Challenge No. 1, Climate Savers, Should You Accept

I still buy lunch in Styrofoam containers. I drive to the grocery store some weekends, when I could walk. And no matter how much I whine and cajole, I can't get my husband to turn off the computer modem at night.

Even as someone paid to research and write about the environment, I still ain't no green purist.

I get overwhelmed too. Many choices befuddle me. My one-year-old daughter wears cloth diapers but the studies I've read say they aren't necessarily gentler on the environment than disposables -- especially chlorine-free ones.

And there are times I feel defeated. As in, what's the point of me riding my bike to work instead of driving, if our government won't even commit to meeting its own feeble watered-down green house emission cut plan?

But then, someone like my neighbour Mary-Margaret comes to the rescue. She's the community eco-witch (her term, not mine, but I like it.) She scouts the streets for plantable spots and then calls the city and orders a tree. She saves fliers errantly left in her mailbox to write notes on. She rides the subway with her two kids to environmental protests. And at a crazy party at her house, I noticed she has a bin in her bathroom for tissue to be composted instead of flushed.

I'm not her only devotee. Another neighbour told me she now collects her compost while on vacation and schleps it home to Toronto to be put into the green bin, inspired by Mary-Margaret.

She's proof, in my mind, that one person can make a difference.

And not to get all Kum Bay Yah on you, but I buy the argument that many people making small changes can add up to big impacts. All it would take is one new compact fluorescent bulb in each Ontario home to cut 66,000-cars worth of emissions.

It's the whole getting started part that can be tough.

So, in the lead up to Earth Hour, my colleague Peter Gorrie (much more knowledgeable, experienced and green than me -- think plaid shirt and bicycle helmet during negative 20 weather) will issue a weekly challenge -- for both ourselves and you.

In some cases, you might be leagues ahead of us. In others, we'll have done more legwork (his electricity bill is half the Ontario average, for one.) But, in the end, we should all have made some changes that lighten our load on the earth.

And we want to hear from you -- how you are doing, what you are doing, suggestions and challenges of your own. So hit the comment button. Or send us e-mails.

Think of it as a little green support group. Or the nudge you've been waiting for.

We'll start easy this week, with a positively painless challenge. It's also the first rite of passage for eco-converts.

So here it is.

Challenge: Replace all incandescent light bulbs in your homes with compact fluorescents and slay all indoor power vampires.

Motivation: While most people blame industry for the bulk of our country's green house gases, own personal lifestyles and choices contribute to one-third to half of them. About 16 per cent of that comes from the electricity and heat we pump into our homes -- a lot of it totally wasted.

Old-fashioned light bulbs, for instance, use 95 per cent electricity towards heat instead of light. And since lighting can take up 15 per cent of your home's electricity bill, that's a lot of wasted dollars and green house gases. Especially when there's an easy fix. Compact fluorescent bulbs use a quarter of the electricity their incandescent brothers suck up, and each bulb lasts ten times as long.

Never heard of power vampires? They are electronic gadgets that suck energy to stay on even when you turn them off (Shocking, no?). Things like your television, DVD player, cell phone charger, stereo. The average home has 30, according to Godo Stoyke, author of The Carbon Buster's Home Energy Handbook. (He's a full-time energy-efficiency consultant, but in his spare time, a complete conservation nut. He lives in a solar home in Alberta, which makes that doubly impressive.) To add insult to injury, they can suck up 20 per cent of a home's electricity bill, surpassing even the mighty fridge.

They're like eating chocolate while you're asleep -- super high calories you don't even get to enjoy.

There are fancy tools that will tell you definitively if a gadget is a vampire, and how much power it sucks while in stand-by mode, like the Watts Up and Kill A Watt meters. But, the easier low-tech test is to turn it off and see ten minutes later if it's still warm. (Also, if it has a black brick on its cord, it's a given vampire.)

Process: Don't wait for old ones to run out. Unscrew them now, and replace them with new ones -- opting for cheap bulbs in places like the basement, where you don't care if it glows, and for more expensive ones that cast softer light for your living and bed rooms. Remember, you need to buy special outdoor CFLs for your porch, and special dimmable ones if your outlet comes with a dimmer switch. (Regular CFLs don't work with dimmers.)

As for the vampires, simply unplug the old television you rarely use, and buy power bars for the things like your computer, that you use regularly. Then, it's just remembering to turn the power bars off -- something I fight with my husband about regularly.

Cost: $120 - $100 for 16 light bulbs, and $20 for three power bars.

Savings: Replacing 16 bulbs with CFLs will save you about 1050 kilowatt hours over the year (assuming you keep them on for four hours a day) -- about a month's worth of electricity in my house. Slaying 90 per cent of your homes' power vampires will save you around 1060 kilowatt hours, according to Stoyke. Taken together, that's about $210 in electricity bills, and 600 kilograms of green house gases you've just saved from the atmosphere -- as much as driving from Toronto all the way to Winnipeg (about 2000 kilometres), according to Toronto Hydro's green calculator.

-- Catherine Porter

Reader Philip Ridge offers a variety of helpful energy-reducing hints in the comments section to this post, and has graciously provided an image of his hydro bill as proof that they can add up to impressive savings. Click the thumbnail to your right for a closer look, or click on the "comments" button to see how he did it.

Comments

[Philip Ridge]

It really didn't take much effort but our family of three has reduced electricity consumption by 56% by following a few simple steps.

Here is our reduction over last year:

June 2006 1761 Kilowatt hours
June 2007 1002 Kwhrs (this was the start of our efforts)

August 2006 2,396 Kwhrs
August 2007 942 Kwhrs

October 2006 2,361 Kwhrs
October 2007 936 Kwhrs

December 2006 1,964 Kwhrs
December 2007 821 Kwhrs

From the 1st of June to the 1st of December, 6 months, we reduced our electricity consumption from 8,482 kilowatt hours to 3,701 kilowatt hours.

So, not only have we reduced our bills significantly, we have reduced our CO2 output and Green House Gases output to around the average European. If we all did this we could knock out our coal fired generating stations.

