<p>Today, my school extended its first period and dedicated the 1+ hours of class time to a public screening of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” As an addendum to what we viewed today (and possibly as a forerunner to the discussion on energy efficiency we are scheduled to have in homeroom tomorrow), all students and parents were sent an e-mail after school asking us to make a pledge to switch to Energy Star-approved lighting.</p>
<p>My school’s goal for this drive is 1200 pledges. That equals just 300 students per grade. In a school of 2500 students, we hope that is the bare minimum. With just 1200 pledges we have the potential of savings 338,400 kWh of energy and could prevent 535,200 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions. Just imagine the impact my school alone could make if every student and parent pledged to change a light!</p>
<p>It is a lot of people’s hopes that the huge benefits of making a simple switch to more cost-efficient products can be extended worldwide, and the opportunity for pledgers to invite more people to join the cause made me think of how CollegeConfidential would be a great place to mention this in the effort to “enlist” more supporters. There is in fact a spot to select the organization that referred you to the Energy Star pledge below, but CollegeConfidential is not (yet) listed. It would be very interesting if CC were to start a community pledge drive!</p>
<p>I certainly agree that it makes no sense to use extremely inefficient light bulbs for home lighting. It is nice to have a cause and feel like you are improving the world. If you fly over the US at night, the use of electricity for lighting is impressive. In the more populated areas, we have lit up the night sky with millions of street lights, not to mention all the lighting in business buildings and homes. It seems that we should be able to do something to reduce energy use. Unfortunately, all of the energy used for lighting is only about 5% of the total consumption and most of that, including street lighting and businesses, is already energy efficient. I don’t want to discourage your efforts, but please be aware that some small changes, like switching to energy star appliances or lighting, are not going to have much impact. If we are really concerned about depleting resources, pollution and the possibility that we are causing global warming, then we need some MAJOR changes. Let’s be careful that we do not believe that energy star appliances and extending daylight savings and other minimal changes will be sufficient.</p>
<p>Since I am also a Maryland resident, I am curious. Is this a private or public school? Screening a movie such as this with an obvious political stand (agree or disagree) should be problematic in a public.</p>
<p>Why is it a political movie? Because it brings global warming to the forefront of disccussion?</p>
<p>Edad, changing to energy efficient light bulbs might be minimal, and certainly much, more more needs to be done (like true policy change), but it may have some impact, ie, encouraging people to think about their own energy use. Changing people’s mindsets has to start somewhere, small as this move is. I’m all for it.</p>
<p>CF bulbs were a hard sell for me, because I have ceiling fans with light kits, so all my bulbs are exposed and point down. I had the pretty little decorative ones. But a friend talked me into making the change, and I’m really glad of it now. After the first few days, you don’t really notice them any more, and now I kind of like the way they look.</p>
<p>And for durability they can’t be beat. Even the incandescents made for ceiling fans used to last me only a couple of months (due to the vibration). I’ve had the CFs now 18 months and haven’t had to change any.</p>
<p>Though I suspect Algore may be anonymously posting under a number of assumed SN’s, on the outside chance that I am mistaken perhaps someone could send out an invite to Algore and see if he’ll take the pledge. </p>
<p>By all reports, the celebrity-in-chief could use a few pointers on energy saving…and the merits of the other half of that liberal bromide, “think globally act…”, may be worth mentioning, as well.</p>
<p>If people decide to politicize math the way they’ve politicized science, do we stop teaching about negative numbers? Exponents? The equation of a line?</p>
<p>Please be careful about disposing of the new bulbs properly. Some have mercury and need to be recycled as hazardous materials, not just tossed into the trash.
Also, look into L.E.D.s. They cost more than other bulbs and don’t work for some purposes but are great for others and they last a really long time (great choices for the sorts of places for which you have to drag the ladder out to change the bulbs). L.E.D.s don’t have mercury in them, either.</p>
<p>If you are on a church vestry or a school board or town board, push the idea of having your institution look into using energy-efficient bulbs and appliances – accomplishes an educational purpose in the process as well as getting some big users to cut their carbon footprints.</p>
<p>OP, thank you so much for bringing this up. Here’s to a bright but clean future for all of us!</p>
<p>I go to a public school. And the first thing that pops into my mind upon hearing an argument for this possibly being politically questionable is:</p>
<p>“This is not so much a political issue as it is a moral issue. Our ability to live on Planet Earth is what is at stake.”</p>
<p>And I of course agree with the comment that changing light bulbs is but a small step toward improvement. But it’s still a step! A spokesperson from the EPA who was interviewed on our morning announcements today said that, in the average household, the most inefficient use of energy comes from lighting (more than from cars, for instance, because of disproportionate energy input between coal/fossil fuels for light and oil for cars). So it is a great first step to take, in conjunction with other problem areas you can tackle individually this very moment, including cars, heating, etc.</p>
<p>Environmentalist, what about the use of Energy Star bulbs in outdoor/municipal lighting? Is it effective? And does it reduce light pollution?</p>
<p>Some astronomy hobbyists a few towns got the public lighting switched to lights that would still let you see the stars. I remember it was very popular once they got it in place, but I don’t remember anything about the type of bulb used or the energy usage.</p>
<p>kryptonsa36: This is not a “moral” issue. Trust me.</p>
<p>In addition, since you’re in a public school, your administration has no business requiring you to watch this movie as a captive audience to their political bias.*</p>
<p>The idea that there is global warming has not been definitively determined; therefore, at this time, it is a political issue only.</p>
<p>*Unless they were using the movie to discuss both sides of the global warming debate. Was that their purpose, do you think?</p>
<p>So do they have to present both sides of the gravity debate? The debate over the germ theory of disease? None of those things are definitively determined either. </p>
<p>With both the American Academy of Sciences and the Royal Academy, as well as a huge body of peer-reviewed literature all accepting global warming and human causation, there really isn’t another “side” to the scientific debate. </p>
<p>The only other thing to present is that for some reasons of their own, some people choose not to accept the scientific evidence, including that some people think it’s all a trick by Satan to distract people from evangelicism. </p>
<p>You could say that there’s a debate about just about any fact presented in class in any subject whatsoever. Some people choose not to accept that apostrophes aren’t used when forming plurals. Do we have to stop English class every time we talk about apostrophes to present this “side” of the debate? Every time we tell children to wash their hands to prevent the spread of germs, do we have to tell them that some people believe disease is caused by mental states or malevolent forces and not viruses and germs? Every time we teach arithmetic, do we have to give equal time to bases other than 10? </p>
<p>I’m not a scientist or even close; however, this gives me reason to doubt, as do many other opinions I’ve read by reputable scientists, that there is a definitive consensus on the subject:</p>
<p>I do not have any in-depth knowledge of this topic, but I do think it’s laughable that we are now calling this, with a straight face, a moral issue. The hype is getting outrageous. When little kids are having nightmares about their “Planet,” things have gone too far, if you ask me.</p>
<p>P.S. For the record, I did not check to see if this man is a Republican, or connected in any way to the vast right wing conspiracy.</p>
<p>I hear there’s a debate about whether or not the Holocaust happened, and gee, I guess we should discuss both sides; we don’t want to seem political, now do we?</p>
<p>No, but for the record, he gets good money to spread doubt about the consensus on global warming.</p>
<p>“Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled “Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,” was underwritten by OPEC.” </p>
<p>I’m having a hard time understanding why, ever since Gore’s movie, some people seem to be in a big rush to shut down debate. I’m not getting the nastiness of ^^^ above. (Comparing questioning global warming to questioning the Holocaust??) I’m not saying there may not be global warming; I’m just saying what’s the rush to say there is a consensus, when clearly there is not? As I said, when kids are being pushed this stuff in elementary school, and they’re so worried they can’t sleep, imo something is wrong. It would make more sense to me to have kids go back to worrying about the bomb (duck and cover!). :)</p>
<p>A sensational movie is a long way from scientific truth. There does seem to be a growing consensus that man’s influence on the environment is related to global warming but the scientific knowledge and theories are pretty thin.</p>
<p>It does seem clear that we are rapidly depleting the world’s petroleum resources. It seems to me that we are rapidly reaching the point where we can no longer continue to burn oil to generate heat and electricity. Some conservation efforts are a good idea, but many of the popular ideas are not likely to make much difference. Clearly changing to energy efficient lighting is not going to impact even 1% of the nation’s energy consumption. Meanwhile energy consumption throughout the world will continue to grow at a rapid rate as third world countries attempt to make the transition from subsistence farming to industrialization. We seriously need to consider alternate sources of energy and energy sources which do not pollute the atmosphere with the byproducts of combustion. We would all like to see really clean energy sources such as solar or wind power. I am sure we will see some limited increases in their use but they do not appear to be feasible replacements for fossil fuels. There really is no choice. It is time to move forward with nuclear power. Most of Europe is already well on the way with this transition.</p>
<p>I suspect we will instead become sidetracked by simple ideas like fluorescent lighting or extending daylight savings time. These are nice safe, political solutions, which unfortunately will not accomplish much. I am reminded of the the hype about recycling. In my area, and most areas of the country, we recycle…or at least pretend. We can still be fined for not separating waste into metal/plastic, paper, and general garbage. The haulers will not pickup unsorted trash. Most people think we are helping the environment. Actually, in my area, the recycling of newspaper only happened for about a year. For the past 10 plus years all of the neatly sorted waste, including newspaper, metals, and plastics, go to the same landfills. There is no market for the recycled materials and it would be much more expensive to try to recycle. No politicians would call for the end of recycling and avoid the costs and nuisance of sorting the trash. They would rather pretend.</p>