Give a Gift

10 Green Myths Debunked

We reveal the truth behind the hype, plus how much money you may be wasting by buying into it.

By Pat Mertz Esswein, Associate Editor, Kiplinger's Personal Finance

September 2009
Text Size T T
  • Comments
  • Print This Article
  • Order a Reprint
  • Advertisement

If you’re like most consumers, you’re more than happy to buy green -- as long as it also saves greenbacks. A recent study by the Shelton Group found that consumers who purchase eco-friendly products at least occasionally are more interested in spending their money wisely than in improving the environment.

To that end, here are ten oft-cited green myths and the truth behind them -- plus how much money you may be burning by buying into them.

Myth: Never leave the lights on when you leave a room.

Reality: Mom had it right when it comes to incandescent bulbs, but not compact fluorescent lights. The more often you switch CFLs on and off, the shorter their operating life. In most parts of the U.S., it’s cheaper to leave fluorescents on if you’ll only be out of the room for 15 minutes or less, according to the Department of Energy www.energysavers.gov. (In areas with high electric rates or during peak demand periods, the length of time may shorten to just 5 minutes.) On average, a CFL bulb costs $2.50 more than an incandescent bulb, but it will save $5.41 annually on your electric bill compared with an incandescent, according to DOE.

If you haven’t converted to CFLs because you fear pollution from the mercury they contain, keep in mind that generating electricity is the main source of mercury emissions in the U.S. A 60-watt light bulb will use 480 kilowatt hours of electricity and contribute almost 6 milligrams of mercury to the environment over its lifetime, according to Energy Star. A CFL will use less than a fourth of the electricity and result in a third of the mercury emissions. For more information on properly disposing of CFLs, visit www.energystar.gov/cfls.

Myth: You can trust product labels that say “green,” “eco-friendly,” “earth smart” and the like.

Reality: The green-washing machine loves to crank out vague marketing terms, and the Federal Trade Commission has begun to crack down on environmental claims that fail the regulatory smell test (visit www.ftc.gov and search “Sorting Out Green Advertising Claims”). Manufacturers have begun to improve the labeling, consumer information and advice on their Web sites, including lists and definitions of ingredients. Also look for the EPA’s Design for the Environment label.

Myth: Switching to solar is a great way to achieve energy savings.

Reality: Solar systems, even with government incentives, are expensive. The owner of a typical single-family home in the U.S. wastes almost $350 annually on heated or cooled air that escapes to the outdoors. So for most houses in most places, the first line of defense is to reduce demand, says Bruce Harley, author of Cut Your Energy Bills Now (Taunton). That means tightening up the house and its ductwork (Plug Your Home’s Costly Leaks Before Winter), improving insulation, switching to CFLs, upgrading appliances and changing your behavior. After that, if you still want to go solar, you may be able to make do with a smaller system that costs less. For example, instead of a 4-kilowatt photovoltaic system (the size recommended for the average home) which would cost $16,800 installed after an average state-tax incentive of 25% and the federal discount of 30% -- you might get by with a 2-kilowatt system, which would cost $8,400.

Myth: Energy savings (and tax credits) will eventually pay for replacement windows.

Reality: True, windows are a big energy waster, but you probably have bigger fish to fry. The average cost to replace a window is $300 to $700, and another 50% to 100% if you must replace a rotten or damaged frame, according to www.CostHelper.com. Through 2010, you can get a tax credit for 30% of your cost, up to $1,500, for super-efficient windows (many that are currently Energy Star-approved don’t qualify). Many older homes don’t have huge amounts of window area, and newer houses tend to have more energy-efficient windows that meet existing standards for Energy Star labeling. If you still want to upgrade your windows, you may want to wait until products meeting new and more rigorous Energy Star standards reach the market in April 2010. Meanwhile, you can prevent heat from escaping in the winter and invading in the summer if you follow the recommendations above.


DISCUSS

Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy

Reader Comments (18)

Posted by: AntiBias at 09/29/2009 11:56:48 AM

Thank you for providing this information in a way that not only critiques common held assumptions but provides alternatives that may ultimately do more toward saving money AND helping the environment. While at the same time the information provided wasn't showcased in a bitter tone of "being environmentally conscious isn't worth it financially so forget it" or relied on putting down one group of like-minded people (environmentalists) while trumpeting another. A little self-critiquing and humility does a lot of good no matter who you are.

Posted by: Ted de Castro at 09/30/2009 12:30:29 PM

I would point out an exception to new windows paying back their costs ....In the east - certainly. In the west and the south - ONLY if you have air conditioning. In Southern CA and even Northern CA - the weather is mild enough that unless you save in BOTH summer and winter - you don't recover the costs of double glazed windows - so if you don't have air conditioning - drapes will probably gain you as much savings and comfort as those very expensive windows.

Posted by: dave at 09/30/2009 01:19:12 PM

I love to laugh at the people who whine that solar is too expensive and then realize they are the same people who leave on their incandescent lights, 3 tvs, a fridge the size of my garage, PC always on etc etc etc. If you're going to be responsible for generating a lot of your own energy during the day, its a good idea to think about where its all going :)

Posted by: Carbonfund.org at 09/30/2009 03:34:47 PM

Actually, there are clear standards in use for certifying offsets. Carbonfund.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, one of the few nonprofit providers of offsets, and we ensure that our offsets are validated to third-party certification standards. These standards include the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), a world-recognized standard that was prepared with leading int'l experts. So yes, standards exist and have for some time; a good up-to-date guide on standards and purchasing carbon offsets is available through the Responsible Purchasing Network at www.responsiblepurchasing.org/purchasing_guides/carbon_offsets/purchasing_guide.pdf

Posted by: Michelle at 09/30/2009 04:11:16 PM

CFL's are a great idea unless you need to actually see what you are doing or reading. I converted to all CFL and quickly went back. Why? Because they did not put out enough lumens for me to see to read.