How did we do it? Well the most significant device we purchased to help us was a read-out meter that showed exactly what our whole house is using at any one time. This is a device that connects to the main panel and can measure electricity usage and give you an instantaneous readout measurement.

When I first plugged in this device I saw that my house was eating up over a kilowatt and I thought everything was turned off! I slowly hunted around and found the surround sound was permanently on at 300W plus various light bulbs etc. The most significant was 400W in the basement pot lighting system that seemed to be mis-wired - I ended up turning off the breaker permanently and using a flashlight the odd time I go down there. I found a light bulb on in the garage that is supposed to turn itself off, but didn't. I watched the readout of the device as I turned off circuit breakers in turn then I tried to find out what was using the electricity. This only took an hour or so.

I perform energy assessments in homes and I describe to people that if they accidentally leave an iron on for a whole day, from morning until they find it when they get home, this is as much electricity as I use in a whole month!

A quick glance at my usage meter before I go out or last thing before I go to bed assures me that everything is turned off. By this I mean the lights, the stereo, the computer system and printers, the outside lights, the cell phone charger (it’s on a power bar), and so on. My standby power, when everything is off, when the furnace and fridge aren’t running, is only 80Watts. I have now become familiar with the amount of electricity being used when the furnace and fridge are on at the same time. I'm buying a new furnace with a DC motor (which will save more than $200 in electricity per year compared to my existing furnace motor), I have purchased a new high efficiency SEER 14 central air conditioner, I have purchased new energy star windows and I will put more insulation into my attic and install a high efficiency wood burning fireplace. We already have the energy star washing machine and dishwasher, and we're working on the 6 litre toilets.

Oh yes and we replaced our light bulbs with the new improved compact fluorescents’ that emit a more reasonable light than the ones that came out a few years back - now my wife thinks the light is pleasant. This was a big battle. The fridge and freezer in the basement are off too, we just turn them on for family gatherings and parties.

I think the hardest battle of all is to change habits. I had my son repeating over and over that he had to turn out the lights when he left a room. He finally got it (he's only 6) and my wife is pretty good but I find I am still turning out the lights after her. Of course she turns out the lights after me sometimes too! Eventually we'll get there.

During the shoulder months when there is no furnace or AC on, we use only 6 KiloWatt hours per day - the average in Canada is 24 Kilowatt hours per day!

If we can do it, anyone can. The device we use as feedback for our electricity consumption is called The Energy Detective - I have no association with this product and there are others out there. This one is made in the USA.

Overall I would say that what we did was straightforward and not hard to do. Some change of habits and a feedback device, some investments in energy efficient products - that about it. If we can do it, anyone in this part of the world can do it too.

If we could post pictures on this blog I would happily show my electric bill for all to see.

Contact me at ridgepg@rogers.com if you have any questions on our methods, cheers.

Phil Ridge

[Richard Wakefield]

No Ground Based global warming since 1998 - By Paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter of Australia's James Cook University (June 17, 2007)

Excerpt: The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent). Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html

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

UN IPCC Chief to ‘look into the apparent temperature plateau’ – Global Temps Not Surpassed 1998 High

Excerpt: The record year for world temperatures was 1998, ahead of 2005, according to WMO data. Among recent signs of the effects of warming, Arctic sea ice shrank last year to a record low. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century. "One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities. He added that sceptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. "There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7216946

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

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

[Richard Wakefield]

Recent evidence shows the theory of the human causation for global warming is starting to fall apart. For example, the rate of sea level rise has not changed in the 110 years of measurements. If the IPCC predictions of 7” to 23” in 100 years were actually going to happen the rate of sea level rise should have started to accelerate by now. This is even a worse problem for those who predict a much higher sea level rise of meters in just 50 years, which would require a rate change ten times the current rate. But it hasn’t changed, the rate is the same (see for example these measurements http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140) . One has to ask with all this supposed melting going on in the world where is the water going?

To get a balance view of what is being published in the scientific literature that does not support human causation for global warming visit www.worldclimatereport.com and www.co2science.org.

The real threat to our society is not global warming, but peak oil, and peak food (both of which have happened). But these are all just symptoms of the real underlying cause of our problems – over population. Humanity has surpassed the planet’s carrying capacity. Crash is inevitable.

[Steve Hicken]

On March 29 the world will go on the same as it did on the 28th no one will turn off lights around the world.Everyone is aware of global warming but world governments are not going to do a thing.Mainly because it is too expensive to make changes.So as usual they will talk the talk and thats as far as it will go.Thats reality.Turning off a few lights will make no impression to anyone.

[Catherine Doward]

I am so sick of this global nonsense about the weather. Does the UN need our money so badly that they have to scare us into a carbon tax? What ever happened to the asteroid that's supposed to smash into the earth? Super Bugs? Cancer? Crazies flying airplanes into things? Food shortages?
Someone is making money here on this global warming thing and it's not just Al Gore. It's becoming a whole new industry.
Yes I changed all my bulbs to CCF type and Ontario Hydro raised the rates on us. No savings here.
Catherine Doward
Tichborne, ON

[Mary]

My family has always avoided waste. I was brought up that way. It wasn't an obsession, it was plain sense. Even now we rarely leave lights on for more than a few minutes. Yes, we live in the dark. But not because of "global warming" fears. Apart from the waste of electricity we don't want to contribute to Hydro CEO's golden pensions. When the source of "global warming" or "climate change" involves someone like Al Gore who makes a fortune with each speech, something smells distinctly fishy. And when people who have a different opinion are scorned, even more disturbing. Yes, pollution is a problem - we don't need Gore to tell us that. Asthma is one condition cleaner air will help. But these energy saving bulbs are downright dangerous and we wouldn't have one in the house. In Britain, The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has issued a warning on what to do if one of these bulbs break: 1. Evacuate the room taking care not to stand on any shards: 2. Do not use a vacuum cleaner to clear up the mess as the sucking action could spread toxic mercury droplets around the house: 3. The remains must be put into a plastic bag and sealed and taken to a special site for disposal: 4. Try not to inhale dust from the broken bulb. Yes, not something a thinking parent would bring into a home.
I've noticed that mass hysteria is far more prevalent nowadays. People are whipped into a frenzy and made to feel they must join in the latest fad: cabbage patch kids, beanie babies, Harry Potter, now global warming. All money makers. Something to take their minds off bigger issues: overcrowding in cities, poor health care, lack of moral fibre in society. And to end this "denier" point of view, the worst newspaper offender is the Toronto Star with its huge, cumbersome, outsize product. The poor trees can't keep up.

