Date: 2009-06-15 02:56 pm (UTC)
I'm not trying to pin inferior bulbs on Blair himself, merely illustrating how his profound philosophy continues to resonate today.

Yes, but in this case, wrongly. This change is a direct response to environmental groups demanding it and nothing to do with any perceptions of Blair's philosophy. It's worth remembering, too, that the philosophy of "If it's old, it must be good" is just as powerful in this country and far more prevalent.

I'm aware that environmental groups have long highlighted the flaws of incandescent bulbs, but it doesn't necessarily follow that we therefore ought to have foisted on us a mercury and UV-emitting crapternative.

They have not just highlighted the flaws of incandescent bulbs, but have campaigned exactly for the crapternative you deride. On the Greenpeace site, they address directly the mercury issue and make the very salient point that the mercury emitted by all the extra electricity required by incandescent bulbs far exceeds the amount that will be produced by disposed CFLs. In fact, the myth-busting page there takes apart a lot of the objections from the wikipedia entry.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

December 2015

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516 171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 14th, 2025 07:31 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios