The Case for the CFL

If you don’t know what CFL stands for by now, then you are already doing yourself and future generations a disservice. Decades after the introduction of the CFL, and at a time when global climate change and skyrocketing energy costs are at the center of public debate, it is unacceptable that every American household has not implemented this simple waste-preventing measure.

For those of you still in the dark, CFL stands for Compact Fluorescent Light bulb. The CFL is an energy-efficient, long-lasting bulb. The average 25-watt bulb uses approximately a third of the energy of an equivalent incandescent bulb. And while the upfront cost of such a bulb can be as much as twice that of a comparable incandescent, the long-term savings are clear. By one calculation, a single CFL bought to replace a 75-watt incandescent bulb will save a consumer $76 to $83 over its 15,000 hour lifetime.

The replacement of incandescent light bulbs with the CFL will not only save consumers money throughout its long life, it will also help to reduce energy use and is one of the few surefire ways of helping to delay (or stop) manmade climate change. Replacing that 75-watt incandescent is also the equivalent of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 988 to 1079 pounds. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, if every household replaced just three 60-watt light bulbs, the reduction in pollution would be the equivalent of taking 3.5 million cars off the road.

But despite the overwhelming evidence available in favor of the CFL over the incandescent bulb, resistance continues. The major hold-up is a collective action problem; people are asking: How is changing my light bulbs going to make a difference when there are so many bigger, more harmful systems harming the environment?

It is true, for example, that most conventional heating and cooling systems are rife with energy inefficiencies on a far greater scale than household lighting. Unfortunately, environmentally friendly heating systems are still prohibitively costly for most consumers. Light bulbs are not. If we always discount every feasible solution as too minor, we will simply end up doing nothing.

Moreover, switching to CFLs could potentially produce a major impact, if everyone does it. And even if not, the individual stands to reduce energy costs significantly. But, more importantly, changing our light bulbs could be the first step in a vital process: getting everyone in the habit of factoring the environment into our consumption decisions. Until we start to make climate change, and the action it requires, a part of our daily lives, we will never find the popular momentum that is so desperately needed.

The CFL is not a panacea of global warming or energy costs. But it is a simple, cheap and effective solution accessible to everyone. That in itself should be enough. But if it isn’t, keep in mind what Edmund Burke once wrote: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” At this point in time, ignoring the devastating forces of climate change is akin to promoting them. If “good men do nothing” to stop this crisis, whether out of apathy or disdain for the means, the fight is lost.

Robert G. King ’09-’10, a Crimson editorial editor, is a history concentrator in Winthrop house.