Unfortunately, here are some circumstances where one must overcome one's anti-globalism. If we are ever to restore America as a nation of manufacturers, we must work at the Congressional level to turn the mantra of "free trade" into "fair trade". No matter how immediately satisfying it may be, voting with our dollars won't do that.

If it will help you in the short run, you can also find compact flourescent bulbs (some of which overcome the "ugly" factor by putting the spiral flourescent tubes inside of more regularly-shaped globes) at Ikea. For all I know, they are made in Sweden.

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

I've been using the compact flourescents wherever possible but unfortunatly they don't work with dimmers. It's either on or off. But another approach that offers both energy savings and some mood/atmosphere are night lights that turn off during the day, particularly LED based nightlights that offer different colors and intensities. One or more in a room can provide enough light for transit to other rooms, and putting them behind furniture can also help create a nice "lightscape" that saves energy without sacrificing atmosphere. Then if I need additional light I can turn on a CF bulb. But I still have to use incandescents for lights with dimmers. Hopefully someone will come up with a version of CF that can be adjusted.

It's nice that Wal-Mart is promoting these. It shows that our public criticism and refusal to shop there is having an impact. But it will take a lot more worker friendly and supplier friendly behavior to convince me to shop there again.

I agree that Wal-Mart is "going green" in response to public criticism, which is all to the good.  It shows that collective pressure on Wal-Mart is extracting concessions, even if they aren't yet the expensive labor standards changes that is an ultimate goal.

But a key point is that these small-scale changes in used technology are some of the most important energy sources possible-- far more important in many cases than finding new energy sources.  The interesting policy point in the article was the suggestion that maybe a tax on traditional bulbs might move people towards energy-saver versions.

In many ways, the consumer resistance to change highlights that depending on "markets" is a bad solution, since even when changes are in the long-term economic interest of consumers, they often choose the short-term savings that undercut both their own budgets and the collective environment-- a classic formula for needed regulation.  

So another way to read the story is that if Wal-Mart can't move the market in a more rational direction, it's a good proof that we need more regulation and less BS about the wonders of the market as a solution.

Hmmm, I don't know about you, but I miss Sterling Newberry and I wish I knew where he went!

Anyway, I think that he once mentioned-- and I believed him, that the oil used to transport goods across the ocean has the designation of being the waste product of gasoline production. Thus, unless our gasoline demand goes down, Wal-mart is using a readily available waste product to ship goods and it is subsidized by people who buy gasoline.

I'm hoping that Sterling returns because I miss his analysis.

There are 3-way CF bulbs that work in any 3-way light fixture, but they are not widely available.

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

I don't know about these types of light bulbs, but I read somewhere in the last year or so that nearly all incandescent bulbs sold in the USA are made either in the USA or Canada.

Wow. I'm pretty amazed by the rampant cynicism over this in the comments. Let me set aside Wal-Mart for the moment. Bad labor company, bad on lots of things, but right on this issue. Now back to light bulbs.

You can find compact fluorescent bulbs at lots of places. For the second year this year, I went to Lowe's (employee owned) and bought three cases of a dozen CF 60-watt replacements (which actually use 13W), and gave them out as my generic present to folks to whom I wanted to give something but didn't want to spend too much or have time to think about something special for them. I felt kind of silly giving light bulbs, but everyone received them very warmly.

The first time I did this was about four years ago, I think, and I ended up paying $9 a bulb, which really restricted how many I could give. This year, I was able to buy the dozen packs for about $26 a case, meaning I was able to give out a lot more.

People once said no one would ever sort their trash to recycle, but now it's a major part of a waste reduction strategy (and to a lesser extent, a resource reuse strategy). People do it reflexively at home. At their current price, CF bulbs are ready to take over the marketplace. Wal-Mart is doing the right thing, but it also happens to be the obvious thing. (Or at least, it should be obvious.)

And if you're reading this by an incandescent bulb, I'm not saying throw it out, but for goodness sake, don't buy any more!

How you worked this into kudos for wal-mart..... my logic just snapped and sprung apart. Why don't you get a job working for them? You don't like their labor practices, but..... of course, they aren't screwing you out of health benefits and a living wage. How thoughtful, how american, how self centered, how self justifying. You could have bought those from another source. I personally pay more for EVERYTHING when I know doing so promotes the health and well being of the environment and the lives of others in the world. I won't go to Wal mart, and don't need to justify myself online. I am not rich, but I care about more than my own pocketbook. If you did not feel guilty, you would never have made this logical leap.

And if you're reading this by an incandescent bulb, I'm not saying throw it out, but for goodness sake, don't buy any more!

Go to Loews and buy the "full spectrum" CFL's. They're totally awesome and you can make your old lightbulb into an arts and crafts project!

Danielius:

I agree with you. Greener bulbs aren't getting me to shop at Wal-Mart. I'm just trying to understand where Nathan is coming from.

That said, Danielus, for what it's worth, I don't think Nathan has to prove his commitment to working people to anyone, and certainly not to me. Hopefully, you'll cut him some slack and let him explain a little better where he's coming from.

Yeah, where is Sterling? Or was it Stirling? It's been so long.....

As I noted below, Wal-Mart pushing CFLs isn't so much pushing the envelope as grabbing the clue stick. Much like Detroit's automakers being afraid to put small diesel engines in its small and medium-sized SUVs and trucks, solely because of bad memories of a bad response 20 years ago to different technology in different context, the only reason CFLs aren't way more dominant now is because retailers got scared off of them in the early 90s. There's really no good reason not to use CFLs now for the majority of applications where 60W and 100W incandesents are currently used, but retailers are slow to change their habits.

Wal-Mart doesn't deserve praise for being some revolutionary company that's far-sighted. Greenness and energy efficiency are but happy PR sidenotes to the fact that CFLs will help bolster Wal-Mart's "we save you money" marketing strategy. But the fact remains that no other retailers are heavily pushing CFLs. (Sure Lowe's and Home Depot have them, but they're one little shelving unit in a massive row of lighting options.) It's a bleedin' obvious move, and a bunch of other retailers should be doing it. But frankly, they aren't. And Wal-Mart is. And that's a good thing.

Which is where public policy should come in-- utilities should be required to immediately rebate the cost of energy-efficient bulbs on the next utility bill and then expense the cost over the life of the bulb.   That would be far less than the savings, so the energy-efficient bulbs would essentially be free for the consumer and they would get the long-term savings as well.  

If the point is that even Wal-Mart responds to pressure, I appreciate Nathan's posting it and will not give up hope entirely for Bush's America. Much of the light in my apartment is from standing lamps, of the type I believe are called halogen and easily dimmed. Their light is not nearly as natural either as incandescent bulbs, which makes them a compromise for certain purposes. But question: does anyone know how these rank in green terms? 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

They're an improvement over standard incandescent, John (if Google's not lying to me).  12 - 36 lumens per watt compared standard incandescent's 8 -24.

Here's a chart [link] that I found. It surprised me that low-pressure sodium ranks the most efficient(in lumens/watt at least).  But I think those are found in parking lots, emitting yellow light.  You might be able to balance the light in your apartment by painting your walls purple.  :-)

Neoboho

Your argument that the "poor can only afford incadescents" doesn't hold much water since the downside is, of course, that electricity bills will be higher because of the need to construct more power plants and the need for more electricity.

Additionally, if CFL's were installed in apartments, practically nobody would be buying bulbs because they last a lot longer! And, the next generation of LED's will last 100 times longer than bulbs and 10 times longer than CFL's so, perhaps, only one LED lighting element would be required for the life of the lamp!

I'm excited about LED lamps because I dropped a CFL and it shattered. I once read that an LED lamp still worked after being shot with a shotgun!

But the fact remains that no other retailers are heavily pushing CFLs. (Sure Lowe's and Home Depot have them, but they're one little shelving unit in a massive row of lighting options.)

