I got into an argument today with a coworker over environmental policy. I have a great deal of sympathy for the environmental cause. I look forward to a day when all our electricity comes from non-polluting and renewable sources that don't spew hideous pollution. I want an electric car. I once had hair down to my waist.
but...
I am not a hippie.
The argument grew out of his assertion that the State of California should ban incandescent bulbs since they are so inefficient. Their inefficiency causes more pollution and drives up electricity prices. I have several problems with this.
What if I need an incandescent bulb for something? A spot light, or projector, or an EZ-Bake oven? My local utility generates all its power with solar and wind. This does not increase pollution by any measuable amount. If I were generating all my own power then it is mine to use as I see fit. Why should someone else tell me that my wants are not as important as theirs wants?
Over my objections he pointed out that that the State had banned other inefficient things for the sake of conservation. I attempted to argue that this is different since CA did not ban air conditioners nor refrigerators, just raised the standards that they had to meet. The same could be done with lights without the need to ban specific technologies.
My arguments fell on deaf ears. Or perhaps he just could not hear me over his own voice.
This is a very annoying trait of people who are sure of the Truth. They do not listen to other viewpoints because they already know you are wrong.
ON a related note, I am sick to death of the prefix "eco-friendly" and the descriptor "green." I really enjoy some of the shows on the Planet Green channel but they are driving me starkers with their use of these two terms.
