NYT pats WalMart on back for pushing flourescent bulbs

[BOSSHOG]

No fan of Wal-Mart here but if they can sell 100 million such bulbs a years as they plan to that would be good for lowering energy consumption.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/opinion/03wed3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

While flourescents are a good idea, they have that catch-22 of costing more then regular bulbs although the consumer saves money in the long run; but prices are coming down slowly. They work great and last and last and last.

[Trajan]

1. What took them so fucking long ?

I STILL will not shop there until they PAY AND INSURE their workers WELL .....

Prevailing wages ...

BETTER than prevailing compensation packages ...

THEY can afford it ....

They should have been aboard CFL's years ago ....

[9119495]

3. Agreed...but there is hope.

I am four years Wal-Mart free and I feel great about it. But I do leave the door open for them to see the light and fix there human and environmental record. I'm willing to forgive them at some point if they just do the right thing.

[NYCGirl]

2. And a well-deserved pat on the back it is — those bulbs are great and they

save scads of energy!

[AZBlue]

4. They do cost a little more but they last longer and your electric bill's lower.

Good for Wal-Mart! I've already replaced most of my bulbs with fluorescent.

[SanCristobal]

5. First Wal-Mart solves Americas health care problems

with low cost prescription drugs, now they are solving global warming! What can't Wal-Mart do?

:sarcasm: