Can changing your light bulbs save polar bears?
by Mark ~ January 4th, 2007. Filed under: Environment, wildlife.Strange concept to think about huh? Perhaps not completely, but changing your light bulbs in your house actually will help. This is one of the simple things in reducing our electricity bills, along with ALOT of other changes every one of us can do to help ease the tons of carbon dioxide that is dumped into our atmosphere and causing Global Warming. Anyone who has not seen the film An Inconvenient Truth simply needs to get off their butt, put aside a couple hours of your time, and simply watch the film. Whatever your take is on this issue, it gives some pretty compelling things to think about and what we take for granted. Their site also has a lot of tips on what individuals can do to lessen their load on the atmosphere. Write to your city and find out what they are doing on a local level.
It is really disturbing to read reports about polar bears being listed on the endangered species list because of loss of habitat. The Arctic is one of the most sensitive to this climate change and has direct impacts on the animals that live there. I am sure a lot of people would never advocate, and would certainly protest against other actions that might harm these animals, so why not try to make some of the changes that might help their habitat?Â. If every household in America switched five regular light bulbs for five fluorescent bulbs, it would be the equivalent of taking 1 million cars off the highways for a full year.
January 6th, 2007 at
Thanks for posting this, Mark. My roommate is very “anti global warming” in his thoughts and though I try to talk with him about this, because he’s a very smart, well informed citizen, it’s almost like he looks for any reason to discredit (especially Al Gore) anything related to Global Warming.
He’s not willing to listen to any “stats” and when he does, he will find “the other side of the argument,” and make a sound argument. He’s much smarter than I am, spends hours everyday reading all the news sites, etc. so he’s a pretty informed individual.
But I see no reason for this resistence to the idea of global warming. Even it it’s *not* true, why be so vehemently against it? I don’t understand this. He’s an extremely compassionate person, too, but absolutely refuses to listen to anything having to do with global warming.
Just for thoughts … right now there are more polar bears than there have ever been on this earth. How does that figure into this current issue with polar bears? I just don’t want to ask “Sam” because I get the “right” side of the story and end up getting pissed.
I’m really glad that you posted this.
January 6th, 2007 at
Yes, it is interesting in that there are a lot of people that are not only resistant to the data – but they are passionately resistant! What cause does that serve? And is there something inherently wrong with wanting to save electricity, save C02 emissions? I don’t get that.
As far as polar bears, from what I have read (an extensive USGS survey here: REPORT – I gathered the following simple conclusions;
- there is question about figures published from earlier studies because of accuracy of the models (from the same biologist)
- There is confidence that the survival probability is decreasing
- There is data showing the bears becoming smaller in stature from reduced access to food sources (ie. less sea ice)
- The newer reports now are starting to look at declining sea ice as a significant contributor to their studies.
I don’t quite know how anyone can say there are more than ever – because even scientists today admit it is very hard to get a total count on their population because of the remote regions they inhabit. So how long do you think they have actually been trying to count them? How could we possibly say there are more than 100 years ago? They have to rely on mathematical models, trends, and localized studies to try to predict the entire population. So someone could argue this the other way, saying that it is hard to actually establish the decline – which seems to hold some merit. But if other studies are showing changes in the population (size, survival rates, cub sizes, etc) – it definitely indicates something is happening. And it isn’t habitat loss from more shopping centers!
And if some things that are so simple to do, I just don’t understand arguments against it.
January 7th, 2007 at
Man, … I get to worked up when I get into discussions like this.
Interesting thoughts Mark!
January 9th, 2007 at
You are fooling yourself. The “proof” for global warming is produced through computer modeling and therefore highly unreliable. Secondly, even if there is global warming, it is unlikely to have been produced by human endeavour. We are between two ice ages, but don’t know if we are in the warming part (recovering from last ice age) or on our way to the next ice age.
Note also that there is global warming on Mars.
January 9th, 2007 at
Jorgen, thanks for taking the time to comment. I am just wondering if you have actually watched the film, and have issues with a specific set of data that was produced?
January 12th, 2007 at
Interesting post. Even though I don’t ‘buy’ the humans are causing global warming bit, I still do what I can to conserve energy and pollute as little as possible. I just think that it is a natural trend.
One of my favorite books that I’ve read in the past year was State of Fear by Michael Crighton. It covered this topic. Although fiction, he covered a lot of the so-called data and had quite a bit of good information in the afterward.
Admittedly, I haven’t watched the movie. I will watch it with my usual skeptical eye.
Paul
January 13th, 2007 at
Paul – I have heard about Crichton’s book, but haven’t read it. I know he does a lot of research, but with all due respect to him – I find it interesting that one could draw conclusions from a fiction novel (even if based upon some research) vs. the hundreds of other scientific studies that say otherwise.
I heard an interview with Michael Mann (a professor at Penn State) the other day on NPR – and it was pretty interesting because he did seem to be fairly ‘even keel’ on the issue, even in the language he used as ‘climate change.’ But he does talk a little about natural vs. human caused change. It is worth a listen here.
