A final proposal for new fuel economy standards was unveiled Tuesday in a joint announcement by the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The regulation requires all passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States to get an overall average of 35.5 miles per gallon by model year 2016. By that year, cars will be expected to average about 39 mpg and 30 mpg for trucks.
Current fuel economy standards for new cars are 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.1 mpg for trucks.
The new standards were originally announced in May by the Obama administration, before some details were finalized.
The agencies predict that the changes will ultimately save 1.8 billion barrels of oil by 2016. That’s roughly what the country goes through in about 86 days, according to numbers from the Energy Information Administration.
Fuel economy will be increased gradually beginning with model year 2012 vehicles and continuing through model year 2016. The standards will apply only to newly purchased vehicles, not vehicles already on the road.
"American drivers will keep more money in their pockets, put less pollution into the air, and help reduce a dependence on oil that sends billions of dollars out of our economy every year," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in a statement.
The proposed plan is expected to add about $600 to the cost of a car, administration officials said in May. That was on top of $700 added by other fuel economy increases passed by Congress in 2007 get a free credit report. But consumers should be able to save enough in gas to make up for the cost. The EPA estimates that the new standards will save auto buyers about $3,000 over the ownership life of a new vehicle.
As it stands now, Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards are administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is part of the DOT. The new rules will be administered jointly by the NHTSA and the EPA. The EPA is responsible for formulating the fuel economy figures shown on new car window stickers and used by shoppers. The EPA also regulates exhaust emissions.
The new proposal represents a big shift in how the government regulates fuel economy. Fuel economy standards used to be considered solely as away to reduce oil consumption. But these new regulations are also aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions like CO2.
Other pollutants can be cleaned out of a car’s exhaust by its catalytic converter, but currently there is no way to remove CO2 from a car’s exhaust. The only way to reduce CO2 is by reducing the amount of fuel that a car burns.
For years environmental groups pressured both the EPA and the powerful California Air Resources Board to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
A federal judge struck down a proposed settlement reached between Bank of America and federal regulators over outsized bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch employee.
In a ruling issued Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff called the proposed $33 million penalty between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Charlotte, N.C.-based bank "neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate."
Both parties, as a result, were ordered to head to trial, starting Feb. 1, 2010.
In a statement issued Monday, the SEC maintained its belief that the proposed settlement was "properly balanced" but that it would carefully review the judge’s ruling.
Bank of America was not immediately available for comment.
"As we said in our court filings, we believe the proposed settlement properly balanced all of the relevant considerations. We will carefully review the Court’s most recent order," said John Nester, SEC spokesman.
The pair had struck a settlement agreement in early August after the SEC brought charges against Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) for allegedly misleading investors about billions of dollars in bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch employees.
Regulators had claimed that BofA effectively lied in its proxy statement, saying it would not pay out bonuses to Merrill employees in fiscal year 2008, when, in fact, the bank authorized bonus payments of as much as $5.8 billion. Of that allowance, $3.6 billion was paid out in 2008 to more than 39,000 Merrill employees.
An easy resolution to the matter seemed to fade in the following weeks however, as Rakoff pushed the pair for additional details on the terms of the agreement. He demanded to know, among other things, why the SEC did not pursue charges against BofA executives, and why the company agreed to settle if the firm felt it was innocent.
While not admitting any guilt, Bank of America has maintained it decided to settle with the SEC because it did not want to be distracted by a lengthy court battle with one of its main regulators at a time of market uncertainty.
Both parties tried to address some of those very questions last week, urging the judge for a second time to uphold the settlement.
Those pleas failed, however, as Rakoff showed little mercy towards either party in Monday’s filing.
He called the settlement a "contrivance" designed to make it appear as if the SEC, which has been plagued by enforcement scandals over the past year, was doing its job.
Rakoff also blasted both parties for asking BofA shareholders to shoulder the cost of a settlement he labeled as "trivial."
"All this is done at the expense, not only of shareholders, but also of the truth," he wrote.
This is not the first time Rakoff has rejected a settlement struck between corporate offenders and regulators. In 2003, he refused to uphold a $500 million settlement between the SEC and bankrupt telecom giant WorldCom.
