USA Today reports on a bill now being pushed through the Senate that President Bush has said he will sign. It sets a timetable for phasing in energy savings in light bulbs. Comparing fluorescent and incandescent bulb energy costs, it says that a fluorescent bulb “saves about $5 a year in electricity costs, paying for itself in as little as four months.”

Although they don’t say so, apparently that claim is based on burning the bulbs constantly for a year. Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense. Its obvious that a bulb that’s only on for two hours a year is not going to save $5 a year in power costs. The lights in my boathouse are turned on about once a month and only stay on about 10 minutes each time. The lights in my detached garage aren’t on much longer. But Congress is going to force me to pay four times as much for these bulbs in order to save maybe about two cents a year in energy costs.

I tried CFLs and found two deficiencies so far. They don’t last as long as claimed and they don’t work too well outdoors on cold nights. And there’s the disposal issue. We aren’t supposed to just throw them in the trash because they contain mercury. Does this mean we have to get another recycle basket and have another big truck lumbering down our street each week?

How long before Congress tells us what color to paint our walls? After all, a room with white walls doesn’t need as much light wattage as the same room with darker walls.

Update: A commenter has pointed out that new problems with CFLs have surfaced. Some people with certain skin sensitivities have found that fluorescent light exacerbates the condition. And it has been found that the CFLs can cause migraines and increase the risk of seizures in people with epilepsy. See the comments for a link to a BBC article.

The Bush administration has decided to propose listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, putting the U.S. government on record as saying that global warming could drive one of the world’s most recognizable animals out of existence.

Well, global warming could do a lot of things if global warming ever becomes the threat that a lot of alarmists, like Al Gore, say that it will. So far, nothing to really be concerned about has happened. For those inclined to join the global warming hysteria, please understand that there have been dire warnings of calamitous climate change throughout recent history — and none of them have occurred. Jeff Jacoby sheds some light on this in a recent column on Townhall.com.

More from the WaPo:

Because scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide from power-plant and vehicle emissions is helping drive climate change worldwide, putting polar bears on the endangered species list raises the legal question of whether the government would be required to compel U.S. industries to curb their carbon dioxide output.

Scientists conclude a lot of things every day, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are right and it doesn’t necessarily mean that we should be concerned about it if they are right. A scientist at the University of Wisconsin has concluded that the US Government, not 19 radical Islamists, destroyed the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11/01. A scientist at Idaho State University has concluded that the legendary Sasquatch or ‘Bigfoot’ exists in the forests of the Northwest. I’m not saying that we should pay no attention to what scientists conclude; I’m saying that we should wait until we have real evidence of a serious problem, not just predictions from models, before taking drastic and expensive action.

Aside from all that, it is clear that the alarmists think they have come up with a way to force the government to slap restrictions on industries that produce carbon dioxide as a byproduct. I suspect that these people care more about restricting industry than they care about polar bears.

The WaPo reports that an Interior Department official said that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have concluded that polar bears could be endangered within 45 years. He didn’t say that they are endangered now. He didn’t say that they will be extinct in 45 years. He didn’t even say that they will be endangered within 45 years. Despite the fact that it is just a possibility that the polar bears will become endangered and despite the fact that it might take 45 years for them to become endangered, the government wants to list the polar bear as threatened now under the Endangered Species Act.

So what if the polar bears are at risk of becoming extinct? What have polar bears done for you? Yes, they are beautiful animals and their cubs are cute and cuddly (looking), but I don’t know of any real service that they perform for the world other than helping to control the seal population.

The environmental bureaucracies, and others, require us to prepare impact statements for all commercial development projects. So why don’t we require the government to show how the extinction of polar bears will impact the world to an extent that justifies the cost of preventing their extinction. It’s time for an end to the idea that all species should be saved regardless of the cost. Anyway, who are we to say that all species should stay around forever?

Update:  Steven Milloy has more on this at FoxNews.com.  From his article:

Let’s keep in mind that polar bears have survived much warmer times than we are now experiencing – like 1,000 years ago when the Vikings farmed Greenland during the Medieval Climate Optimum and 5,000-9,000 years ago during the period known as the Holocene Climate Optimum.

• How Many Recycled Newspapers Does It Take to Save A Tree? This simple question was posed by a grade school teacher and her students in Southern California…
• Getting Committed One Tree at a Time.  Saving trees by using high quality 100% recycled paper products is something virtually all offices can do…
• Friends of the Earth. Send an e-card and save a tree…

It goes on and on. And all of it is misguided, if not fraudulent. It looks right past one important fact. Trees used for producing paper are grown on tree farms much like corn is grown on corn farms. The biggest difference is that trees take longer to grow to harvestable size. When trees are harvested for paper production the land they occupied is replanted with tree seedlings and the cycle begins anew — just like growing corn or cotton or soybeans. Did you ever hear of a ‘Save the Corn Stalks’ campaign?

There is, in fact, evidence that efforts to reduce paper usage and to recycle paper are producing undesirable results. Douglas Farver, in a letter to the Northwest Florida Daily News, says: “The Environmental Protection Agency has examined both virgin paper processing and recycled paper processing for toxic substances and found that toxins often are more prevalent in the recycling processes.” He also cites “The Eight Great Myths of Recycling” by Daniel Benjamin, a professor at Clemson.

I can’t say for certain that paper use conservation campaigns are the cause, but at least one paper producer and tree grower is turning to land development because it is more profitable than the paper business. The St Joe Company is diverting a lot of its tree farming property in Florida to housing developments. Take a tour of its website to see the beautiful properties it is developing and offering for sale. Obviously, most of the trees on those properties won’t be replaced after they have been removed.

The ‘don’t cut down the trees’ people remind me of the ‘don’t eat the animals’ people. I’ve always wondered what result the animal rights activists want. If they succeed, for example, in convincing everyone not to eat beef, won’t that eventually result in the near extinction of beef cattle? Or do they think ranchers are going to keep raising cattle that they can’t sell? Do they believe that cattle would rather never live than to be slaughtered at a relatively young age? If I was a forward thinking cow I don’t think I’d want them on my side.

The tree huggers achieve a similar result. As the demand for virgin paper declines, the price of trees declines and land owners reduce the acreage alloted to trees in favor of more profitable crops.  That is, the tree huggers achieve the exact opposite of their desired result.