[chris saunders]

I agree with Steve. The Saturday Star has today two sections of
Wheels devoted to the automobile industry, there are a further
5+ pages of car industry ads in section A out of a total of 22
pages. When the City's leading newspaper gets serious about the
urban issues caused by our love affair with the car i.e. congestion,pollution,planning centred around the accommodation
of cars, then the rest of us will go out and buy energy saving
light bulbs...can we please address the real issues, 1000+ people dying due to our badly polluted air, the answer is NOT
to put up nicely worded messages on overhead highway signs or
nebulous campaigns about energy saving.First issues first please.

[Kendra]

I like this initiative a lot and I'm going to try to keep up with each weekly challenge.

I've just done a quick survey of all the lights in my home and I'm happy to say they're already CFLs. Now I have to learn to switch off my powerbars and unplug some "power sucks"

Anyway, this initiative is a breath of fresh air and I look forward to participating at home!

Kendra
Mississauga

[James in Toronto]

All this garbage about turning off the lights for one hour, on one day a year, voluntarily, is nonsense. It might "send a message" about our collective will to do whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, but nothing will change. I, for one, would never participate in an event sponsored by Toronto Hydro or Virgin Mobile and actually expect to be making a difference in any way. Those people are the problem, the solution will not come by listening to what they have to say or doing anything they want us to do.

What we need is a shift in the way we think and behave as a society, not saving a little bit of electricity once a year to show off how "green" we are. Do you really believe Toronto Hydro wants to "make a difference"? Hell, no. They want to "make a dollar", and sponsoring useless events like this makes them look good, but really accomplishes nothing. Think of the cost of us all turning off our lights for an hour as the price they're willing to pay to look good in the public eye.

Here are 25 real ideas for saving our planet and our way of life, but obviously none of them will be adopted until it is far too late. If you don't understand the reasoning behind some of these points, learn to make the internet your friend. Some of these are easy to do, some are not.

1 - abandon and level the suburbs, turn them back into forests. With a little luck, a major downturn in housing markets could do this for us. Sometimes bad times are blessings in disguise.

2 - live in a compact living space, like an apartment or condo. Abandon single-family dwellings.

3 - live with your extended family

3 - live close to where you work - ideally, live where you work.

4 - get rid of your car

5 - stop buying any food or other items imported to your local area from far away.

6 - Plant a little garden in your back yard or on your balcony. Even better, build yourself a little greenhouse.

7 - Stop buying paper products made from cotton or wood. Plant hemp, and use it. Remember "Hemp for Victory"?

8 - compost human waste. stop wasting water on flushing it. You drink that water afterward. Recycling used toilet water and adding chemicals to sanitize it is wasteful and unnecessary. Stop adding fluoride to public drinking water. Do you know what fluoride is? Someone is making money and telling you that it's not only safe, but it's even good for you. It's a lie.

9 - reduce, reuse, recycle EVERYTHING

10 - DEMAND that industry stop over-packaging. I recently bought an item that came in a plastic container, which was wrapped in plastic, inside a box, which itself was wrapped in plastic. That should be illegal. DVDs that come with the extra "special edition" box around them are good examples of excessive overpackaging.

11 - stop using food for fuel. Corn is for eating.

12 - stop buying useless crap.

13 - expand public transportation services to accomodate what is necessary

14 - travel by train or bus instead of airplane and car whenever possible.

15 - design all new homes to make the best possible use of natural ground heat. outfit all new buildings with solar panels, and power-saving appliances and lighting. Make good use of engineering techniques that take advantage of natural light.

16 - use solar power wherever possible

17 - create stronger regulations for power consumption limits on electronic gadgets and appliances. Eliminate wasted energy. (ie - "power vampires")

18 - stop thinking of hydrogen as an energy source. it is an energy storage medium, but it is not a source of energy in and of itself. It's not helpful to our predicament.

19 - eat meat only once or twice a week. stop eating cows. eat more eggs and nuts. get yourself a pet chicken.

20 - stop eating processed foods. It's not good for you anyway.

21 - In commerce, eliminate the middle man where possible. Buy direct from the source if you can. Stop shopping at malls and superstores.

22 - Stop borrowing money. Pay off your debts and get rid of your credit cards. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. Stop buying $2 purchases on credit! What are you thinking!? Use cash, and don't carry your debit card with you, except to the bank. Learn to live with less money, then work less.

23 - Educate yourself. Stop relying on schools or others to teach you what you need to know. We have amazing technology and educational resources at our fingertips. Use it.

24 - Publicly embarrass and humiliate others with regard to excessive lifestyles as often as possible to expedite the process of change.

25 - Relax. Stop living like everything needs to be done RIGHT now. Take your time, and work hard on things that matter.

Our "economy" and our "western lifestyle" are NOT important. They only have the illusion of importance. If we can all change the way we function as a society, these things can disappear without much trouble. Only the very rich would suffer. And who cares about them anyway? Let them worry about themselves. The myth that technological innovation and progress would stagnate without the rich is offensive, and it is a lie. The government will never lead us in a "green revolution". The government is like most people: opposed to change, trying desperately to maintain our way of life, though it is obviously not sustainable. We are responsible for making the changes ourselves. The government will follow suit.