After the parties were forced to renegotiate the settlement, Rakoff later signed off on a $750 million fine. In that ruling, he also demanded that stock in MCI, the new company that WorldCom emerged from bankruptcy as, be set aside for former WorldCom investors.
The job market is showing signs of improvement, according to the latest economic reports. But for those out of work and pounding the pavement, there are few signs of a turnaround.
After peaking in January, the pace of job losses has slowed dramatically, according to the Labor Department. Employers cut 216,000 jobs from their payrolls in August — 22% fewer than the previous month.
But even though job cuts have abated, hiring is close to a standstill, as most employers are still hesitant to add workers. The number of new hires remains near an all-time low, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
And job hunters aren’t seeing much improvement either.
"I’ve applied to over 80 positions and only gotten one callback from a company that ‘wasn’t hiring but was interested in me for future openings,’" said Shalon Brown, 27, who was laid off in December and has struggled to find something else in her field of landscape architecture.
"I’d be willing to take any job that pays at least $30,000 and offers health insurance right now."
But that might be harder than it sounds. One problem is that companies are trending away from filling full-time positions with benefits. For those businesses in need of extra help, employers are much more likely to bring on temporary workers to meet demand, explained Janette Marx, senior vice president of Ajilon Professional Staffing. "They are not quite sure of hiring full time yet," Marx said.
In fact, almost 70% of U.S. companies surveyed expect no change in their fourth-quarter hiring plans, according to a recent study by employment services company Manpower Inc.
Jo Prabhu, who runs placement firm 1-800-Jobquest in Long Beach, Calif., has no intention of bringing on any full-time workers in the year ahead. "We will be taking advantage of the new and acceptable methods of hiring, and will only be hiring independent consultants or contractors for 2010 on an as-needed basis."
Prabhu also says the other companies she works with share her sentiment. "The old standards of hiring and retention have given way to the new concept of jobbing and outsourcing, and employers are seeking a greater percentage of ‘at will’ services without having to finance and support medical, retirement and other benefits."
And that leaves many unemployed workers out of luck and still out of a job.
Rebecca Natale, 42, is hopeful there will be more employment opportunities going forward, but is realistic that her situation might not improve until next year. Natale left her position as a human resources manager in May planning to start her own business or find another position in her industry. In the last four months, she says she has only received calls for commission-based sales jobs.
"I applied for summer help to stay busy and nothing," she said. "I figure it will be the same response if I apply for upcoming seasonal positions."
Natale views her job prospects as being
"pretty nonexistent in my field until the middle to the end of next year."
Some experts agree with that outlook. Many recruiters expect hiring to pick up again in 2010, albeit at a very slow pace. "I do believe we will start to create jobs again," although likely "after the first of the year," said Bob Damon, the president of North America for recruiting firm Korn/Ferry.
But Shalon Brown is less optimistic. Even with lowered expectations, "I’ve got no job prospects," she said. "I’m expecting a long, cold winter ahead."
Talkback: When do you see the job market improving? Share your comments below.
China’s commerce ministry said on Sunday it had launched an anti-dumping investigation into imports of U.S. chicken products and vehicles, as the foreign ministry slammed the United States for protectionism.
Domestic industry had asked the government to counter unfair trade practices used to help import products, the Ministry of Commerce said on its website (www.mofcom.gov.cn).
China and the United States have vowed to cooperate in seeking to revive global economic growth.
“China consistently and resolutely opposes trade protectionism, which has been proved by its behavior since (the start of) the financial crisis,” the commerce ministry said.
But foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu also reinforced commerce ministry criticism of a U.S. decision to impose extra duty on Chinese-made tires, saying the move sent a dangerous protectionist signal before a G20 summit my credit score.
“This is going to damage financial and trade cooperation between China and the United States, and does not help push the world economy toward an early recovery,” Jiang said in a statement posted on the ministry website (www.fmprc.gov.cn).
The tire dispute brought continued friction over trade into focus, which could spill into the G20 summit this month and U.S. President Barack Obama’s scheduled visit to China in November.
Jiang said China had already had stern talks with U.S. officials, and reserved the right to take further countermeasures.
