Hazmat and the Lightbulb

Why are fluorescent light bulbs touted as more energy and eco conscious?

It seems that someone said that they were and therefore they are. This is my conclusion because everything about them seems less green than the Average-Joe-Light bulb. After all, they contain mercury and are therefore hazardous to dispose of and they save (maybe) a few cents on electrical bills where they are utilized. And, as for my house, they seem to burn out at the same rate, if not sooner than their opponent, Average-Joe-Light bulb.

Do you need Hazmat to dispose of a broken eco-bulb? No, just this giant list (longer than my kids' lists to Santa Claus) of clean-up procedures from the EPA...

Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room

Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.
Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

Carefully scoop up glass pieces and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.
Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug

Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.
Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding and Other Soft Materials

If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.
If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.
Disposal of Clean-up Materials

Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.
Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.
Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming

The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.
Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.

Geez! You could actually work during the clean-up time, make a couple hundred dollars, and spend a fraction of it on new bulbs without mercury. What do you think?

Cap and Trade, The Global Warming Myth

American Solutions.com

"What Would a Successful Cap-and-Trade Program Look Like?
The goal: To limit the rise in global temperature to approximately 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2050 by reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions from companies as part of a larger plan for curbing global warming.

The cap: To achieve this goal, the U.S. government should steadily tighten the cap until emissions are reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Businesses would have to obtain permits entitling them to emit a certain quantity of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases. All permits would be auctioned off by the government. Emissions permits in the near term would likely fall in the range of $10 to $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent.

The trade: Companies unable to meet their emissions quotas could purchase allowances from other companies that have acquired more permits than they need to account for their emissions. The cost of buying and selling these credits would be determined by the marketplace, which over time would reduce the cost of trading the credits as trading becomes more widespread and efficient.

The profits: Initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project that an economy-wide cap-and-trade program would generate at least $50 billion per year, but could reach up to $300 billion. Approximately 10 percent of this revenue should be allocated to help offset costs to businesses and shareholders of affected industries. Of the remaining revenue, approximately half should be devoted to help offset any energy price increases for low- and middle-income Americans that may occur as a result of the transition to more efficient energy sources. The other half of the remaining revenue should be used to invest in renewable energy, efficiency, low-carbon transportation technologies, green-collar job training, and the transition to a low-carbon economy. Some resources should also be invested in the energy, environment, and infrastructure sectors in developing nations to alleviate energy poverty with low-carbon energy systems and help these nations adapt to the inevitable effects of global warming. Revenues from the permit auction would essentially be “recycled” back into the economy to facilitate the transition to an efficient, low-carbon energy economy and ensure that consumers are not unduly burdened by potentially higher energy costs."

American Progress.org

STEVE Fielding has had a conversion that could blow apart the great global warming scare.

No wonder the Rudd Government is scrambling and the ABC is already sliming the Family First senator.

You see, Fielding has suddenly realised that global warming may not be caused by humans after all.

What has startled him out of merely accepting we're heating the world to hell with our carbon dioxide emissions is one fact in particular.

While our emissions are increasing fast each year, satellite measurements show the world's temperatures have still not risen above the 1998 record, and have actually fallen since 2002.

Of course, all this has been pointed out before. I've asked both Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong - to their faces - to explain why the world isn't still warming as it should if their global warming theories are right.

Neither has given me an answer. Nor have they answered similar challenges from the few sceptics in Parliament who have dared to reveal themselves - notably the Nationals' Barnaby Joyce and the Liberals' Dennis Jensen.

But here's why Fielding's conversion is potentially so much more dangerous to the Government than sniping from mere columnists or Coalition MPs.

Fielding is not just in a position to ask the Government the same question. He can also demand a straight answer.

If he does not get it, his vote in the Senate could destroy the Rudd Government's plan to impose billions of dollars of taxes on all our sources of emissions - from power stations and smelters to, eventually, even cows.

