The United Nations is not real fond of mercury
Environment ministers must crack down on mercury poisoning to protect the health of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) said on Sunday.
“A clear and unequivocal vision of a low mercury future needs to be set,” UNEP head Achim Steiner said on the eve of a February 16-20 meeting in Nairobi of environment ministers who will consider a new strategy to limit mercury. “Inaction on the global mercury challenge is no longer an option.”
Which is interesting, since the U.N., along with all the usual AGW suspects, is pushing everyone to replace their all their light non-CFL bulbs with Compact Fluorescent Lamp’s, which, let’s see…..contain mercury!
On a note separate from AGW, it is interesting that they are so worried about mercury (which they should be) but have seemingly little concern about the millions who die because the international community smacks around countries who use DDT.
But, it doesn’t really matter because AGW is going to kill us all
The pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions, because industrial greenhouse gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected and higher temperatures are triggering self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems, scientists said Saturday.
“We are basically looking now at a future climate that’s beyond anything we’ve considered seriously in climate model simulations,” Christopher Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Everybody panic! What we are talking about is a new report that is being cited, but not linked anywhere I can find, that shows that carbon emissions have been growing at 3.5 percent per year since 2000, which is up sharply from the 0.9 percent per year in the 1990s. And despite all that, the climate temps have been flat or going down for the past 10 years. Strange, huh?
And this hysterical report (taken with both meanings of the word) has caused a typical neurotic, frenzied, and panic-stricken response from AGW Believers and the Credentialed Media, who are all pushing this doom and gloom. While they bundle up in parkas.
But, for the funny part of AGW: Biofuels may speed up, not slow global warming: study. Oops.
And just for giggles, here’s what you get in your the Democrats porkapalooza bill
- $3.7 billion to conduct “green” renovations on military bases (that’s quite a few CFL’s)
- $2 billion to develop advanced batteries for hybrid cars (that oughta give 3-5 people jobs)
- $3.4 billion for fossil energy research (Isn’t that what is killing Gaia?)
- $5.5 billion for “green” federal buildings (How much money does it take to replace a lightbulb in Washington?)
- $300 million for “green” cars for federal employees (why can’t the workers buy the cars themselves, like the rest of us do?)
- $98 million earmarked for a polar icebreaker
The last one is my favorite. If the Earth is warming up so fast, and supposedly now worse then ever, what need do we have for an icebreaker, when there will be no ice in the polar regions, particularly after the alarmist reports that all the polar ice will be gone?
The irony of the situation containing mercury is just… too… rich. But don’t worry, the government will just suck down more tax dollars to create a sub-agency of the EPA to come out and enforce the proper disposal of the CFLs they mandated he used of. Also, where in the HELL in the U.S. constitution does it give Congress or the President the authority to prevent the production of regular incandescent light bulbs? I mean, I’ve looked through it. Can’t find it.
Teach please show exactly how much mercury is present in a CFL otherwise your post os just alarmist stupidity. The amount of mercury in a cfl is about 4 milliframs or about 1000 times smaller than in a mercury thermometer.The main source of mercury pollution in the United States is from burning coal http://healthandenergy.com/coal.htm
The irony is that idiots are unaware of this
Hard to know where to even start with fisking this garbage. Oh, hell, why not the beginning?
“the U.N., along with all the usual AGW suspects, is pushing everyone to replace their all their light non-CFL bulbs with Compact Fluorescent Lamp’s, which, let’s see…..contain mercury!â€
First of all, it hurts my eyes when people put an apostrophe in a plural word like “lamps.†Please fix this.
Second, take a look at the information in your own source:
——–
* No mercury is released when the CFL is intact or in use.
* A CFL contains a maximum of 5 mg of mercury.
——–
If 5 mg of elemental mercury were to disperse in a typical room, the effect would be extremely unlikely to produce any toxicity. OSHA sets a limit of 0.05 mg/m^3 averaged over 8 hours. A typical medium-sized room is about 25 m^3. Do the math, and you find that even if all of the mercury from a CFL were to immediately vaporize upon exposure to air (which it would not), there would not be enough to cause problems.