(Reporting by Emma Graham-Harrison and Langi Chiang; Editing by Dan Lalor)
France’s Publicis Groupe, the world’s No. 3 advertising group by revenue, is looking to China to underpin long-term growth as the global advertising market slows, an executive said on Saturday.
China now makes up less than five percent of Publicis’ global revenue, but in as little as five years the fast-growing market could be its second or third largest market, Chief Executive Maurice Levy told Reuters on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum.
“Without China we will have a limited future,” said Levy, who plans to double the current 3,000 staff in China within the next two or three years.
“China is crucial,” Levy said.
Publicis and bigger rivals such as Britain’s WPP are racing to establish themselves in China, a relatively new battleground where market share is still fluid and expanding, compared to mature markets in Europe or the United States.
“To win a new client in Europe is very painful,” he said.
The comments come after Publicis reported a first half like-for-like drop in sales of 6.6 percent, beating the 8.3 percent decline posted by WPP and the U.S. group Omnicom’s 8.8 percent fall.
While most analysts say global ad spending could be down 8 percent to 10 percent this year, China’s market is still growing, though down from the more than 20 percent growth in 2008.
Publicis recently maintained its 2009 financial goals, while Levy said he expected a “slow and gradual recovery” in 2010.
The French company is racing with competitors to sign up Chinese clients who are building brands domestically, but also increasingly need help in penetrating the larger, but more competitive markets in the United States and Europe.
Publicis and other foreign advertising specialists first came to China on the heels of their multinational clients, but the focus is now turning toward Chinese companies who are growing in clout and advertising budgets.
“If I am relying only on international companies, it will mean (the China strategy) will have failed,” said Levy.
Chinese companies now contribute only about one third of Publicis’s total revenue in the mainland market, a slice Levy hopes to double in five years, or longer.
“It has to be two thirds,” he said.
China has been Publicis’s fastest growing market, but this year other markets in Latin America and the Middle East could overtake the mainland, he said.
General Motors was set to end months of suspense over the fate of its Opel unit on Thursday, and announce whether it plans to sell the European automaker to one of two rival bidders.
GM said in a statement its board had taken a decision on Opel after a two-day meeting.
A Sky News report, citing unnamed sources, said GM had decided to keep the Ruesselsheim-based automaker it first took control of some 80 years ago, but two bankers close to the negotiations played down that report.
A source in Berlin said senior members of the German government, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, had not been informed of GM’s decision as of Thursday morning.
Separate sources familiar with the proceedings told Reuters after the board meeting that GM had dispatched its chief Opel negotiator John Smith to Berlin, where he was expected to brief the trust supervising Opel and German government officials before a news conference scheduled around 10 a.m. ET.
The trust was set up in May to keep Opel from being swept into GM’s bankruptcy and has the final say on who buys the company. It comprises two representatives each from GM and Germany, as well as an independent chairman who is supposed to act as an arbiter between the two sides.
Politically charged
"General Motors’ board of directors approved a course of action for its Opel subsidiary and will be communicating its recommendation to the German government, other European governments, both bidders, employees and the Opel trust board over the next 24 hours," GM said.
It was not immediately clear what action the GM board had chosen after spending the past month weighing the merits of selling its European unit against the cost of keeping it.
The decision is being closely watched in Germany, where Opel employs roughly half of its 50,000 European workers at four plants making everything from three-door Corsa subcompacts to Zafira vans.
The automaker has two factories that produce automobiles under the Vauxhall badge as well as major sites in Belgium, Poland and Spain free credit score online.
Chancellor Angela Merkel, facing an election on Sept. 27, has thrown her weight behind Canadian auto parts group Magna’s bid for Opel, promising 4.5 billion euros ($6.6 billion) in government guarantees if GM opts for the Russian-backed offer.
Berlin believes the Magna bid guarantees the brightest long-term future for Opel, which traces its roots in Germany back to the 19th century.
Opel workers are preparing mass protests if GM fails to pick Magna, a labor leader said. "We will then tomorrow with many thousands of people go to Eisenach … and will symbolically protect the factory from access with a chain of people," Klaus Franz said on German television station ZDF.
But GM management has said a rival bid by Brussels-listed RHJ International, which Berlin is refusing to help finance, would be easier to implement.