January 13th, 2007 at
we’ve switched most of not all of our bulbs to floruscent (sp).. and I have the movie in my queque on Netflix.. this is an issue that has long been ignored, I only pray we can undo the damage we’ve done. If not, then we definitely can be AWARE and not pretend it’s not happening.
(really enjoyed your ‘get off my butt and post a great leaf image’ too)
January 16th, 2007 at
OK, I just had to come back and offer a small rebuttal. I didn’t base my opinion on a fiction book, to be sure. What I did do was read some of the work that he listed. Let me tell you, it’s boring.
Anyway, I think that there is global warming, but that it is part of the natural cycle. Further, I am certainly pro-recycle, pro-environment, etc.
Also, as I said before, I watch movies with a skeptical eye. Many, many, many times, things are slanted to make a certain point or to fill a certain agenda.
With regards to hundreds of articles saying that there we are causing warming, there are probably an equal number disputing that same fact with an equal amount of data to ‘prove’ same.
I think that we are in agreement about doing what’s right for the environment.
Regards,
Paul
January 16th, 2007 at
One of the interesting things pointed out in the movie was on the articles about this whole thing. They showed some statistics of articles published in scientific journals vs. articles published in the general media. I think nearly all of the scientific journal articles were in agreement (don’t recall the exact percentage, but it was something like 90% or higher) – but the articles in the general media were more like 50/50. I consider that an important distinction. There is also evidence that some companies have planted stories to spur doubt and controversy.
January 23rd, 2007 at
p.s. – in the end, conserving energy, being conscious of our impacts on the planet, polluting less,, and not taking what we have for granted.. I think everyone can agree are good things..
January 30th, 2007 at
Thanks for the heads up Mark! I think a lot of people need to face the facts and stop making global warming into a religious movement of believers and non-believers. Scientific research makes human caused global warming very probable. Anyone denying this are gambling with MY future. The simple fact is, becoming “green” won’t harm anyone, in fact, many leading economists claim it is the only long term profitable way to go for the global economy. Maintaining the status quo might potentially be disasterous for all of us.
For the scientific data check out the new IPCC 2007 report: http://www.ipcc.ch/
February 4th, 2007 at
I think we will be seeing many more images like this – perhaps some of the most significant photographs of our time.
February 4th, 2007 at
While I find the thought of taking anything the pompous Al Gore is connected with seriously as laughable, even I have begun to think we just may be in a warming cycle. Just how much this has to do with man I am skeptical. Even if it does, I see no way the Chinese, Indians, and other high density population centers are going to alter what they do.
That said, I do think the less junk we put in the air the better. I have begun switching to the new compact bulbs, mainly because the cost savings is significant. I’ll give a plug here for what has become the leading corporation on energy conservation–Walmart. Walmart has been in the news quite a bit the past year with its ground breaking solar roof panel project. Even before that, all new Walmart stores were being built with skylights to dramatically reduce the need for electric power. Walmart is now actively promoting the new light bulbs and it is because of their pressure on major suppliers that this is really taking off. Three cheers for Walmart!
As for the polar bears, it’s my fear they are doomed. They are a niche animal that evolved during the glacial periods and as the earth cycles through different climates during the eons there will be winners and losers. Always the chance another major volcano will throw reflective gas up in the air and dramatically reduce temps again. It happened twice in the 19th century, including Krakatoa. Ultimately it’s major natural events like that which have always had the biggest effect on bio development.
Kent in SD
February 4th, 2007 at
I do wonder what reasoning people have for not believing the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence. See the report that Svein refers to above. It isn’t just Al Gore propaganda – whatever you think of him. He has done a hell of a lot more research than most of us. To dismiss such findings so easily – I guess we all need to consider this and then look in the mirror when we are judging pompousness.
Ultimately there are a couple of ways of reacting to this – we can either pay attention now, save a lot of energy. Or put our heads in the sand, saying it is just natural swings, it will take care of itself, etc, etc – and then look back if you are wrong and say ‘Gee – I guess we could have done something about this a long time ago…’ – If only we had known…
February 4th, 2007 at
There is a way to drastically reduce emissions and we could start it tomorrow. As a photographer of railroads/trains, I learned that 40% of the tonnage they haul is now coal. The coal goes to electrical generating plants. While we’re extremely unlikely to ever see commericially viable solar power in our lifetime, or even widespread wind generation (and hydro power seems about tapped out,) there is one proven technology we CAN use to cut emissions–NOW! It’s nuclear power. It could be used to not only generate our electricity, but also the technology doesn’t seem that far away to use it to create hydrogen fuel for vehicles. It’s fanatical, science fearing “environmentalists” that stand in the way of our progress. For that I have no respect for them. It’s dificult for me to take them seriously when they could be pushing for the solution we all know works, and has an excellent 50 year track record.
