Listen to what Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) had to say today on the Senate floor:
He’s more concerned with the “economics of this thing.” Just file this statement away for now.
Ok, I’ll play along. Global warming doesn’t exist. Ignore the fact that it’s SNOWING IN OKLAHOMA, because that just proves that it’s colder than pro-global warming scientists would have us believe, right Senator? Let’s talk, as Sen. Inhofe does, about the economics of this thing, through light bulbs.
I can get one 14 watt compact fluorescent lamp (CFL), which is equivalent to a 60 watt incandescent bulb, for $2.70. This bulb will last, on average, 10,000 hours. Assuming that I keep my lights on for six hours a day, two hours in the morning and four hours in the evening, my light bulb will last for approximately four-and-a-half years (10,000/(365 x 6)=4.57).
I can also get one 60 watt incandescent bulb for about $0.84. This bulb will last on average 1,500 hours. Making the same usage assumptions as above one bulb should last just over two-thirds of the year (1,500/(365 x 6)=0.68). In four-and-a-half years, I would go through about six incandescent light bulbs. Six light bulbs at $0.84 each totals $5.04.
Therefore, I spent $1.86 more up front on the CFL, but I saved $2.34 over the life of the bulb. I’m just under $0.40 from making my money back! That’s just one light bulb! Start talking millions of light bulbs and you can see true savings. I won’t even mention the savings I will see on my electricity bill. It doesn’t take a genius to know that 14 watts is less than 60 watts.
This is why Sen. Inhofe’s argument is flawed. He argues that because the science of global warming is not conclusive, then it’s not necessary to make any changes because, as I hear his argument, he thinks the economy cannot handle the expense. He said that he didn’t want to distract people from the real cost. I will concede that it is more expensive up front. I will not concede the long term savings. When I say long term, I mean for at least the rest of my lifetime.
Sen. Inhofe’s argument, along with the rest of the anti-global warming movement is short sighted and wrong. I come to this conclusion not through science, but through math.