Maybe I'm just too smart because I read "only 5% of residential bulbs are CFL and 95% are incadescent."

At least at IKEA, I had to wade through a sea of CFL's to find the incadescents-- which I didn't buy.

And Loews took the time to make a big price tag that helped consumers understand that their CFL's were reasonably cheap.

Wal-Mart's "goodness factor" is debatable to me because, during the past few months, I concluded that the incadescent light bulb was being phased out...

from what i remember, the US was the only country in the world that didn't publish the last Harry Potter book on recycled paper.

You have to be careful with the recycled paper concept, mcs.  The industry contributes to environmental degradation because of the huge amount of toxic chemical it uses for de-inking, bleaching and cleaning recycled paper fiber.  Today, trees are row-croped for paper pulp - (short-rotation tree crops). It's a sustainable technology, and at least has the potential to curb the destruction of the planet's last remaining wild forests by reducing the economic pressure.

I'm inclined to think that there might be "greener" strategies for meeting the problem of waste paper, such as masonry units, insulation and so forth.   Burning paper for energy is of course an option, but that doesn't address carbon emmission problems.  Other stategies such as masonry units will actually rebuild the "carbon sinks" that the original forest was. 

An interesting aside.  The first patent awarded in the new United States of America was for a process of extracting pearlash (baking soda) from trees.  There was an enormous market for this, as European nations were experiencing food shortages on a regular basis because of bakery shutdowns caused by the lack or baking soda.  This resulted in the first large scale deforestation project, in the US southeast hardwood forests, which stretched from the Alantic to the Mississippi - which was also one of the Earth's largest carbon sinks.

Neoboho

"Wal-Mart readies large-scale move into solar power"
http://news.com.com/2102-11395_3-6146851.html?

Ummm, maybe you disagree with what I found here but this research indicates that recycled paper produces MUCH less toxins: [Toxic releases from paper made with recovered wastepaper versus virgin wood fiber: A research note].

Another interesting link: [Why Recycle Paper]

And [this research], Buying Environmentally Preferable Paper, claims that you can make recycled paper without chlorine, far less water and far less particulate polution, etc... Additionally, "the US should be using hemp, not trees" and, "if current consumption patterns continue, demand will outstrip supply in 10 to 20 years."

Based on my observations, the US has always tried to protect raw material producers and, therefore, our government has stood in the way of recycling. and, really, that's a crime.

another interesting stat: "recycling one aluminum soda can saves half a soda can full of gasoline!"

A consistent issue on this thread is who is changing over, and it is of course more in the well-off than among the paycheck population. This article in today's NYT looks at some home solar installations in California.

As a renter I keep looking at what I could do that would be portable, that is, not pegged to a specific building. If I pay electric I can certainly take my light bulbs with me when i move, so that's not a problem. More of a challenge is heating/cooling. A heat pump that used grey-water runoff from the drains could be pretty portable. A solar setup that consisted of window shades is another possibilty, although I don't know an easy way to interface with the grid absent electrician work.

I would like to see further growth of a leasing system now in use, where a homeowner buys solar power from panels mounted on his house but owned by a leasing company. Preferable would be leasing the panels for a fixed rate and getting the power for free. The result would be predictable income for the leasing company, fixed costs for the lessor, and incentives to conserve power to maximise the value of what is generated.

If you are watching your electric storage bank dropping fast you'll turn off unused lights. I find, in general, the better-off are very stingy about details of cost. It doesn't stop them from buying luxury items, but no way will they accept a bad deal for operating costs. So one rich guy in California is tickled pink that his 45-kW system ($389,000 less $134,000 rebate) will save him about $2 million over 30 yrs at constant rates. Higher rates are of course likely, so that savings would be larger. He is paying zero on his electric bill.

I saved bunches of money by heating my most-used room instead of the whole house. This applies to a rental where I pay utilities, so I don't need to be a homeowner to save money and reduce carbon output.

