Ban the people on the Internet wasting electric.
2007-11-13 14:33:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by hawk_barry 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
We need to address the issue of global warming but there are ways and means of doing so that don't impact heavily on our lifestyles or deprive us of our enjoyment of things such as Christmas lights.
I've just done some looking around. The average indoor Christmas light bulb as found in rope-lights uses approx 0.5 Watts and the outdoor display type bulbs use approx 7 Watts each, that's considerably less than a typical conventional bulb which uses 40 to 100W or a compact fluorescent lightbulb (CFL) which uses 15 to 30W. One big difference of course is that people have lots of Christmas lights - if you decorate an indoor tree it will use about the same power as an ordinary lightbulb uses, if you decorate an outdoor tree it's about the same as a halogen floodlight.
Take into account the number of homes and public displays across the country and it all adds up to a lot of power being used. But when compared to the amount of power we use to boil water in kettles, use to power our computers, televisions or other medium or large appliances then it's quite a small amount.
Banning Christmas lights in the US lights would be the equivalent of taking four small or two large power stations off line, so in terms of global warming it will make a difference - a small one but a difference all the same.
An alternative to banning the lights would be to take simple measures to offset the energy they use, perhaps by switching off other lights instead or better still, planting a tree somewhere. If enough people planted trees we could have a carbon-neutral Christmas including compensating for all the Christmas trees that are cut down.
I think we should be concentrating our efforts elsewhere first - a good place to start is with offices, especially multi-storey ones, that leave their lights on all night. There's rarely an advantage to doing this and it uses more electricity than all the Christmas lights ever would.
2007-11-13 01:31:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Trevor 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Simply banning something is not the answer, but educating people about the need to turn them off when they're not being looked at and during the day would help.
I think there are a lot of far bigger things that could be done to help cut down energy usage - Christmas lights are relatively innocuous compared to, say, entire office buildings having the lights on all night or people with house lights blazing in rooms they're not even in.
2007-11-12 18:19:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
with all due respect, that is an incredibly silly proposition.
all the christmas light in a large city would not equal the amount of electricity used other ways in only a few blocks of that same city.
banning christmas lights would also be impossible.
electricity has very little to do with global warming. electricity comes from mostly hyrdoelectric power pants and coal- and todays coal burning plants are a far, far cry from what we all think of from the movies. theyre much cleaner today.
global warming largely has to do with green house gas emissions- cars, buses, industrial equipment, chemical factories, etc. greenhouse gases and pollution are what get trapped in our atmosphere and cause the actual 'greenhouse' effect, warming our planet faster than nature had intended.
THAT coupled with widespread pollution- chemical run off and byproducts, nuclear and biological waste, good old fashioned litter, etc. ALL contribute to the problems we see today.
i live in NYC and i cant tell you just how angry it gets me to see (on a daily basis) people walk down the street and just drop trash as they walk when a garbage can was only a few feet away- all because they dont care and/or believe thats what they pay taxes for.
if you really think about it, global warming and large scale pollution can all be traced back to human laziness, greediness and indifference.
2007-11-12 18:22:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Chris O makes a good factor. shall we basically as actual keep extravagant Christmas lighting fixtures through adjusting them with LEDs which eat 80% a lot less capacity. regrettably contained in the united states those are literally not elementary. My spouse and that i went to three shops and purely stumbled on some LED Christmas elementary contraptions. We were given 2 packing boxes at living house Depot, went again a pair days later to get a million extra, and they were already offered out. about 10% of the lighting fixtures being offered interior different shops were LEDs, something were widely used. the purely ones shall we locate were all eco-friendly, all pink, or all blue. very few concepts. really than banning "severe" lighting fixtures (which may be hard to outline), the united states must be giving rebates on LEDs so as that human beings use extra capacity helpful ornamental lighting fixtures. We shouldn't ought to flow save to save attempting to seek them down.
2016-10-24 03:39:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
What Trevor gave you was fantastic, I just wanted to add that some people are still using older lights that burn more juice, and some people really lay out a spread, and at least in my neighborhood, that seems to be contagious. Next thing you know 6 out of 8 houses on the block are decorated up, and I don't have to turn on the kitchen light at night because there's plenty of light! (I'm exaggerating, but it was rather bright last year in there!)
I've never put up outdoor lights because it doesn't mesh with my beliefs environmentally. I do put up a tree, however. But now with a grandkid in the picture, I may try to find some outdoor decorations that add a festive atmosphere to the yard without draining the power grid.
No need for banning that I can see, but people should be aware of how their decorations impact their neighbors and the greater neighborhood. I don't think a lot of people give this any thought whatsoever.
2007-11-13 02:09:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
I don't think banning them is the best solution. Can you imagine Christmas without lights? It would just be unheard of. Instead though we can use LED's as they are energy savers, and timers to automatically turn off the lights so ppl wont forget.
2007-11-12 18:14:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by Melly Pop 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Unfortuneately, we cant ban unnecessary consumption. Theres always some idiot who thinks that, if he can afford it, then its his "right" to do it. Christmas lights, excess driving, wasting food and water, are endemic around the globe. Only changing attitudes work, regulation only creates new bureaucracy.
2007-11-12 23:51:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by Paul F 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
this wouldn't fix global warming...but it sure would help. I love this idea...I've never heard of it before but I think it's a great idea!!! Maybe not ban......but at least limit....
2007-11-13 01:57:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
YES THEY SHOULD BAN STREET LIGHTS TO IN FACT WHY RUN ANY OUT SIDE LIGHTS THEY WASTE POWER.
IF ALL CITIES BANNED ALL OUT SIDE LIGHTS THINK HOW MUCH POWER WE WOULD SAVE.
2007-11-13 19:28:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