I view Al Gore as a has-been politician who is just trying to keep his name in the spotlight. He’s not a scientist, he got Ds in his science classes in college. He has no credibility. There are scientists that do have credibility of course, and those I take more seriously. However, the reality is whether or not global warming is caused mostly by man or not doesn’t matter in the end. I honestly see no way that countries such as China, with half the world’s population, India, and etc. are ever going to spend the money to change their ways. Ain’t going to happen. Note that China is now the largest user of coal in the world, and they aren’t using the low sulpher kind used in the U.S. and aren’t employing scrubber technology at that. The best thing we could do if we are serious about lowering CO2 is to go nuclear, starting this week. No other technology in the forseeable future can do it.
Kent in SD
February 5th, 2007 at
Kent, human caused global warming is a fact. Ice core samples from the Northern and Southern hemisphere help conclude that there has never been a larger concentration of harmful gasses in the atmosphere for 650.000 years. The levels we are at now far exceed any previous highs caused by “natural Ice Age cycles”. This is mainly caused by the use of fossil fuels and land-use change (deforestation and agriculture).
I am highly pessimistic for the future of mankind. To level out the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere there has to be an immediate reduction in human consumption of some 60% today. Sadly there is no political system in the world that is capable of such action. We are already too deep in the downward spiral. Only minor permanent changes in ocean and land temperature can be devastating causing catastrophes in food production from agriculture and fisheries. We are already seeing reproductive damage to many species of fish outside of Norway caused by warming seas. There is no reason in looking towards China or India. Europe + Northern America has combined almost as many people as China, and even more than India. On average us Westerners waste so much more resources per . Blaming 1 billion poor farmers in China hardly seems fair.
As for the Nuclear route, you have obviously not lived in Europe. The Chernobyl disaster had great impact even in Norway, and radiation is still highly present in wildlife and plants up here. Last year there were two major accidents in our neighboring country Sweden which showed that even plants with perfect track records can and will malfunction. Last but not least, the coast of Norway has been and is still being polluted by the Sellafield Plant in Norway which still is a diplomatic tumor between Norway and the UK. I don’t know about you, but I am not happy with radiation as part of my daily diet. Of course, modern Nuclear plants might be made extremely safe to operate, but what to do with the waste? Even hiding it in caves might eventually pollute fresh ground water (for millions of years to come). Water that by far is the most valuable and scarce resource on our planet today. We have yet to come up with a lasting safe way to store the waste.
As for Al Gore I applaud his mission of spreading factual information about global warming. I am a helluva’ lot more skeptical to the monetary and political powers in the US that has deliberately campaigned through government and unreasonably skeptical articles in the media that global warming is just a hoax created by radical environmentalists. I know nothing else of Gore except that he “lost” his Presidential campaign against Bush Jr. a few years back, and that he in a typical American conservative manner tried to jail Twisted Sister’s vocalist because his lyrics allegedly made teenagers commit suicide.
To me it is a moral issue. I want to set a good example and leave a clean world to my children. Consumption of fossil fuels and steaks does not equal the “good life”. To me good life is equals nice friends, happy family, good health and unspoiled nature.
February 5th, 2007 at
There are a number of things that everyone can start doing today to start making an impact. Kent – I don’t know if you watched The Inconvenient Truth or not, or perhaps visited the Union of Concerned Scientists site, or the reports put out by the IPCC, but there is a lot of information in there about what people can start doing. Sure, the power production methods of your state have a sizeable impact – but then you can also as an individual do things to reduce demand for that power as well. Go to climatecrisis.org and use the calculator there on things that anyone can do to start helping the situation – air travel, electricity, fuel-efficient cars, etc, etc, etc. As far as other countries, sure there is a need for them to do something as well – but what good is it worrying about that when we are the #1 contributor to the global issue and still propagating denial? There are countries that make us look like we are in the stone age as far as energy conservation.
It is a shame that personal predjudices, in particular against Al Gore – most of which I think are unfounded, seem to be influencing people against believing cold hard facts presented numerous sources. I just don’t understand that. All I can attribute it to is either a political agenda, political sour grapes, or being financially motivated.
If you watch the movie, I find it hard to see how anyone can come to a conclusion that it is simply for publicity. And he has plenty of credibility, moreso than most with just opinions, because he has been researching and talking about this most of his life. Can any of us claim the same? And I really don’t even need to defend him, because his actions and presentations speak for themselves. He deserves some credit in being persistent with this for so long, and making a movie that will probably change a lot of people, and perhaps the next generation. Again, even if you take him out of the picture entirely, are all the other organizations and scientists just trying to keep their name in the public view? Are they Al Gore’s public relations committee?
It seems most of the propaganda has been to the opposite – trying to inject doubt into the science, same way cigarette manufacturers did – and people feed on that doubt like it was their last meal. No one landed on the moon, the world is still flat, smoking doesn’t cause cancer, etc, etc.
August 7th, 2008 at
I am looking for some of those LED light bulbs so I can save some money. They are so cool, and they are good for the environment as well. I’m going to have to do some price comparisons online for them.