Posted by: Adrian at 09/30/2009 04:25:10 PM

Myth: Climate Change is manmade. Reality: The earth climate has always changed. It has done so since the earth was formed and it will keep on doing so. I enjoyed reading Ian Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth”. Myth: The environmentalist’s global warming is a science. Reality: No. Marxism has failed and now environmentalism is the New Religion.

Posted by: john99 at 09/30/2009 07:40:47 PM

In "light" of our great concern on emitting mercury into the atmosphere something far less expensive than solar energy would be Nuclear Energy. WHY ARE WE NOT TALKING NUCLEAR? NO MERCURIAL EMISSIONS. P.S. The stretch indicating that there is a relationship between incandescent bulbs and mercury emissions is just that a stretch. There is no mercury in incandescent bulbs. Perhaps they are less efficient than CFL's, however if the electricity is being provided by nuclear energy then it is inconsequential...

Posted by: OneEngineer at 09/30/2009 09:02:46 PM

Well said. Some manufacturers deserve the criticism for vague/misleading claims, but so do some "certifying" organizations. If a for-profit testing co. starts a non-profit certification co. that only uses the for-profit testing company, things start to smell bad. If the criteria to certify products are arbitrary, complicated, and are not all publicly available, how can we tell profiteering from true environmental benefit? See www.greenguard.org and www.aqs.com or Google "Greenguard false claims". Another favorite: www.testedgreen.org to purchase green certification for your business (no visit needed).

Posted by: Eric Gates at 10/01/2009 03:19:09 PM

The only Green you seem to care about is dollar green. People who actually think green are willing, as I and millions of others are, to SPEND MORE to be green. Is there a nice way to ask you to get a clue? Get a clue!

Posted by: Ted at 10/01/2009 03:56:39 PM

Organic food might not provide any more nutrients, but it tastes better, stays edible longer, and doesn't contain herbicides and pesticides.

Posted by: Paul at 10/01/2009 05:35:20 PM

Using incandescent bulbs may generate more mercury, however it is in a controlled environment, and can be disposed of properly. An individual does not have those resources. This assumes that the consumer is even aware of the danger in breaking a CFL bulb, or how to clean up the mercury correctly.

Posted by: jo star at 10/01/2009 07:53:38 PM

Consider having fewer children if you really want to help the planet. "Adoption is an option."

Posted by: david Holloway at 10/01/2009 08:00:12 PM

Actual testing of CFL bulb lead to a different conclusion. See the MythBusters Episode 69 kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_69_22000_foot_fall_lig.html

Posted by: Nancy Baron at 10/04/2009 08:08:36 AM

There are some significant truths in this article, but also some significant omissions. For example, when looking at organic vs. conventional produce, one should look beyond just the personal impact to the environmental impact of industrial farming, this includes the depletion of soils, the dependence on petroleum-based nitrogen fertilizers and the associated runoff creating a dead-zone in the Gulf of Mexico, and the additional carbon emissions attributed to conventional farming over organic. When looking at local agriculture vs. global, one can also look at local food security (easier tracing back in case of a samonella outbreak, and knowing that you'll still have local production when oil availability becomes a big constraint to move massive amounts of nutrition across the globe.); the knowledge of how local farmers treat their animals and what pollution they are putting into the environment; and buying fruits and vegetables that are selected for taste and nutrition instead of the ability to be transported worldwide. Many of the issues above are complex and this article only looked at them from 5 miles high, focusing on the immediate personal economic impacts versus the long-term effects to the environment, community, and health.

Posted by: Charlie at 10/07/2009 09:38:08 AM

Energy efficient windows are a plus on older homes. If you want to cut you heatiung and air conditioning bill install them. The factor that is not presented above is that if your home heating unit has to keep constatntly running to heat your home it will wear out sooner besides the fact that it is using lots of electricity. The same is true for cfl light bulbs. Keep turning them on and off and you will wear the ballast out sooner.

Posted by: Morell at 10/09/2009 01:26:52 PM

Shelton Group is an advertising agency focused on motivating mainstream consumers to make sustainable choices...

Posted by: Myles at 12/18/2009 11:22:31 AM

Waste not / want not. Full loads in dish and laundry machines, reduced thermostat settings, unplugging electonic equipment chargers, turning off water when shaving, lower hot water heater temperature setting and many other conservation methods require no up-front investment yet return considerable savings. Before spending; determine true savings. Return on investment occurs after recoving cost.

Posted by: Pat Esswein at 01/13/2010 03:33:59 PM

Hi, Michelle: I'm the author of this story. I take your point about CFLs not providing enough light for reading or close work, but like going green generally, lighting isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. For example, in our home we use CFLs in all the overhead fixtures and some lamps, but I still have a few incandescents in specific places where I want very direct or "warm" light. Eventually, I'll buy a super-bright, super long-lasting LED floor lamp for needlework. Regards, Pat



Featured Videos From Kiplinger





Connect With Kiplinger

E-mail Updates: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox.

email-sign-up

facebook
twitter
RSS