To Richard, who posted above that the planet is above carrying capacity: that's nonsense as well. Don't confuse your own selfish ideas about maintaining your current standard of living and carrying on as you have your entire life with the actual physical carrying capacity of our planet. The problem is not one of too many ants on our little anthill, the problem is that people like you feel entitled to live a life of excessive, gluttonous luxury at the expense of others.

It may already be too late to make many necessary changes. We have spent the past 50 years living beyond our means and squandering precious natural resources that could have been used to build something useful. It's sickening.

[Melissa Gold]

I'm excited by Earth Hour and plan to participate. I'm considering an Earth Hour party: you can't attend unless you turn off everything at home before you come.

As for this week's challenge, last year I considered replacing the bulbs in my house with flourescents and discovered two things: one is that many of my light fixtures and lamps are not compatible with flourescent bulbs (and not just the ones on dimmers switches) and the other is that flourescent bulbs are hazardous. If broken or when they reach the end of their lives, they have to be disposed of as hazardous materials, something I don't see mentioned often. However, I like the idea of seeking out energy vampires and will take some measures about that.

My concern isn't global warming, it's air pollution and resource depletion, and of course, the continually rising cost of energy of all kinds. Last summer, we replaced all our windows with energy efficient ones and we had Air-crete insulation blown into our walls, since our 1964 house had no insulation at all. Our air conditioner died about the same time, in the middle of the June heat wave, so we got the most energy efficient one we could find as a replacement. Until it was replaced, we enjoyed natural ventilation and fans and, thanks to the Air-crete and new windows, we didn't swelter.

Next we are replacing the front door (having already replaced all the others with energy saving ones) and will likely have more insulation put into the attic. And so far we have observed that we are using less oil than by this time last year and last year was a milder year. We're keeping records.

I have a question though: in the flourescent versus incandescent discussion, I haven't seen any mention made of the energy use of halogen compared to the other two. I have a lot of halogen fixtures and lamps: should I replace them to save money and energy?

Melissa Gold

[Joel]

RE: power vampires. NOMA makes a wireless device that makes it easy to turn off your power bars. A device is plugged into the wall outlet and you plug your power bar into the device. The device is turned on and off with a remote wireless control. The control can be used on 3 outlets. It is easy to walk around the room and turn on/off the power vampires.

Not everyone has to switch to CFLs. My local power utility (NE Ontario) generates their power from dams and windmills. Therefore, no greenhouse gases (I know that there are other environmental issues with water reservoirs and and windmills). I also still use some regular bulbs. The waste heat from the bulbs helps heat the house.

[William Brock]

I was disturbed by a bit of information in one of your articles. It was stated that a friend kept a container in her bathroom for tissue that was not flushed. I hope you are not saying that one should save for the compost bin tissue contaminated with human excrement. Composters have for decades been told not to include pet excrement to the mix, and human waste would add microbes none of us would want in our garden. Anecdotally, I must add a story about a medical doctor who lived in our community who had spent much of his life in the Orient where human waste was and is abundantly present and a part of everyday existence. He processed human waste from his household and put the "compost" on his vegetable garden. He died; and it was determined that cause of death was systemic gastrointestinal catastrophe. Everyone knew he was nuts for putting poop on his garden and he proved it. Is your friend putting poop on her garden?

[ron]

I switched to compact fluorescents many years ago when they first became available.My electric usage last month was 533 kilowatts.In the summer it's around 450 kilowatts.All of my outside lighting now has been changed to LED'S.I have two inside LED night lights that use 3/10's watt each,photocell controlled.My hot water temperature is 120 degrees farenheit.Last night I practiced Earth Hour.I shut off the two 13 watt CFL'S that were on for an hour and saved 26 watts of electricity.Not hardly worth the effort ,was it?I left the outside LED'S on.They gobbled up around 2 watts of electricity.I have a water heater timer I need to install,that will help. I have an outside clothesline for drying when weather permits.I made a small passive solar water heater that I use in the summer for dish washing water.It works.I use a GE roaster oven for all my baking needs, except pizzas.They simply don't fit in.

[Sara-Anne Peterson]

I have just simply gone on a consumer's strike. I don't buy anything unless I cannot possibly do without it. No new clothes, no new appliances, no new furniture, nothing. As much organic and local food as I can get. It seems to me if consumers stop buying, pressures will be put on governments to insist goods be produced and moved in a green way.

[Licketysplit]

I was a bit concerned about Catherine's article mentioning her friend keeping a container in the washroom for tissue waste. That is just utterly disgusting. I don't think human fecal matter is meant to be composted any more than animal fecal matter.
And to Kendra: do you have a chicken? and just where does this chicken stay all day when you're not at home? and what do you do with the fecal matter? There are those of us who live in condos and apartment buildings. We'd be tossed out for keeping chickens. That was a pretty silly thing to post, don't you think?
As for most of the readers: just how many of you are loathe to part with your gas-sucking SUV's? How many of you live in the 'burbs and have to drive everywhere because of the lack of public transport. And just how many of you would use public transport as opposed to your SUV's?
And just how many of you buy pre-packaged meat at the grocery store that uses styrofoam? have none of you considered going to the local butcher and having your meat wrapped in paper that can be recycled? I do. None of my groceries are store-bought. I bring home very few plastic bags.
And to Steve Hicken, yes, we did have muslim fanatical crazies fly planes into two towers that killed a lot of people. What that has to do with this forum is up for debate.

--- From Catherine: Actually, Mary-Margaret and her family just use the "tissue" bucket for tissue -- tp that they've blown their noses on. Although, I had assumed they used it for No. 1 concerns. (When I asked her, she cleared that up, but said the No. 1 idea was a good one she planned to implement soon.) One point though -- people with babies in plastic diapers put the diapers in the green bin, the city of Toronto's composting program. So, we all are already composting human fecal matter.....

[Joey]

Re: comments by Catherine - Jan 19/08 - 3.15 p.m. I agree with some of those remarks, specifically those about the hazards associated with those "energy saving bulbs". I too have listened to the news about them and the hazards caused when they break. Do these bulbs explode when they break, like the old ones? I have some of those energy bulbs, but since hearing the hazards associated with them, I am going to dispose of them and return to using the older type. When they become available without the hazards, then I will again use them. Till then, they are not for me or my family. Yes, I have heard the comment "thermometers have significantly more mercury in them. That may be so, but I have never broken or had one break in near four score years, and have no worry about them. These bulbs are different and are another example of simple greed. they are not "better", tbey can cause a lot more harm then the old type and are much more expensive. Joey

[johnnykap]

I am impressed by how many people who responded are skeptical of the environmental movement (global warming, recycling, lite bulbs, etc). That's a positive sign.

I have decided however to shut my lites off that day, not for one hour, but for 8 hours. It will be at 10 pm, not 8 pm. I shall be nestled tightly in my warm, snug bed, sawing logs...

[David Chernushenko]

You have stimulated an interesting debate, and the comments submitted by readers indicate a typical Canadian mix of:
- I am trying to live more lightly, and enjoying the challenge
- What's the point of me turning off my lights, it's mostly somebody else's fault
- There's no such thing as global warming anyway, so why bother

I believe, and recent exhaustive surveys have shown, that most Canadians are in the first category. They want to adopt ways of living more lightly, they need some encouragement and enjoy feeling part of a team, and they respond to positive examples and leadership from their peers. This is the nascent Living Lightly movement, as I call it. To further this movement, I have started a website, am delivering public lectures on this topic, and am just completing a film on Living Lightly.

I think your readers will be interested, and it would be worthy of an article. See:
http://www.livinglightly.ca

I know this is a blatant promotion, but it is not so that I can get rich, it's so my grandchildren can breathe, eat and play carelessly, just like I could when I was young, and would like to by the time I am old.

Keep it up, please.

Live lightly and prosper!

David Chernushenko
Ottawa

[Larry Carney]

I liked the article...but how the hell do I keep from wasting paper when I print up a copy? The first page came thru with about 3 lines, that I didn'dt even want.

[Glenn Shukster]

We (family of 4) reduced our electricity by 10% in 2006 and another 35% last year to end up around 9,500 in 2007. (Where can I get information on consumption averages for electricty, water, gas etc.) Not sure how much lower we can go but I will continue to look for more ways to reduce it.
I am disappointed to see some people in this blog not trying to reduce their consumption. While it may not be the only answer continuing as we are is definitly not working.

[James in Toronto]

RE: Licketysplit

The point of my post above was not to tell everyone to go buy chickens. I thank you for taking my comment out of context, though, as you've given me a great opportunity to elaborate.

First, generally speaking, my list was not a "checklist" in the way that you might be used to seeing such things. It was meant as a list of suggestions for ways that we as a society might improve. The part about keeping chickens was meant to drive home the point that our society is too reliant on unnatural food production processes which by their nature sever us from our natural environment and which are not sustainable. Our food production and delivery systems are responsible for massive amounts of pollution and waste, and the typical western diet is representative of excess in the extreme. If you read the entire item in the list, you would understand that it was about reducing our consumption of meat and changing our bad habits.

Second, regarding the composting of human waste: I currently use a toilet and at the moment I have no alternative. However, human waste can be composted, though reports vary on the safety of using the humus directly as fertilizer. I wouldn't recommend it. However, throwing a big bucket of dirt into the bush is a far better than our current complicated system of disposing of the dangerous waste, which is wasteful and poses major health threats if any part of the process breaks down. The aging, decaying infrastructure should be a big concern to all of us.

The point of my post was that our society is not efficient, and is not sustainable. The steps that we, as Canadians, are currently taking are not good enough. It seems that most Canadians like to "feel good" about the way we live, but we aren't willing to make the necessary changes that would really make a difference. We are too comfortable with our perceived wealth and way of life.

You also may (or may not) have noticed that I did not reference global warming at all in my comment. There are other problems that we should be addressing that are far more complicated and at times are directly related to global warming, such as resource depletion (oil, uranium, gold and coal to name a few), "peak" food production (topsoil depletion), dwindling fresh water supply, air pollution, severe financial and economic instability due to excessive greed and deception, and the amount of power that banks and corporations hold within our social structure over individuals and government alike. Solving these problems will directly influence the degree to which we are able to tackle the problems posed by global warming. Thinking that we can just tackle global warming on its own by changing the type of light bulbs we use is naive and irresponsible.

And finally, to those complaining that the government isn't doing enough: Our government is not responsible for making changes for us, we are responsible for making changes in the way that we live and the choices that we make as consumers. We aren't children waiting for a parent to tell us what to do. That is not the appropriate function of government. You're giving them too much credit, and too much power.

[Sandra Rae]

Being over 60, all this "new" interest in the environment is somewhat amusing. We have been composting since 1968. We switched our light bulbs more than 10 years ago, when they first came out. Life outside of Toronto, is much colder, it's -25 at the moment. I have on fleece pants, wool socks and a sweater. We keep our thermostat at 15, with no summer airconditioning. Distances are further, so what works in the city will not work in rural Ontario.
One thing that would change the world instantly, is if people stopped throwing garbage. This one thing would make urban and rural landscapes better, and it is something that does not require government participation, it is easy, and not age dependant, it does not depend on ideology, it would not impact the economy in any way.

[Katherine]

I switched to compact fluorescent bulbs a few years ago, and just had my first one stop working. I'm a little disappointed that it only lasted two years instead of seven (but hey, I've been saving $10 a month on my hydro bill in the meantime), but now I'm wondering how to dispose of it safely, since I know they shouldn't go in the regular garbage. Could safe disposal of these and like items be covered in a future blog post, perhaps?

[Carol Cooper]

Looking for a good website measuring carbon footprints.

[Petra Verhoeven]

For the last I don't know how many years, both our local water company and our electrical company have come and tested my meters to make sure they are working properly since our consumption is so low. There are still some areas I need improvement in - I can never figure out what is recycleable, and what isn't, so to take care of that I try not to buy anything in any kind of packaging that may not be recycleable. Our city has a fairly good program, so if I am unsure, it goes in the green bin, not the garbage.

