billions of adults and children at risk of dying from the disease.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) told the Washington Times this week (May 3) that it endorses and will fund the indoor spraying of DDT in sub-Saharan Africa. Malaria kills more than one million Africans annually, mostly children under five and pregnant women.

The policy change is timely given a recent commentary published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet (April 25) in which a number of researchers accuse the World Bank of deception and medical malpractice in the struggle against malaria.

The researchers charge that the World Bank reneged on its promise to spend $300 million to $500 million for malaria control in Africa; concealed the actual amount of its expenditures; reduced its staff of malaria experts from seven to zero shortly after promising to do more to fight the disease; published false epidemiological studies to exaggerate the performance of its projects; and funded clinically obsolete treatments, against the World Health Organization’?s advice, for malaria in India.

As many environmentalists are quick to point out, DDT was never officially banned. However, the U.S. policy of denying aid to any country still using DDT is nearly as effective a prohibition as an outright ban would have been.

No evidence was ever found to support the allegations portraying DDT as a deadly agent - not the egg shell thinning, not the human health risk. Indeed, bird populations were seen to increase during the DDT years, contradicting the claims of scientific journals and environmental organizations antagonistic to DDT.

Additionally, there’s evidence to suggest that the World Health Organization viewed overpopulation of Third World nations as a threat, and saw no alternative but to increase the number of childhood deaths through malaria. As one worker for one health agency put it: “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing.”

In short, the malaria epidemic, because of its direct causation by international health agencies and their political motives, appears to have been used as the means to the most significant genocide the world has seen.

The cynical part of me wonders if the existence of a biological population control tool more effective than malaria accounts for the shift in DDT policy, but that remains to be seen.

Shortages of drug for asthma cause concern

The Food and Drug Administration ruled that inhalers containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had to be gone by Dec. 31, 2008. CFCs, commonly used as refrigerants and propellants, have been banned in the United States for most purposes since 1996 because they deplete the ozone layer. But drug companies have been slow to respond.

Bomgaars said that until production of inhalers fueled by hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) — a propellant that doesn’t affect the ozone layer — is ramped up, availability will continue to be a problem.

Sooooo, we’re banning CFCs to protect the ozone, fucking over a bunch of asthmatics in the process. I’m sure each person struggling to find albuterol or pay for the substantially more expensive substitutes appreciates all that’s being done to help protect their health. After all the lip-service from the beltway regarding environmental policy and the supposed public health benefits, I’m speechless at the irony of this move.

New formulations hitting the market cost about twice as much as albuterol with CFCs. At Bartell Drugs, for example, generic versions of albuterol products were in the low $20s. A comparable prescription with the new HFA is in the low $40s.

Dr. Jonathan Becker, an asthma/allergy board certified specialist at Northwest Asthma and Allergy Center, acknowledged that the eco-friendly products are quite a bit more expensive, but said the HFA products also “have the potential to better deliver medications.”…

Bomgaars suggested that those taking albuterol should check with their physicians to see if they should be on it — if it’s still the appropriate drug for them. “Short term, as much as we hate to have people shop around, it may be necessary for them to call around and see if the product is available.”

And how is it we can still be pondering the mystery of expensive health care?

I’d be curious to know just how much, by weight and by volume, the CFCs from inhalers contribute to overall CFC emissions. I’m betting it’s not a significant percentage of either. Instead, this measure reeks of concern over public perception - that we must be “doing something” to save the environment and stop global warming.