using are going to be phased out. In the back of my mind, I
imagined stocking up on a lifetime supply before they were no longer
available in stores. I also thought that the difference between the
new bulbs and old ones would only be how the top part of the
bulb looked, so I thought I would always have a choice: same
fixture, but using preferred bulb type.
I guess a part of me was apathetic about it all. It seemed to be
the way we were going, but it hadn't yet affected me.
That recently changed.
Where I live there is a requirement that lighting be more energy
efficient. I had hoped that I would have a choice, that perhaps
just the bulbs were going to be changed.
Sadly, I found out that the new fixtures are made differently than
the old ones because the bulbs are made differently. It makes me
wonder if it is a way of forcing people into using the new bulbs.
I am not one for much lighting to begin with, however I am now
seeking ways to have different lighting that isn't fluorescent. Yes,
the newer light bulbs aren't as hideous as what flourescents have
been in the past, but there are two main issues I have with them.
If you break one of these new light bulbs, you have a toxic mess on
your hands. There is an 11 step process for cleaning up the toxic
waste you now have in your home. In addition, apparently there
aren't clear cut disposal methods for these bulbs, so that mercury
is supposedly getting places where it shouldn't be. I also understand
that the bulbs are made overseas, so I cannot imagine that it is a
good thing that something that has become so crucial to our way of
life isn't even made here.
I am not sure I agree with everything said in this video, but here is
some interesting perspective on the topic:
The video below talks about the disposal of the bulbs and the dangers
of Mercury, and assures people that it is the "right" thing to do for the
planet. Wondering if they're hypnotized, or just want us to be?
Added to the Mercury Issue, which is no small one, is the fact that
there are many people who seem to be affected adversely by
fluorescent lighting. Those who aren't affected poo-poo it, and
make fun of those who are, taking this particular part of the issue
lightly. However, there does seem to be some credence to the
possibility that lighting like this can cause issues for some, and
this law takes away the ability for there to be other options, short
of going back to candlelight, or stocking up on incandescent light
bulbs, and holding onto older lamps and fixtures.
So now I am more aware of the situation, but don't know what if
anything can be done. I suspect that there are many who are like
me who were (and are) just bopping along, and won't care much
about this until it's too late.
For the moment, I will just write about this, and my concerns, and
see if anyone out there may have some thoughts. I am all for
helping the environment. I am just not sure that this is the way
to do it, and if anything, it seems like it might potentially cause
more harm than good because we are good about not caring about
those things that are outside of what we can see. Look at how we
already handle waste.
I was told that by making these changes, I would save on electricity.
I already was only using 2 of 4 bulbs that were in a couple of my
fixtures. Perhaps if we just cut back on what we had it would help,
too. The bulb legislation to me seems to be more of a reaction, and
about money than anything else.
Of course, we need to be led to believe otherwise.
Our country was founded on the freedom of choice, and it seems
to me that - in our best interests - our freedom to choose is being
taken away little by little. I can't imagine what is motivating the
people who are making these choices on our behalf. I'd like to give
the benefit of the doubt, but this does not seem thought through
for the best all round effect.
Ignorance and apathy only feed situations like this, and unless
something happens to alter the plan, the world in which we live will
be looking much different in just a few short years from now, and
that will likely just be the beginning. I am usually a pretty positive
person, but I don't even want to think about what repercussions this
may bring in ways we don't yet know or realize.
If you want someone to do something when they're hypnotized, you
give them only the choices you want them to have...and they may
be no choice at all. You can also get them to believe that the choice
they make is theirs, and that it is the one that is "best" for them.
When we no longer recognize our ability to have other choices it
verges on too late. However there are always other choices...we just
to have to allow ourselves to see them unfettered by the fog of
limitation that is often brought upon us by someone or something
else.
There is no question tough choices need to be made, but perhaps we
should consider that they need to be made more on a micro (personal)
level than a macro (government) one. Isn't that the way government
in this country is supposed to work any way?
Being responsible for our choices is different than being made to be
responsible. The minute human beings start to manipulate things is
the moment that other issues are likely to arise.
I'll leave you with this last thought about a bigger picture awareness
with smaller picture actions:
"Among the Indians there have been no written laws. Customs handed
down from generation to generation have been the only laws to guide
them. Every one might act different from what was considered right
did he choose to do so, but such acts would bring upon him the
censure of the Nation. This fear of the Nation's censure acted as a
mighty band, binding all in one social, honorable compact."
- Quote by Tecumseh, Shawnee Indian Tribe
How can we better honor ourselves and the world in which we live?
No comments:
Post a Comment