But as a cat breeder, and a cat rescuer, I have a great tip for those using clumping (or even non clumping) kitty litter.

Rather than using the clumping kitty litter you buy anywhere, you can use chicken feed grower - 50 lbs cost about 12 bucks, and it has no smell, is totally biodegradable, and works even better than the flushable clumping litter. I separate out the clumps and the faeces, flush those, and just keep adding more. If there is any left when I do the monthly major clean of the litter pan, this gets thrown out the back door for the birds!! and for fertilizer. I have been using this for many years, and the savings on my pocketbook and the environment are substantial. Those in the city may have a problem finding it within the city, but any small town feed store (I live in a big city, but make the 20 minute drive to the local feed mill to purchase it) will carry it.

It is a challenge to be environmentally conscious all the time, but the rewards, both financial and emotional, are worth it.

PJV

[Shana Albo]

CFL's can be disposed of at a number of locations, including Home Depot and Ikea. The City of Toronto also has 6 Solid Waste depots throughout Toronto where CFLs can be dropped off for recycling (http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/fluorescent.htm)

Just a note that Ikea also accepts disposable batteries, Home Depot accepts rechargeable batteries, and the Future Shop, Best Buy and the Source have drop off bins for Cell Phones, ink cartridges and CD's.

[Jennifer Murphy]

Re: Sandra Rae's question on how to dispose of CFL lights

The city of Toronto accepts them at the Household Hazardous Waste depots. Just save them up and take them along with any other hazardous waste (i.e. batteries, used computers, waste chemicals). If you look on the city's website you can find the location and operating hours of the HHW depots.

Alternatively, I have recently seen containers at Home Depot to collect used CFL's. It was located right on the way into the store. I think other stores also have similar stands/boxes.

[Ken Adams]

Climate change is very real, and I am seriously devoted to reducing greenhouse gas emissions but I am really getting sick of all this talk about compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). They make little or no difference! Almost all of the numbers that people quote with reference to the energy savings coming from CFLs are false!

Incandescent light bulbs produce light and heat. The heat can be considered "waste" but what most people don't realize is that during the months when they are trying to heat their homes, the heat from electrical devices does not disappear (that would violate the first law of thermodynamics) it adds to the heat in your home. If your thermostat is set to a given temperature and this waste heat is not present, then more heat will be produced by your furnace to make up for it... i.e. no savings. Wait, it gets worse! Although electricity can be generated from fossil fuels, nuclear fission, or renewables, most people heat their homes with natural gas, which is not renewable and produces CO2.

So the bottom line is that there are no savings when using CFLs in the winter time in Canada. You may consume less electricity but you are probably making up for through additional heating. The better approach would simply be to use electricity from renewables directly (i.e. Bullfrog Power or off the grid.).

The Ontario government ban on the bulbs was just a misguided move to distract from the fact that they have done so little to invest in renewable energy generation or real conservation.

[Brad]

Joel, do you know the name of this devive from Noma that controls power bars by remote control? Do you know where to buy one? I loked online at Canadian Tire, but no luck.

[W.]

We have recently purchased an old (1925) house in East York, and are gradually working on making it more energy efficient, green, and healthy. One of the first things we did was change the lightbulbs to CFL's. Some are the regular ones, some the warmer colour, and we have found regular sized dimmable ones. But we check anywhere we go and have yet to find either trilight CFL's, or dimmable chandelier bulb sized CFL's. Does anyone know whether these are available and if so, where they can be found??

[Richard Wakefield]

To Kendra: Interesting that you automatically assume that I live a lavish lifestyle. I don't. I've dramatically reduced my living standards and follow most of your numbers. Moved out of the city into a much smaller home with more land to grow my own foods.

Yes, we are beyond the carrying capacity. Case in point. Do the math. In Ontario each person requires 1 acre of land to grow food for the year. Add up all the farmable land in Ontario and see if the population can be fed from it. It can't, by a long shot. Food to your plate requires a journey of some 5,000 km (cherries from Chile!)

World wide grain stocks are at their lowest ever and falling. Why? One reason is the moving of farmable land from growing food crops to growing biofuels instead, dramatically driving up the price of food. It takes oil and natural gas to grow the crops we eat (something like 10 units of oil energy for 1 unit of food energy). Soon as oil goes into terminal decline (output peaked in 2005 at 85mb/day, expected to be in 4% decline world wide in a few years) there will not be the required energy to feed us. The only reason the planet has gone from 500 million 200 years ago to 6.5 billion today (expected to go to 10 billion or more) is because of oil. Soon as that starts to decline we will be beyond the planet's carrying capacity. If you think starvation is a problem now, just wait. You ain't seen noth'n yet.

Face it. There are just far too many people. All our problems, and if climate change is due to us, is because of too many people. We were warned back in the 1960's by environmentalists that the world would become over populated in 30-50 years. We are there now. Yet, today not a peep from the environmental groups about over population. Even the Sierra Club has been muzzled on the subject with $100 million in bribe money (over population used to be its core message).

What can be done? Nothing. Population will continue to grow out of control. Oil will go into terminal decline, causing chaos first in the economy, then food production, then, as with all natural ecosystems that have over populated species, a population crash.

[Richard Wakefield]

Re: Jennifer Murphy's comment about using power from renewable resourses only.

Got some sobering news for you. Windpower is hyped to be the be-all and save-all of power generation. It's not. Here's some startling facts. The numbers sited in the papers on output from a wind turbine is the name plate value. That is, a 1.5Mw turbine only produces 1.5Mw of power when the wind is at its maximum -- 50-55km/hr. The wind almost never gets there for any period of time. The output of a WT drops by the cube root of the wind speed. Thus at 25km/hr the output drops to 1/8th. Yep, one eighth! Thus at 25km/hr the output is about 20% of the name plate.

