lol

so funny!

I've been trying to think of something good but nothing so far..

"You're forgetting all the alternative sources for light such as candles"

that's interesting... I got me thinking: what has a lower carbon footprint: a typical light bulb or candles?

candles are very dim..and burn alot of wax (wax = hydrocarbon) for it..where as light bulbs may be bright but most of the energy is wasted in heat fed through a power plant somewhere..

So i did a little google search and found this ( ask.metafilter.com/101459/C...Smackdown ):

"So, here's some ordinary-looking paraffin wax candles (paraffin being by far the most common substance for candles). 3 9-hour candles weigh 5 ounces. Divide, convert to metric, that's about 5g of paraffin burned per hour (assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that all of the paraffin is burned). Paraffin consists primarily of saturated hydrocarbons, CnH2n+2, where n is in the 20-40 range. So roughly 12/14 of the mass of the paraffin is carbon; 12g of carbon burned generates 44g CO2; burning one candle generates about 16g CO2 per hour. As Wink Ricketts notes, though, you'd have to burn anywhere from 30 to 70 of these candles to generate light equivalent to a 60-watt incandescent bulb. Let's say 500-1100g CO2 per hour to generate that much light via candle.

A bit of Googling finds that CFL bulbs equivalent to a 60-watt incandescent bulb typically use 13-15 watts. A coal-fired power plant typically generates 0.0946 kg CO2 per MJ. Running the 15-watt CFL generates 5g CO2 per hour--roughly equal to burning one single candle--if it's drawing electricty from a coal-powered plant; less from an oil or natural gas plant, and essentially zero for nuclear, wind, etc. Even a conventional incandescent 60W bulb only generates 20g CO2 per hour.

So even if you're lighting just a single candle in place of a 60W-equivalent CFL, you're not reducing emissions, and people are almost certainly lighting more than one."

^5

ha! love it!

ha- i like alisa's response! lmao.