Some elements within the board are known to have favored keeping Opel instead of selling it to either bidder, but all three options carry risks for GM, which is struggling to turn itself around under U.S. government majority ownership.
Magna wants to use plant capacity at Opel by tapping into its expertise in contract manufacturing and building rival models for outside automakers. It forecasts high growth rates, particularly in Russia, home of its consortium partners Sberbank and GAZ.
Under its proposed plan, Magna and Sberbank would each own 27.5% of the company, while Opel employees would hold 10% and GM the remaining 35%. Some 10,000 European jobs would be cut, 25% of those in Germany.
RHJ plans to take a majority stake in Opel and shrink production to return the company to profit. It plans about the same number of job cuts as Magna and would be expected to sell its holding in the company at some point in the future, possibly even back to GM.
Much of the money given to General Motors and Chrysler to prevent them from collapsing will never be recovered, according to a report released Wednesday by the Congressional Oversight Panel.
"Although taxpayers may recover some portion of their investment in Chrysler and GM, it is unlikely they will recover the entire amount," the report says, citing estimates from the Treasury Department and Congressional Budget Office.
The oversight panel, headed by Harvard University professor Elizabeth Warren, was created by Congress last year to oversee the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.
GM and Chrysler were each teetering on collapse this spring when the Obama administration effectively forced both automakers into bankruptcy, lending them enough to survive. Both have shed billions of dollars in debt and are now rebuilding.
All told, since late last year, the government has provided or pledged the two companies, icons of American manufacturing, more than $60 billion in aid.
Treasury estimates that about $23 billion of initial loans to the two companies "will be subject to ‘much lower recoveries,’ " the panel’s report says. In particular, $5.4 billion of loans to Chrysler are "highly unlikely to be recovered," it continued.
"The initial loans made last fall as the industry was imploding and when no restructuring plan was in place are not likely to be repaid in full," Warren said during a conference call with reporters.
How much of the remaining funds will be recovered is impossible to predict, Warren said, because the loans have been converted to stock.
"The American taxpayer is now an equity investor in Chrysler and GM," Warren said. "And the return on its investment depends on what those companies are worth in a year or two."
The government owns 10% of Chrysler and 61% of GM.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, who is the only member of Congress on the oversight panel, declined to sign the final report. In a statement, Hensarling cited his objections to the use of TARP funds to help the auto industry and the structured bankruptcies of the two automakers.
"By making such an unprecedented investment in Chrysler and GM the Administration by definition chose not to assist other Americans that are in need," Hensarling said in a statement. "The government clearly picked winners and losers."
‘Somewhat mixed’ record
On the whole, the report said Treasury had a "somewhat mixed" record in how it handled the two bailouts.
Officials acted "aggressively" and demanded concessions from the companies. Yet they were not fully clear with the public about "the decisions to enter into the transactions in the first place."
The report made several recommendations. One was that the government’s shares in GM and Chrysler should be placed in an independently managed trust to prevent any potential political entanglements, the report said. That would be preferable to simply holding the shares as a "passive" investor.
Warren said the question of whether TARP gave Treasury authority to help the auto industry "is the subject of considerable debate," the report said.
Treasury should provide a detailed legal analysis of this use of TARP funds, Warren said. Still, she said, there is unlikely to be a serious legal challenge to Treasury’s actions in this case.
Employers will keep staff levels stable for the rest of the year, but U.S. hiring expectations are among the lowest around the world, according to a report released Tuesday.
Almost 70% of U.S. companies surveyed expect no change in their fourth-quarter hiring plans, said employment services company Manpower Inc. The report surveyed 28,000 employers in 200 metropolitan areas.
While 12% said they expect to increase workers in the fourth quarter, 14% predicted a decrease, the survey said. The remaining 5% were undecided.
After seasonal adjustment, those responses resulted in a 3% decrease in the overall employment outlook, Manpower said. That’s the weakest level since the report started in 1962.
The report, of course, comes amid continued and widespread weakness in the labor market. On Friday, the government’s monthly jobs report showed that the unemployment jumped in August to 9.7%, a 26-year high. Friday’s data were especially disappointing because the jobless rate had fallen the previous month for the first time in 15 months.