So unless you plan on smashing as many CFLs as possible, the insinuation that the mercury in CFLs is dangerous is wrong.
“On a note separate from AGW, it is interesting that they are so worried about mercury (which they should be) but have seemingly little concern about the millions who die because the international community smacks around countries who use DDT.â€
On what basis do you make this claim? Do you figure that the UN also condones murder, rape, and kiddie porn owing to its stances on climate change and CFLs?
“Everybody panic! What we are talking about is a new report that is being cited, but not linked anywhere I can find, that shows that carbon emissions have been growing at 3.5 percent per year since 2000, which is up sharply from the 0.9 percent per year in the 1990s.â€
Where have you seen this report cited? It’s not in the WaPo article you linked. If you’re talking about Christopher Field’s presentation just yesterday at the annual meeting of American Association for the Advancement of Science, you’ll probably have to wait a few days for the report itself to be accessible on the AAAS Web site or perhaps one Stanford University’s. But you won’t look for it, and even if you do you won’t read it with comprehension, and even if you do *that* you’ll dismiss it anyway with your usual straw man approach–â€OMG, SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE FROM AGW TOMORROW!†Nuances mean as little to you as sound science does.
“And despite all that, the climate temps have been flat or going down for the past 10 years. Strange, huh?â€
Can you cite a source for this? No, you can’t, but that’s OK–I have some data for you:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Let me know if you don’t understand what this graph reveals. It’s only one of several data sets I can produce that lays waste to your assertion about recent temperatures the world over.
“The last one is my favorite. If the Earth is warming up so fast, and supposedly now worse then ever, what need do we have for an icebreaker, when there will be no ice in the polar regions, particularly after the alarmist reports that all the polar ice will be gone?â€
Can you cite any climate scientists who claim that the polar ice will be gone altogether within the next bunch of years?
This is truly an awful post. When people combine howling bias with rank ignorance, the results can be devastating.
Wow, Teach. You’ve managed once again to put your ignorance on display for all to see. Please stop embarrassing yourself like this.
I was going to prepare a lengthy rebuttal, but I think John Ryan and Dr. Bushwell did a good job, so I’ll just say “ditto”, and maybe add a couple of points.
Here’s another source for you on mercury in CFLs:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
The fact is that even if every CFL sold in 2007 were simultaneously destroyed (which is obviously not going to happen), the net release would equal about 0.16 metric tons of mercury, compared to the approximately 2,000 metric tons released via coal power production every year. Mercury emissions from CFLs are NEGLIGIBLE.
First of all, I thought you claimed to be an environmentally friendly person, Teach. If so, I would think that you would be aware that the push against DDT was to stop reckless, indiscriminate DDT use, which was not only destroying the environment, but was also causing certain pests to develop a resistance to it. Second, DDT is banned for use in malaria prevention. DDT usage is yet another subject that conservatives like you are misinformed. You’ve taken a stand based on ignorance and emotion, rather than a balanced examination of the facts.
I’ll let Bushwell’s comments stand here. Learn about climate science, THEN post about it, NOT the opposite.
Finally:
I like how you find so many things to be funny, but the funny part is your lack of understanding. You don’t even try. From the article:
The problem is with rainforests being destroyed in order to grow crops for biofuels. So, the point is not to stop using biofuels, but rather to ensure that they are being grown in such a way that will produce a positive effect.
Teach, why do you continue to post these nonsensical AGW rants, when you have STILL avoided any intelligent conversation on climate science? Let’s talk science, Teach.
Duncan,
Good to see you’re still around. I’m still waiting on a response from you on my global warming questions. Have you been working on that at all?
I’d also like to see what you have to say about the fact that the mercury in CFLs is negligible, when compared to the primary sources of mercury emissions, such as coal power generation.
Yo Teach,
Enjoy your next Captain’s platter.