Comments on: AskPablo: Lightbulb Philanthropy

By: Philip

Philip — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:49:18 +0000

Hi Pablo
I live in Melbourne, Australia and this is the first that I have heard of incandescent bulbs being banned. It was vaguely considered some months OK, but, nothing happened.
As for CFL’s, the bases still get very hot (one I checked was too hot to hold) and I have had them last from ~2 weeks to a maximum of perhaps 12 months!!
I have not quite given up on them, but, they had better behave better in future.
I am also not convinced of them really being “greener”. Do you know of a study which compares different bulbs “dust to dust” so to speak?
Philip

By: Pablo

Pablo — Fri, 25 May 2007 20:48:21 +0000

Chris,
I always appreciate a well thought-out comment like yours, and I fully agree with you. I very much understand the issue of additionality. In writing this column I was working under the assumption that there will be no significant subsidies for CFLs, no gov’t regulations banning incandescent bulbs, and no real societal shift. This is, of course not realistic since Australia has banned bulbs already, and California is discussing it too. What else can an individual do to personally and directly offset his/her emissions (after exhausting all feasible emissions reduction opportunities)? I would love to hear some ideas.
Thanks for writing, and thanks for reading AskPablo!
Pablo

By: Chris Jones

Chris Jones — Fri, 25 May 2007 16:04:08 +0000

Hi Pablo,
You are doing fantastic work on this site. I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one though.
The litmus test for carbon offsets projects is that they are “additional”, e.g. that they would not have happened anyway without the additional money from the offset.
It may sound strange, but the worst carbon offset projects are therefore the ones that make the most sense economically to do. If a project is profitable it is difficult to claim that people wouldn’t figure out that they could make money by doing it some time in the near future.
Your example claims the emissions rights for the next 10,000 hours of the CFL light bulb. You are essentially saying that in any time over the next several years that family would not figure out that they can save money by buying cfls.
You have to be careful with your assumptions here. Saving energy is particularly important for poor families. I was recently in West Africa, and have spent a lot of time in Latin America and you see cfls everywhere. That is because poor people can’t afford not to buy them.
It is also quite difficult to predict the future. Perhaps when you wrote this cfls were quite expensive, but I just bought 10 cfls for $10, as part of a GE promotion. Also, there is legislation to mandate that no more incandescents be sold. If you are claiming emissions reductions into the future your assumptions may be turned upside down. This is similar to the idea that if you plant a tree you can’t guarantee that it will not be burned, or that someone will burn a tree somewhere else (leakage), or that the tree itself will eventually die (which it will) and all the CO2 will go back into the atmosphere.
By definition then, legitimate carbon offset projects are marginal, i.e. they are not financially viable without the additional money. This has to do with messy things like discount rates and perceived risk. Because there are so many opportunities to make money by saving carbon (and energy) most carbon offset projects will tend to run into this trap until the market matures and all low hanging fruit is used up and there is increased demand for higher quality offsets.
Good carbon offset projects, in my opinion, also have additional co-benefits, such as poverty reduction. This is what makes your idea most compelling. But beware. Symbolic meaning is important. If you approach a poor family with a bundle of light bulbs they may be initially grateful but they may also question your motives. If you explain it is partly a way to purge yourself of your climate debt they may be quite offended if your logic is based on the assumption that this family would not figure out that they can save money by purchasing cfls themselves.
My favorite offset projects are by The Gold Standard http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/. One example is a methane capture project in India that was working but failed. The carbon offsets money helped the project get back online and make the venture profitable. Someone will no doubt find problems with these projects as well.
Thank you for opening a dialogue on this important topic. Only through open discussion can we move the voluntary carbon market forward.
BTW, if you are interested in calculating your household’s climate footprint from food, goods and services, as well as lifecycle emission on transportation and energy, try this site: http://carbonneutral.org. Full disclosure…I developed this one so I am personally biased.
Chris

By: James Britton

James Britton — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:25:00 +0000

Brilliant idea! (no pun intended)
If a CFL is about $4-5, you can offset 1 year of car emissions for a little over $100. Not a bad little charity scheme. I’m excited about this and will put my money where my mouth is. Just remember, the 23 bulbs purchased will only offset one year. So until next year’s big idea, I’ll get to work on this CFL scheme. Thanks!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:11:01 +0000

If you want cheap CFL’s, our local Ranch99 in Milpitas California sells them at $0.25/ea. The local power company PG&E is subsidizing them!

By: Jessica

Jessica — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:59:18 +0000

Pablo,
Even though I rent, and don’t pay utilities, I have been thinking of buying cfls for the ceiling fixtures in my place. I could theoretically take them with me when I move, but now I think I will just leave them for the next renters. Thanks for the inspiration.

By: Marlene

Marlene — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:17:29 +0000

My friends daughter informed me that more mercury is released into the environment during the manufacture of incandescents than in the disposal of fluorescents.

By: cbgb

cbgb — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:39:51 +0000

Hi Pablo,
Great idea. My worry with CFLs is their own life cycle consequences (e.g. mercury).
2 Points:
1) Do you take the life cycle of the CFL into account in your calculations?
2) What about the disposal issues / other consequences of CFLs that are not being discussed. (Sure the mercury can probably be justified as less than burning coal, but you know what Bill McD says about being “less bad.”) Can we add these issues back into the equation?
Thanks for the innovative thoughts.