How in the world can one combine freedom and light bulbs in the same context? Well, let's see.
We are being told that incandescent light bulbs are being eliminated in favor of a nationwide conversion to the use of compact fluorescent lamps. Those are, so far, considerably more expensive to produce (although subsidized by tax money to make them seem less expensive), are not capable of generating the kind of lumens to which we're accustomed, the color of light is different from what we're used to seeing and they have no where near the flexibility we find with incandescent bulbs.
As if this weren't sufficient, the idea of using compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) laden with mercury is a bit disconcerting to me. I have quite a few fluorescent tubes and a couple of CFLs that I need to toss out. I called the Village of Germantown staff to learn about proper disposal. The nice lady who answered on the solid waste disposal line said, "That's a problem." As we talked about this further, I learned that the next dangerous waste disposal date is set for September, 2008 in West Bend. Our recycling center is either unable or unwilling to accept such things.
I sought an alternative that would be available sooner. There is a site in Port Washington equipped to take these items but they charge for the privilege of recycling such things. I think you and I both know that these things are regularly finding their way into our landfill sites, and that will increase at quite a rate as more people are forced to begin their use. We are creating a serious mercury problem for ourselves that will manifest some years down the road. Our land, wetlands and streams, rivers and lakes will be more polluted than they are today.
All this got me thinking about where we've come from, why we're where we are, and just what it all means. I'm not at all sure that I have everything figured out, but maybe you can help me work through the parts I don't seem to understand.
We are using more carbon-based energy than many think we ought, but we also ignore solutions that we've mastered many years ago. Nuclear energy is safe and efficient and yet we've not built new reactors in years. We have oil fields available on our turf but we're forbidden by our own government from drilling into that apparently sacred soil. There is more oil available today but we can't refine it any faster than we are today even if we had access to a greater supply. Why? Because the government has caused the establishment of new refining facilities to be so cumbersome and expensive that it simply is not cost-effective for investors to plow money into that use.
The grand movement by those who think we need to be 'green' has caused our 'political' will to be turned against the will of the majority of citizens. The 'green' people are outnumbered by the 'non-green' people; yet, our main stream press and politicos continue to thump the drum for being 'green'. Lobbyists spend a lot of money to keep this political engine humming along. Government has the best of both worlds in this situation. It is getting money from both sides of the argument, so why not keep the argument alive by dithering.
The 'global warming' group adds fuel to these flames. It seems that virtually everything causes global warming. It also seems that global warming causes virtually everything. I could easily understand hot weather being a direct function of global warming. I have a little more difficulty believing that cold weather is also caused by global warming. Until very recently, any debate has been squelched; that is now changing and, I hope, we'll begin to see the real debate taking place. I cannot buy the suppositions of Al Gore's slide show. I can buy the opinions, however, of a very well educated state representative by the name of Jim Ott (a professional meteorologist), who actually knows of which he speaks. An interesting phenomenon from a politician, I agree.
I harangue on the subject of the 'slippery slope' more than many would like, but there are simply so many examples that I cannot help myself! Then, to add fuel to that flame, I came across a statement in the Wall Street Journal letters section on Friday made by a fellow whose name is Constantine E. Anagnostopoulos from Bloomfield, MI. To paraphrase, he stated that we began as a country in which everything was permitted except for those few things that had been forbidden such as killing another person without provocation. Today, we are a country where many things are forbidden and fewer and fewer things seem to be allowed.
We have myriad laws on the books, and yet we continue to enact new laws every month that a government unit is in session. There is nearly nothing that needs to be outlawed that hasn't had multiple laws forbidding it already enacted. (An example is the creation of a law against use of cell phones when there is a perfectly good law against inattentive driving already on the books.) We have become such a nation of laws and litigation that we actually stifle our creativity, our economy and our lives. It is impossible for anyone today to account for every law that impacts a certain activity. We even feel the need to have judges 'creating' laws that don't exist through their interpretations of existing language, or by opining as to what the original authors intended as the 'living' documents were penned. Our laws are more designed to affect behaviors to which the ruling class does not subscribe than to actually outlaw something needing to be outlawed. Laws today are much more the tool of social reformers than of policing agencies.
These are all harbingers for our future existence. If we continue on the path we're on, at the pace we're traveling, we'll have managed to destroy the freedoms generations before have fought and died for in a few short lifetimes. Maybe the loss of great democracies, as history recounts, is our self-fulfilling prophecy.
All this began with a diatribe on light bulbs. Wow!
