Recycle CFL light bulbs at Bartell Drugs; let a pro deal with the mercury content (Seattle: insurance, Home Depot)

[allforcats]

Those super-long-lasting compact fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury. So when they stop working, which seems as though it's going to be forever but it will happen, they can't just be tossed in the trash -- they must be recycled.

Bartell Drug, a member of the community for over 100 years, has begun a FREE program to accept every type of CFL bulb.

At any of the 56 Bartell's in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, just hand your unbroken CF bulb to any clerk, who will take care of it. Bartell has partnered with Total Reclaim, who says "the used bulbs will be completely recycled, including glass, aluminum, plastic and mercury".

The short article contains a link listing the locations of all Bartell stores.

Bartell launches free CFL bulb recycling program

[wildmaven]

*stands up and applauds*

What a wonderful program!!

[bigtrees]

It all depends. I know I'm stepping on scared ground here since we love recycling in Seattle.....but we always need to think of the big picture.

Does the benefit of a CFL recycling program outweigh the energy used and waste generated to run it? I don't know the answer, but think about it. You have gas to get the bulb to Bartells, you packaging materials used to ship the bulbs to avoid breakage, you have gas to transport the bulbs to the recycling plant, and then you have energy usage to actually recycle the materials. I don't have the answer.

[allforcats]

Originally Posted by bigtrees

I know I'm stepping on scared ground

I'm sorry but I don't understand what scared ground is...

No one has to make a special trip. Bartell Drugs has stores all over the place, and folks pass them every time they go grocery shopping, if not also every day. Most local folks patronize Bartell's anyway because they're a local company.

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by allforcats

I'm sorry but I don't understand what scared ground is...

No one has to make a special trip. Bartell Drugs has stores all over the place, and folks pass them every time they go grocery shopping, if not also every day. Most local folks patronize Bartell's anyway because they're a local company.

I don't mean to seem the contrarian, but I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that. With so many Walgreens, Rite-aids, and other discount drug stores competing with Bartells, it seems like an overstatement to say "most folks patronize" them. I haven't been to a Bartells in years as Rite Aid is just down the street -- I can walk there. Besides Ride Aid takes my insurance.

I think the other poster's question is a good one. Often times in our quest to do something "green" we create more waste than we otherwise would. I don't know whether on balance the compact fluorescent bulbs help or hurt the environment but the type of question he poses about the recycling issue is a good one and should not be dismissed.

BTW, I think by sacred ground he means either that he is questioning the value of recycling or the value of the bulbs in the first place.

[bigtrees]

That was my typo. I meant sacred ground, not scared. And yes, recycling is very important to many people in Seattle (and it's generally a really good thing) so I'm venturing into scary territory when I start to question it.

Here's something that I just discovered recently. Did you know that recycled plastic containers are usually not turned into new plastic containers at the recycling plant? I thought that was interesting. The resins that are made from recycling plastic containers are lower grade and usually used to make benches, Trex decking, and other low-grade plastic items. So while recycling does keep stuff out of the landfill, it is still far better to not use them in the first place than it is to "recycle" them.

This is different than recycling metals or paper - where you usually can make the same product from the old. Interesting.....

[jinj]

Home depot accept the CFLs too.

The reason why its important to either recycle or dispose of CFL is because of the high amount of mercury.

I agree, not buying it always better than recycling.

Seattle folks think they are saving the world when they recycle a single glass bottle. They would help the environment more by not having so many children, or any children. That is the most environmentally destructive thing most people do. This 'environmentally conscious' local government never advertises that though.

[seattlenextyear]

Originally Posted by jinj

Seattle folks think they are saving the world when they recycle a single glass bottle. They would help the environment more by not having so many children, or any children. That is the most environmentally destructive thing most people do. This 'environmentally conscious' local government never advertises that though.

That's a contentious viewpoint, which a minority of environmentalists actually advocate. Its very controversial (see reviews of the classic Paul Ehrlich book about the Population Bomb), and there's interesting views on both sides.

One could argue that adding new Americans is bad for the environment, since the average American uses more than their share of resources. For example, I used more clean, potable water today washing dishes and doing my laundry many people get in a month. I contributed to the draining of my local aquifer. My computer is using dirty, unsustainable coal to run. If I want to do what's actually best for wildlife and the planet, one solution is just to all kill ourselves.

But there's more than one solution to our environmental woes. For one, human capital is necessary in order to make progress towards solving our world issues. We have to have hope that we can develop technology that will enable us to use less resources but reap the same rewards. And you have to believe that you can have a positive impact on the world if raise your children to be productive, environmentally conscious citizens. Adding people who are actively trying to make the world/their country/their community a better place, in any way, is better than adding people who just take, litter, live excessively, disrespect others and are generally bad for society and the planet.

But mainly, we have to avoid an Idiocracy scenario. And that requires lots of education, lots of humanitarian work, and lots of hope for the future.

[jinj]

Yep, its a viewpoint that most people do not agree with and most people disagree with most of my views, so I'm used to it.
People or groups of people think that people should procreate as fast as possible. The planet can not survive with this population growth.

Being 'productive' can mean many things, depends on the viewpoint.
Most environmentalists have children, which is very hypocritical, as they do not think that has anything to do with the problem.
Most environmentalists are only environmental when its convenient for them.

But certain groups of people think the planet exists only for humans, and everything exists to be used by humans.

[bigtrees]

Actually, I think global warming and pollution is a good part of the reason why we are on the planet.

You see, carbon dioxide has been asborbed by plants for eons prior to modern human life. It has accumualted in the ground as oil and coal. By itself, oil and coal are both useless substances that nature has very little use for. As time went on, more and more carbon got captured and stored in the oil, and without some sort of intervention, all of the carbon would eventually become oil and plant life would end.

Hence, humans figured out how to take this useless oil and coal and release the carbon back into the atmosphere. There, in gaseous form, it is free for plants microorganisms to use and it helps sustain life.

So my pitch would be that humans are on this earth for the purpose of returning the trapped carbon stored in oil (where it is useless) back into the air (where it sustains life).

Argue with me if you like, but it sorta makes sense. I'm probably only half kidding when I make this argument.