There are pollution problems with the production of alternative fuels.
As with the contamination problems posed by careless disposal of new, compact fluoroscent lightbulbs - - address the problems - - but don't abandon the search and implementation of new technologies.
Well, these are somewhat different issues.
ReplyDeleteIn the New York Times article it is more a case of point-source pollution originating at some plant and the age-old problem of companies cutting cost by blatently and massively polluting. In that case, regulation is the clear answer. The federal government should be aware that going green does not mean things can be done cheaply. Perhaps later as society becomes more proficient at utilizing enviro-friendly processes cost won't be an issue. But for now, the federal government should have a program where a company (in the program) that attempts to be green and can't quite make it into the black gets a short-term subsidy.
The issue of mercury in compact fluorescent lightbulbs is that it is a distributed pollution. Here it becomes difficult to easily control the problem. (Again, I say easily.) Let's assume some laziness on at least some percentage of the population. (Fair?) There will always be people, because of ignorance or laziness who decide "oh, toss it in the trash" or "throw it in the woods" or "dump it down the drain". In that case new technologies might be the answer.
Solid state LEDs that last a long time would be great. If they are expensive enough, then returning one that is worn out for a rebate might be good incentive to recycle or contain waste.
BTW, (getting a bit humorous here) why doesn't the government regulate the GEs and Sylvanias of the world that put out a box of light bulbs that are suspiciously defective? I now expect one to two in a pack of four incandescent bulbs to immediately blow upon flipping the switch.