Comments on: World Environment Day @ work

By: Kristina Richardson

Kristina Richardson — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:59:05 +0000

Most CFLs today on the market contain less than 5mgs of mercury and there are CFL options out there that contain as little as 1.5mgs of mercury- which can hardly be called a “significant amounts of mercury” considering that many item in your home contain 100s of times more of mercury including your computer. Mercury levels in CFLs can never be “nonexistent” since mercury is a necessary component of a CFL and there is no other known element that is capable of replacing it. But CFLs actually prevent more mercury from entering the environment. According to the Union of Concerned Scientist, “a coal-fired power plant will emit about four times more mercury to keep an incandescent bulb glowing, compared with a CFL of the same light output”.

By: Mimmz

Mimmz — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:07:54 +0000

Good green post! The carbon footprint and produce argument has been raging for a while. Of course, as in all matters, there are huge profits to be considered and those are affecting the arguments we hear. While that avacado from Kenya (and yes they are very small which doesn’t make sense since they are 4 times that size in Kenya) may have additional carbon footprint because it was transported by ship, the numbers given would normally only be valid if the ship was bringing nothing in other than the avocado shipment. Well, we all know this is not fact, the ship was going to make the trip anyway, so… there’s room to argue here. Plus if you’re selling organic produce (usually coming in by ship and air) and taking a whole lot of customers from big sellers such as wal-mart, you’re bound to come into these arguments to weaken your sales…

It’s kinda hard to really know what the absolute energy savings are on anything these days; since the whole energy savings bulb fiasco is also related to GE and pushing their profits. Tough world to decipher these days…

By: Sukuma Kenya

Sukuma Kenya — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:06:17 +0000

@jke: It’s one thing having a 4WD fleet for fieldwork – it’s another having it to drive from Muthaiga mini market to UNEP headquarters which I really suspect most of them are used for. I know this does not apply to all expats but what I am getting at here is that there should be a policy for UN related missions and a matter of fact all government and non-government. This scenario applies especially to our so-called govt.
Anyways, several of us are writing a letter to UNEP recommending they take the log out of their arse before they pull the pin out of ours!

By: jke

jke — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:33:09 +0000

@Dipesh: BUT DO I SAY!

There’s no car in my garage and I’ve advised my colleagues in Nbo to take a matatu just as much as I do when I am there. For some reason though, they won’t listen. Imagine the other day one of my colleagues wasnt allowed to travel to Garissa due to security reasons! So the *security* issue may well be the official reason for why 4WDs need to be driven. I suppose the unofficial reason behind this is that most ppl will use it for their extended safaris.

Also, pls note that I am not one of *those* UN / embassy / dev aid / missionary / etc. ppl just becos I am currently working for gtz.

By: Sukuma Kenya

Sukuma Kenya — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:57:36 +0000

I just came across a posting on Kenya Enviro and Politics about the Kick the Habit Campaign. Being one amongst thousands of others who live in Nairobi and watch all your staff drive from their homes to work in 4wd cars - perhaps you guys need to set an example and reduce your own carbon emissions. I really dont think it takes a 4WD to go from Hurlingham to Gigiri... Imagine the carbon emissions you would save and all the PR you would get from that!

By: Bruno

Bruno — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:01:04 +0000

As someone who sells light bulbs for a living, I am constantly bombarded with questions about how much energy is actually being saved by using compact fluorescents and whether they live up to all of the hype that they receive. It seems to me that a lot of the negative things said about incandescent bulbs and their energy usage is borne out of a poor understanding of basic physics. The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, just changed from one form to another. So many people speak of incandescent bulbs “wasting” energy as though they are defying the laws of physics and destroying energy. I live in a fairly cool climate and during the winter I use an electric heater to heat the particular room that I am in. If I use an incandescent bulb and 90% of its energy usage is for the production of heat, then it is simply generating heat that I would have to generate anyway with my 1000W heater. It’s June here and we are still dealing with cold and rainy weather, so there is a significant portion of the year where the heat energy produced by incandescent bulbs indoors is useful and not “wasted.” For me, it is an obvious choice given the mercury content and poor light quality that comes from compact fluorescents.