It gets worse. A recent report to the Ontario Power Authority http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/marketreports/OPA-Report-200610-1.pdf noted:

"The average capacity value of the wind resource in Ontario during the
summer (peak load) months is approximately 17%. The capacity value ranges
from 38% to 42% during the winter months (November to February) and from
16% to 19% during the summer months (June to August). Since 87% of the
hits (periods within 10% of the load peak) occur during the summer months,
the overall yearly capacity value is expected to be heavily weighted toward
the summer. The overall yearly capacity value is approximately 20% for all
wind penetration scenarios. In other words, 10,000 MW of installed nameplate
wind capacity is equivalent to approximately 2,000 MW of firm generation
capacity. The capacity value is generally insensitive to the wind penetration
level, mainly due to good wind geographic diversity and the fact that the
various wind output levels are derived by scaling the same wind groups."

Read the key study findings (pg.6). An eye opener.

Bascially what the report is saying is that in the summer months, on a hot and muggy, windless day and power consumption is at it's highest, those very expensive wind turbines will be idle and totally useless.

It gets worse. Recall the recent media hype about putting turbines in the lakes. That there was some 47,000 megawatts of potential power there. Do the math. It would require 188,000 wind turbines to harness that power and would take more than 300 years to build them (and cost 188,000 * $2 mill each).

Bottom line is don't count on renewables for power production over our other current generation abilities.

Oh, and another interesting number, for those who don't think we are over populated. Sarnia is going to have a 1,000 acre solar farm (cost to taxpayers $300M). It will be able to supply power to about 7000 homes (i'll believe that when I see it). That's about 60-80 days of immigration into Canada. That is, soon as it is operational, the first year's wave of immigrants into Canada will swamp it many times over. Do the math yourself.

[Brishen Hoff]

Here is a letter I just submitted to CBC Radio's Quirks and Quarks in my efforts to stir up some public awareness of just how bad overpopulation is:

Dear Quirks and Quarks producers Jim Handman, Jim Lebans and Pat Senson,

I have two "SCIENCE FACT or SCIENCE FICTION" theories for you to test:

1: Global life expectancy peaked in 1998 at 68 years and this is likely due to overpopulation of human beings.

2: Given that:

A) Every economic activity involves direct or indirect consumption of resources, and since the earth has a limited capacity to produce these resources, economic growth can not go on indefinitely.

B) Economic growth has left each successive generation with a more impoverished planet, meaning fewer natural resources per capita and less biodiversity.

Therefore, we would be wise to voluntarily stop economic growth before our earth becomes a crowded monoculture of human beings characterized by poverty, war and disease.

Sincerely,

Brishen Hoff
http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com

[Rick Shea]

To Kendra, who claims that the fact that we are beyond the planet's carrying capacity is nonsense: even if the ants on the anthill all halved their consumption, doubling the number of ants will negate any benefits. Population, and overpopulation, are critical issues. The claims about exceeding carrying capacity are coming from U.N. groups, economists, biologists, the Rockefeller Foundation, Sierra Club chapters, Green Party organizations, and a host of other reputable organizations and scientists.

Our economy and our lifestyle are important, as they are the model that billions of Chinese and Indians aspire to at this very moment. It simply is not sustainable, even for the average Western citizen.

The evidence that humans have overpopulated this planet is all around us, but in our little Western society cocoons, we find it easy to ignore our locust-like existence. "If we only conserve and eat organic, everything will be fine." Sad.

[Les]

To:Katherine looking for a website, Try:www.onelesstonne.ca
The One Less Tonne tool calculates typical greenhouse gas emission reductions (and energy cost savings) associated with actions.

The One Less Tonne tool has been produced by the Pembina Institute, an independent non-profit organization that provides policy research leadership on climate change, energy policy, green economics, renewable energy, and environmental governance, as well as extensive formal and public education programs.

[Rick Shea]

I have to take issue with the comment in Peter Gorrie's information above that "conservation is the answer to just about every environmental question." A reduction in per capita conservation is quickly negated by an increase in population. Certainly, conservation is laudable, but absolutely futile and pointless if we do not also call for a halt to population growth.

Indeed, probably a better answer to just about every environmental question is the reduction of human population on this planet, accompanied by a radical change in attitude towards this planet.

"The raging monster upon the land is population growth. In its presence, sustainability is but a fragile theoretical construct. To say, as many do, that the difficulties of nations are not due to people but to poor ideology or land-use management is sophistic." --- E.O. Wilson, biologist

[James in Toronto]

RE: Rick Shea

I suppose you believe everything the UN and the Rockfeller Foundation tell you? HA!

We are in for a mighty global population crash within the next few decades. This will happen whether or not population control measures are taken. Check your math. We're already seeing the effects of an aging population with shortages in skilled labour. A nice global recession should make up for the difference though.

But in the meantime, what do you propose? Forced sterilization? Death camps? Controlled epidemic? Perhaps we should start with the poor and work our way up? Keep conducting your business as usual. You're next in line for a good old-fashioned chemical castration. Just keep your eyes closed, it won't hurt a bit. Maybe you can request that one of the Rockefellers personally perform your operation.

Rick, the problem is that people like you, the UN, and the Rockefeller Foundation believe that unlimited economic growth and ever-increasing resource consumption is the only way our society will continue to function (and keep the big dogs on top). Business as usual is not the answer. We have to CHANGE.

FWIW, My name isn't Kendra, I am not a woman.

[Robert Banks]

Replacing ALL incandescent bulbs with CFLs may not be the complete Earth-saver that is usually claimed. Yes incandescent bulbs produce more heat than light. But CFLs are not 100% efficient either. (LEDs are closer but the light from them is problematic.) A 13 watt CFL is supposed to replace a 60 watt incandescent and a 23W CFL a 100W incandescent. So a CFL seems to be about 4 times more efficient. However, the light from CFLs has a dim quality that reminds me of the 'long life' incandescents which were rated for 130V and so ran dimmer. (A friend of mine calls these bulbs "perma-dims".) I suspect that CFLs have a heavy frosting to try to get their colour temperature closer to incandescents. I find that a 13W CFL is closer to a 40W incandescent and to replace a 60W incandescent you need a 23W CFL. So the factor comes down to about 3 times.