With the Liberals refusing to back the scheme this year, the Government needs not just the votes of the Greens but of the two crossbench senators, Nick Xenophon . . . and Fielding.

But Fielding, an engineer, is now insisting he be shown the proof that the world is even still warming, and the Government must at last justify its plan's most basic assumption.

Five days ago, in the US, he put this very question to Joseph Aldy, President Barack Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, and is yet to get the answer he's been promised.

Now he'll sit down with Wong - probably within the week - and ask again: Why is the world still not warming when our emissions are increasing?

See the Government now frantically wondering how to answer. Climate Change Assistant Minister Greg Combet yesterday would not even say if he'd allow Fielding to consult Government scientists.

Amazing. Is science now so political that its findings must be restricted?

Yet perhaps the strangest thing about Fielding's conversion is his confession:

"Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions."

How is it that even a politician did not know until someone the other day thrust graphs into his hand that thousands of scientists doubt man is warming the world?

Or that the warming has paused this decade?

The ABC's treatment of Fielding since he announced his new position explains perhaps why such information isn't getting out, and why so many sceptics do not dare speak.

Take Fielding's interview on Jon Faine's ABC 774 program yesterday.

Faine refused to ask about the problems in the warming theory that had made Fielding demand answers.

Instead he asked angrily whether Fielding's "religious approach" was messing with his thinking, and whether we could take seriously a Christian who allegedly believed in "creation science".

Wasn't Fielding just "positioning himself" for more political clout, and why would he not just give the planet the "benefit of the doubt".

Faine insisted, without evidence, that just a handful of scientists were sceptics, and even libelled an Australian one, Prof Bob Carter, suggesting he was just a "gun for hire" - a man who'd say what he was paid to.

Immediately afterwards, Faine interviewed (gently) a climate alarmist who claimed Fielding was the kind of patsy who'd say smoking didn't kill.

Debate? This is more like a religious war, with heretics to be burned, not reasoned with.

Except for this: Fielding has his priceless vote, and for once we have someone who must be answered. Has the world stopped warming? And why?

HeraldSun

200% Civil Penalties

The following are two bills that need attention that are going through the process in Congress at this time. These will cost money to all who are already suffering in these trying times. Call your representatives!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comprehensive Transform America Transaction Fee Act of 2009

H. R. 1703
To require a study and comprehensive analytical report on transforming America by reforming the Federal tax code through elimination of all Federal taxes on individuals and corporations and replacing the Federal tax code with a transaction fee-based system.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.826 American Renewable Energy Act of 2009

(The following is a small part of the new tax issues)

b) Renewable Electricity Requirement-

`(1) REQUIREMENT-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraph (B), each electric utility that sells electricity to electric consumers shall obtain a percentage of the base quantity of electricity the electric utility sells to electric consumers in any calendar year from new renewable energy or existing renewable energy.

`(B) PERCENTAGE- The percentage obtained in a calendar year under subparagraph (A) shall not be less than the amount specified in the following table:

Minimum annual

`Calendar years:/ percentage:
2010 / 2%

2011 / 3%

2012 / 4%

2013 / 5%

2014 / 6%

2015 / 7%

2016 / 8%

2017 / 9%

2018 / 11%

2019 / 13%

2020 / 15%

2021 / 17%

2022 / 19%

2023 / 21%

2024 / 23%

2025 / 25%

...(d) Enforcement-

`(1) CIVIL PENALTIES- Any electric utility that fails to meet the compliance requirements of subsection (b) shall be subject to a civil penalty.

`(2) AMOUNT OF PENALTY- Subject to paragraph (3), the amount of the civil penalty shall be equal to the product obtained by multiplying--

`(A) the number of kilowatt-hours of electric energy sold to electric consumers in violation of subsection (b); by

`(B) the greater of--

`(i) 2 cents (adjusted for inflation under subsection (g)); or

`(ii) 200 percent of the average market value of renewable energy credits during the year in which the violation occurred.