"Hiring intentions … continue to be sluggish," Manpower Chief Executive Jeff Joerres said in a statement. "We have yet to see the robust hiring intentions that would indicate a full labor market recovery."
Regional results. While all four regions of the United States reported "considerably weaker" outlooks year-over-year, some fared better than others when compared with the third quarter.
The South indicated a slight increase in employer optimism, while the West and Midwest remained relatively stable free credit report online. The Northeast reported the weakest outlook.
Sector by sector: Employers’ responses were mixed across industries. Companies in the mining, information, financial activities and "other services" sectors expect hiring to stay relatively stable compared with the third quarter.
The manufacturing, wholesale/retail trade and government employers expected a slight decrease in hiring, while transportation/utilities and professional/business services predicted a moderate decline. Construction and leisure/hospitality industries reported "considerably weaker" hiring plans.
Education/health services was the only sector to report a "modest increase" in fourth quarter hiring.
International responses: U.S. readings were the weakest overall in a related global report from Manpower.
In the international report, employers in 17 of 35 countries said they expect more hiring activity in the upcoming quarter. But 15 countries expected a decrease, with 10 of those reporting their weakest hiring plans in the survey’s history.
India, Brazil, Colombia, Peru and China posted the strongest results. Almost two-thirds of the countries surveyed said hiring expectations "have improved somewhat" over the last quarter.
Happy Labor Day weekend. Or for the 1.5 million of you out there (including me) estimated to be taking a plane somewhere, good luck in the airport.
As any frequent flier knows, the airline industry is, to quote Jimi Hendrix, "a frustrating mess." And about the only thing more frustrating than flying is trying to make money by investing in airline stocks.
Most major carriers routinely lose money, despite the fact that they now seem to charge you extra fees for everything but the pleasure of breathing the pressurized air. JetBlue (JBLU) is the only big airline expected to post a profit this year.
Just about every time the price of oil goes up (and it has soared about 45% since mid-February), the chances for airlines to make money shrinks. And many airlines have been in and out of bankruptcy almost as many times as the Duggar family pops out kids.
So you might be surprised to know that airline stocks have far outperformed the broader market since stocks started rallying this spring. The NYSE Arca Airline Index has skyrocketed more than 80%. The banking sector is one of only a few industries to do better than airlines during this stretch.
What gives? Do airlines have more room to run before they reach cruising altitude? Or are they about to finally start making their descent back to earth?
Well, very much like banks, airline stocks were priced at overly depressed levels. So their bounce shouldn’t be a huge surprise given that many investors now think the worst is over for the economy.
"The stocks have had an amazing move since March. But if you go back to that time frame, investors were thinking that the whole industry would go bankrupt," said Helane Becker, a transportation analyst with Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp.
But the hopes of a global economic recovery haven’t yet translated into an increase in air travel — which means investors need to be cautious.
Earlier this week, Continental Airlines (CAL, Fortune 500), US Airways Group (LCC, Fortune 500), United Airlines parent UAL (UAUA, Fortune 500), and American Airlines parent AMR (AMR, Fortune 500) all reported traffic declines in August from a year ago. The one exception to the rule was Southwest Airlines (LUV, Fortune 500), which announced Friday that traffic was up 1% from a year ago.
To be fair, the airlines all have been cutting capacity, which is good news since it should lead to lower expenses. But like other sectors of the economy, slashing costs will only take the stocks so far guaranteed online payday loans. Sooner or later, investors will demand to see signs of sales growth.
That’s not happening yet. The only major airline expected by analysts to post an increase in revenues this year is Delta Air Lines (DAL, Fortune 500) — and that’s only because of the big boost it got from its merger with Northwest last year.
If the economic recovery is for real though, airlines could start to show increased revenue in short order. As annoying as all these new bag check surcharges are for customers, they could help lead the airline industry out of its rut.
Craig Hodges, co-manager of the Hodges fund, which owns shares of Continental and Southwest, said it is not that much of a stretch to think that many airlines could become profitable if the economy keeps recovering and if oil prices either remain steady or don’t head much higher.