As noted by others, special CFLs are needed for outside (cold) conditions. These and even regular CFLs indoors take some time to come up to full brightness. This lag could present safety issues or at least convenience issues. A stairwell or closet where the light will only be on for a minute or so, but one requires full brightness for that minute, are not the ideal place for CFLs.

I have a rough basement in my house that is hard to light. I have five 100W incandescent bulbs in sockets on the ceiling. When I go down to the basement, it is usually only for a minute; I instantly want the full brightness from the bulbs I install down there. I make up for having incandescents there by switching them off immediately upon leaving the basement.

In addition, the bulbs are exposed and prone to breakage in this low-ceiling space. As noted by others, a broken CFL presents health hazards.

A factor that I have not seen addressed regarding CFLs is the amount of energy required to make and dispose of them compared to incandescent bulbs. There is obviously a lot more to a CFL than an incandescent, mercury noted.

Another point that I would like to make, which is hard to determine, is how much people will leave a CFL burning because it is "energy efficient" so is "OK to leave on". I applaud those who are saving electricity by using CFLs (although in the winter, the heat from incandescents is not unwelcome and becomes part of the heating equation). But I propose that if you are saving so much money from switching to CFLs, you must have a lot of lights on for long periods of time. Let's face it: an incandescent that is turned off uses less electricity than a CFL turned on.

In case you are wondering, I have switched SOME CFLs back to incandescent or halogen, but ONLY where the lights are on briefly or infrequently and an instant full brightness condition or a clear, bright work light is required. Lights that are on more often have been replaced, either by CFLs, or, where possible, by fixtures that are designed for fluorescent bulbs.

I shudder to think of the industry draining of resources required to make all the CFLs needed for everyone to immediately replace ALL of their incandescent bulbs. I also don't like to think of ALL the incandescent bulbs hitting the landfill at once, nor the eventual disposal of ALL these mercury-laden CFLs.

Regarding phantom electricity users, it is eye-opening to add up the wattage used by all these devices. However, powering some of these devices down totally will mean losing clock settings, programming, memory-stored data and preferences, and so on.

All this being said, as an ex-Torontonian living in the hinterland, I will 'power down' on March 29 with the rest of you. However, I usually have so few lights on that I might not make much of a difference.

[joel]

Answer to request from Ken Adams: The device is called the Noma Indoor Wireless Remote Outlets. It comes as a package of 3 receiver outlets and 1 remote transmitter (I think it comes in plastic blister package). My small town Canadian Tire does not carry the product. I bought it a large city CT. On the operating instructions is a code that looks similar to a CT product code:
52-8868-4

Good Luck

[Karen Gore]

Thanks for the comment on Energy Vampires. Its a term I've just discovered recently, and one I hope will become common place as all too many of us leave appliances plugged in and "off", thinking they're not using energy. A big thing for me I've recently gotten out of the habit of doing is leaving my cell phone charger constantly plugged in, and now I turn off my computer's powerbar as well.

I love the blog, however I don't agree so much with the comment Catherine made regarding fear as not being a motivator for conservation. If we do not fear the consequences of our inaction, what will motivate us to conserve and find solutions, if nothing else?

[Ken Adams]

I am surprised that the comment in the blog about the person bringing compostables home from vacation did not receive any backlash. Although composting is important, you must consider the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced by fuel burned when transporting those compostables. Everyone knows that we should try to eat local to save on GHG from transport but obviously the same should apply to wastes. If you can't compost locally DO NOT haul that extra weight onto a plane! Unless your vacation travel is a short trip by bus, train or bicycle, it is probably best not to bring your compostables home. Similarly, with recyclables, paper is probably not worth taking on the trip home whereas aluminum or steel which require large amounts of energy to mine and produce probably are worth the transport, but there are no easy answers here since it all depends on the distance travelled and the mode of transportation.

[Rick Shea]

Karen Gore says "If we do not fear the consequences of our inaction, what will motivate us to conserve and find solutions, if nothing else?"

Conservation is not a solution, unless it is also accompanied by population control initiatives. Reducing per capita consumption by, say, 30% is quickly made up by a 42% increase in population, which would be accompanied by other horrendous resource depletion and waste stream issues.

My own impression is that, like the protective behaviours of families of alcoholics and other drug addicts, our current focus on conservation is simply an enabling behaviour for our addiction to growth. Yes, some are conserving for very good reasons, and this is not a diatribe against conservation. But by itself, it is not a solution. We must complete the circle here to see what the root problems are, and what the future holds if we do not deal with all of those problems.

[rk]

To Philip Ridge
>It really didn't take much effort
Your efforts are commendable. In tallying up however, you consider only your quarterly electricity bill. New appliances (furnace, air conditioner, wood burning fireplace, toilets) all have energy capital costs too -- the energy and emissions required to extract materials, manufacture, sell and transport, as well as install and dispose of used units.
These are all part of your energy consumption too.

[Andy]

Anyone noticing that the compact fluorescents that are supposed to last 5-7 years in fact only last 2-3. Kind of negates any cost saving if you're having to buy twice as many.
Of course they all say they will replace them if they fail earlier but who keeps receipts that long.
I've started to write the date of installation on the bulb as I replace them.

[Joel Cooper]

Question for Peter Gorrie: When you were on TVO the other night, you talked about a super-insulated home in the rural area west of Burlington. I would like to know more about this house. I am planning on building a super-insulated house and need to know more about the point at which one can reduce the amount/type of home heating infrastructure because less energy is needed to heat a super-insulated home. Theoretically, at some point one may not need a primary energy source for home heating.

[joel]

Answer for ric: My understanding is that the life of fluorescent bulbs will be shorter if they are frequently turned on and off, like most household applications.

I have 8 long-tube fluorescent bulbs in my 2 kitchens. I have replaced one bulb in over 20 years of use. I have had 3 CFLs for a year with no failures yet. It will be interesting to see if the CFLs have the long-life of the traditional fluorescent bulb.