Your Old-Fashioned Christmas Tree Trimming Is Mostly Bad For Climate Change

by William Teach | December 16, 2013 8:00 am

Continuing the 25 Days Of Climate Christmas

(TribLive[1]) Strands of lights are ubiquitous this time of year – tangled in leafless trees, framing windows, sparkling their way to Santa’s sled. They are a beaming reminder of the warm feelings of the holiday season and the environmental costs of this time of hyper-consumption. In 2003, a paper published by the Department of Energy estimated that holiday lights accounted for 2.22 terawatt-hours of energy use per year in the United States, which roughly equals the energy consumed by 200,000 homes annually. With numbers like that, coal may be the best thing to stuff in your neighbor’s twinkling stocking. He may need it.

Fortunately, Christmas lights have gradually switched over to LED in recent years. They are up to 90 percent more efficient than old-fashioned incandescent bulbs. So, should you trash your old holiday blinkers for their LED counterpart?

Yes, the article says, because they are evil energy sucking lights, and “If you’re harboring a strand of incandescent lights, the Earth begs you to ditch it and go for the LEDs.” Begs, I tell, you, begs!

But, what about stringing your tree with popcorn?

In other words, from an environmental perspective, there’s very little difference between trimming your tree with a pound of popcorn and using a strand of LED lights. That may seem surprising, since natural, farm-raised popcorn just feels greener than manufactured lights.

So, popcorn is OK. And the very fact that these Warmists even consider this into their calculations regarding Christmas is bat-guano insane. Then, their whole cult is bad-guano insane. Something like this will probably have them gnashing their teeth

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove[2]. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach[3].

  1. TribLive:
  2. Pirate’s Cove:
  3. @WilliamTeach:

Source URL: