In the comments to the Install energy efficient lighting action, a comment from “whale call” points out that there are environmental concerns with using compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs).
It’s a good point - CFLs do indeed include traces of mercury - a toxic metal. It’s an issue that’s been picked up in other enviro-blogs around, but it’s probably pertinent to mention here as well.
I did a bit of digging and found that the amount of mercury in a given bulb is about the equivalent to the amount contained in a watch battery - so it is very small - but it is still important to dispose of CFLs carefully.
Manufacturers have reduced the amount over time - I’m aware of some Philips products having a super-small amount of mercury - “The new Extreme Low Mercury designated products can be recognised by a logo on the packaging and product,” according to this press release. But the mercury remains…
So there is a question over whether the mercury in the bulbs outweighs the energy (and emissions) saving benefits.
The US EPA did a study that found the amount of mercury expelled through coal-fired power plants being higher than the total of a CFL when taking into consideration the amount of energy required for an incandescent bulb - the graph is displayed on Wikipedia and in this article at Treehugger.
Although the EPA study is US-centric, Australia’s electricity production is heavy reliant on coal, so the figures would be similar in Oz.
At the moment there are no recycling or disposal programs for CFLs in Australia (that we’re aware of anyway - has anyone heard/found any different?) - so they will unfortunately mostly end up in landfill. I’m told that landfills have a seal to stop contaminants from leaching into the soil and ultimately the ground water.
Although this situation is far than ideal, on balance, WWF still recommends using CFLs over incandescents. But certainly keep an eye out for recycling and disposal facilities in the future…
Yahoo! founder David Filo announces that Yahoo! is going carbon neutral [hat tip to Phil]:
Yahoo! going carbon neutral is equivalent to shutting off the electricity in all San Francisco homes for a month. Or, pulling nearly 25,000 cars off the road for a year.
Sometimes when a company announces they’re going carbon neutral it is only because they are offsetting their emissions, and not making a particularly big effort to actually reduce emissions. David goes on to mention what he terms the “controversy” over offsets, and how Yahoo! believe they’re doing it the right way:
We know carbon neutrality isn’t without controversy. And it’s honestly deserved if companies and individuals don’t first make an effort to find direct ways to reduce their impact. We’ll continue to be vigilant about cutting ours, looking for creative ways to power our facilities, encourage even more employees to seek alternative commutes, and generally inspire Yahoos around the world to think differently about their energy use
This approach is similar to the “Reduce, Renew, Offset” approach mentioned in our offsetting guide. Nice work. Google, surely, won’t be far behind…
We’ve teamed up with Domain.com.au, the online real estate website, to create a quick sustainable home guide in support of Earth Hour.
It highlights some of the things you can do to reduce your energy consumption around your home. Many of the tips appear here as well in more detail, but we think it’s a pretty good introduction - perhaps useful for passing onto friends who are interested in finding out more about reducing their emissions.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports today:
THE world’s leading economist on climate change, Sir Nicholas Stern, has challenged Australia to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 per cent by 2020 - and 90 per cent by 2050.
Check out the full story: Stern words for Australia - slash emissions now. They’ve also posted a video interview with Sir Nicholas.
The Sydney Morning Herald is running a poll today asking Will you turn off your lights on Saturday, March 31, 7.30pm?. If you’re participating in Earth Hour would be great if you could show your support there too.
Hot on the heels of STA’s announcement, Virgin Blue in Australia have announced that they are introducing a carbon offset offering for customers.
We’ve talked about offsetting flights before. In that action we noted that the first step is to reduce flights where possible. But as we all know, sometimes the only way to travel is fly. So in those cases, offsets are a great option.
Although Virgin Blue’s offering is not completely integrated within their booking system (yet) - you have to go to a separate page and enter your booking number - this is great news, and will hopefully speed the awareness and adoption of carbon offset programs in the flying public.
Virgin Blue’s offsets program is also accredited under the Australian Government’s Greenhouse Friendly initiative. This means that the carbon credits purchased by Virgin Blue on behalf of customers are the “real deal”.
Of course, if you don’t (or can’t) fly Virgin Blue, you can still offset your flights through other offset providers such as WWF partner Climate Friendly.
STA have announced an initiative, in partnership with Origin Energy, to offer customers the option of offsetting their flights on STA trips.
A return trip between Brisbane and Sydney would cost $16 to offset.
Although offsets have been available through other companies, like WWF partner Climate Friendly, for some time, this is the first travel company that I know to offer offsets at the time of purchase (though I could be wrong - anyone know of previous schemes?).
Well done STA and Origin Energy!
For any readers in NZ, Nick Young (no relation) sent us a pointer to this Clean Energy Guide. Nick suggests:
If you live in New Zealand you can make the switch to clean energy by using the Clean Energy Guide to choose a new electricity supplier.
The guide is produced by Greenpeace NZ and rates New Zealand’s clean energy providers. I really like the “thermometer” diagram showing the various companies from hot (red, top) to cool (green, bottom).
The site seems to be the equivalent of the Green Electricity Watch (GEW) in Australia. GEW is a regular report produced by a number of environmental organisations, including WWF, that rates GreenPower products available in Australia.
The latest report was released in November 2006. GreenPower options from Origin Energy and TRUenergy were ranked highest.
In the comments to the post on SAAB’s efforts to go green Lisa asks:
Why is tree-based carbon offsets not preferred? Wouldn’t they be more beneficial because they offer more than just carbon offsets such as helping with soil errosion, habitat, etc.
That’s a good question Lisa! I should have put a bit more detail in the post - but as this is something that’s probably of more general interest, I thought I’d post a response here…
Planting trees is a type of carbon capture and storage (sequestration in technical terms). We definitely need to plant more of them for the many benefits they provide!
Our What is offsetting? guide explains the issue this way:
Though in principle [tree-planting for sequestration] is a good idea, some offsets programs have the double-advantage of investing in important new technologies which deliver clean energy, thereby avoiding greenhouse gas emissions at the source - something that tree-planting programs can’t do.
So, in essence, the issue is that planting trees does not reduce the amount of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere in the first place. This is the reason we’re not too keen on tree-based offsets.
The guide goes on to say:
To make the most of your investment, we recommend programs that comply with the CDM Gold Standard for carbon credits. Be sure to ask your offsets provider where your money goes - specifically if the projects they invest in are accredited to this standard. That way you can be sure that the fees you pay are being used to create a real reduction in carbon emissions.
The CDM carbon credits are audited to ensure that the amount of CO2 you are offsetting has been effectively removed from being emitted into the atmosphere. WWF played an active role in establishing the CDM Gold Standard, so it’s probably little surprise we recommend it 
I hope that answers your question Lisa.
TreeHugger reports that the US Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing its energy efficiency standards for appliances.
Even though this is US-centric news, coupled with moves in the EU to improve efficiency, it means we should start seeing more efficient devices in Australia as two big markets draw manufacturers into increased efficiency. Which can only be a good thing…
