Argument against CFLs built on half-truths and innuendo

This is an older article but worthwhile given the attempts by some politicians — in particular Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. — to tarnish the credibility of compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) specifically and global warming in general....

The Case for CFLs

Compact fluorescent light bulbs are safe, and they look great, too.

By Brendan I. Koerner, Slate.com

I'm constantly being told that the simplest way to improve my green cred is to start using compact fluorescent lights. Yet some naysayers—like one of your Slate colleagues—argue that the environmental benefits of CFLs are negated by their mercury content. Who's right?

The case against CFLs is built largely on half-truths and innuendo. Yes, the energy-saving bulbs contain mercury, a neurotoxin responsible for a tremendous amount of human suffering over the years. And safely recycling CFLs remains far more difficult than it should be. But these facts don't justify sticking with inefficient incandescent technology that has barely changed since the invention of the tungsten filament nearly a century ago.

CFLs are lauded by environmentalists because they require far less electrical power than their incandescent counterparts. A 26-watt CFL bulb produces the same lumens as a 100-watt incandescent bulb. Assuming that you keep one of those bulbs aglow for six hours a day, switching to a CFL will save you 126 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, which translates to 170 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions on average. Now, how many bulbs do you have in your house? Twenty? Thirty? Replace them all and you could conceivably (assuming six-hour-a-day use throughout the building) reduce your annual CO2 output by upward of 2.3 metric tons—about 10 percent of the average American household's annual carbon footprint.

More here.