I have seen Stirling posting at the Agonist.

Have you looked at Citizenre?

The Citizenr? REnU program is the first to give residential customers the chance to use green energy in their home without the usual dilemma. A photovoltaic (“PV”) array, inverters, and an exchange point (“XP”) are prepackaged to deliver energy to the customer or the utility from power generated at the home. Our new program takes care of all the usual headaches: it provides hassle free installation, operation, and maintenance – and does so with the most attractive terms in the industry. Customers have the option to rent the system for either 1, 5 or 25 years. This arrangement eliminates the traditional up-front investment and associated investment risk. With all of the customary barriers removed, customers can get down to the bottom-line choice of do they want more renewable energy, do they want more reliability, and do they want more responsiveness.

With the convenience of net-metering, customers have the chance to adopt whilst still having the additional reliability of the grid. Our well engineered systems are designed to interact with the local utility to reduce system strain, defer network upgrades, and create redundancy of grid supply to enhance overall distribution reliability. This enhanced relationship is a win-win situation for the customer and the traditional utility.

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

I was surprised to read once that bamboo was China's principle source of paper fiber.  Hemp is ok with me, too.  China also relied on hemp seed as a food staple a couple of thousand years ago. 

Now here's a mystery that I've never solved.  When I was a kid, a pair of Levis were almost indestructable.   By the time I was 12, the style was to never wash your Levis - keep them dark blue as long as possible.  They would last a year.  But somewhere along the line Levis started wearing out pretty quickly, even with less stress than a kid puts on them.  When I read that "dungarees" were made from hemp fiber, I wondered if Levi Strauss switched form hemp to cotton - probably in the late 50s or early 60s.  I could be just my imagination, but the quality sure seemed to have dropped around this time.

Neoboho

If you want a villan, I think Wall Street is better qualified.

No, I blame the US government because they're responsible for writing the regulations. In my mind, what you describe seems cheaper but, based on the links that I posted, and the fact that the US is the only country in the world not to use recycled paper for Harry Potter, makes me think that the US can do better.

You didn't bother to dispute the studies that showed that recycling paper was "greener" than not doing it...

In general, recycled paper is made from some recycled paper and some virgin pulp so the case the you describe, recycling 5 times, isn't relavent because recycled paper always has a good amount of "new fiber" in it.

If you read the material I posted, you'd see that making paper isn't a very ecological process but, again, you didn't dispute the material that suggested that recycling was "more ecological" but not perfectly green.

Ford and GM didn't like high mpg standards and, thus, they gutted the government's ability to enforce them.

Anway, all I see in your comments is "hand-waving." What sources do you use to back up your claim that recycling doesn't deliver the benefits that my sources claimed such as "reduced particulates," "less water consumption," "less virgin tree fiber," "less energy expended," etc...

I don't blame "wallstreet" since they aren't the regulators. In my eyes, the government is clearly not doing its job by putting recyclables in landfills and "protecting the raw materials market." This is "bad policy" and a "crime against humanity."

"But I've also said, in so many words, that recycling paper is a "paper tiger" (heh) IMO, since ultimately the end product will end up in landfills or the atmosphere."

That's true with a lot of things we recycle. Water, for example, has that same problem but we recycle it anyway because it has value.

The word "recylce" is sort of a bad word since it doesn't emphasize the reuse of resources even if the next use isn't the same as the first.

I was pushing the point because several studies indicated that "recycling paper has benefits."

There is truth to your points, but do you have numbers that put them into prespective. Obviously, the "recycling industry" could be putting out numbers that are "way too optimistic," etc...

America has to do better and stop being lazy. I don't know why we were the "only country" that didn't use recycled paper for Harry Potter. If the studies I posted are right, there is "overall economic and environmental benefit" to using recycled paper. Thus, the manufacturers are trying to turn a quick profit rather than being patriotic.

If wallstreet sets a high standard about patriotism and wars, I think we need to do the same about something that really matters, like the environment.