"The airlines are finding a lot of new revenue sources. The problem is that it’s not evident in their total sales because demand is still weak," Hodges said. "But if demand comes back and oil stabilizes, then airlines could start earning money again."
Becker said that she also thinks sales should start to improve later this year and into 2010. But there are several wild cards that make her a little wary.
"There could be a pullback in the stocks," she said. "Could the economy double dip and we go into another recession? We worry about that. The H1N1 flu could hurt global travel. And is corporate travel coming back?"
That said, Becker doesn’t think investors should dump all airline stocks. She said that of the major carriers, Delta is still a good buy. But she prefers some of the smaller, regional carriers as well that have more of a focus on domestic instead of international travel.
She recommends Hawaiian Holdings (HA), Allegiant Travel (ALGT) and AirTran Holdings (AAI). All three reported a profit in the second quarter and are expected to make money for the full year.
Profitable airlines? Imagine that. What’s next — on time arrivals and free pillows? A boy can dream.
Talkback: What do airlines need to do to be profitable more consistently? Are there any airlines that you either enjoy flying with or think is a good investment? Share your comments below.
So now the government’s going to tell you what light bulb to buy, and it could be hazardous to your health.
That was the takeaway from some conservative and libertarian-minded folks when the energy bill of 2007 mandated more efficient lighting that would lead to a gradual phase out of many incandescent bulbs. Europe’s ban began this week and the new U.S. rules take effect in 2012.
The concept of the government dictating light bulbs seemed too juicy for some groups to pass up. The fact that the more efficient fluorescent bulbs contain mercury - a highly toxic element - gave actual grounds for objection.
But environmentalists point out that the increased electricity required to run a regular lightbulb from a powerplant produces a lot of mercury too.
Nonetheless, criticism of fluorescent bulbs was fast and furious.
"Everyone is being urged, cajoled and guilt-tripped into [replacing] Thomas Edison’s incandescents," wrote the WorldNetDaily, a news Web site that bills itself as "a free press for a free people." "However, there is no problem disposing of incandescents…you can throw them in the trash can and they won’t hurt the garbage collector…they won’t kill people working in the landfills."
The poster-child for the anti-fluorescent bulbers is Brandy Bridges, a mother in Maine who broke a bulb in her daughter’s bedroom a couple years back.
Bridges, aware the bulbs contained mercury, called state officials, who came over, did tests, and told her to have the room cleaned by a hazardous waste crew - to the tune of over $2,000. Maine officials eventually came to her house and cut out the carpet.
This story has been widely circulated on the Internet, and sharp criticism of the government mandate continues today from email chain letters to rants on Capitol Hill.
The mandate, which doesn’t ban incandescent bulbs but requires much greater efficiency that will effectively take most of them off the shelf, phases in starting in 2012. One in Europe began earlier this week.
But much of the fear surrounding fluorescent light bulbs may be overblown.
When contacted about the Bridges case, Maine officials said the advice to get a professional hazardous waste cleaner and remove the carpet was given before a policy on fluorescents was fully developed. They no longer tell people to call a hazmat crew or remove rugs, unless the homeowner is particularly concerned.
Maine regulators, along with national environmental groups, consumer advocates and the federal government, all still recommend using the energy-saving bulbs.
When it comes to safety, they say the amount of mercury in a fluorescent bulb is so small it should not present a health risk. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the average fluorescent light bulb contains about 4 milligrams of mercury, over 100 times less than found in an old mercury thermometer.
Consumer Reports just did extensive testing of the bulbs and found that many contain even less mercury - some had just 1 milligram.
"It’s not something to panic about," said Celia Kuperszmid Lehrman, deputy home editor at Consumer Reports. "Tube fluorescents like we all have in our offices and schools have mercury too, and it’s not like they evacuate a school every time a bulb breaks."
Still, the bulbs should be handled with care if broken. EPA recommends several steps including cleaning up the glass with cardboard or another item that can be disposed of after, opening the window, and putting the remnants in an outside garbage can.
If your town collects other household hazardous waste like batteries, paint or cleaning supplies, then you should dispose of the bulbs in the same manner. Home Depot and Ikea will recycle any old fluorescent bulbs, no mater where they were purchased.
Also, if the light is close to small children or pets that may easily knock it over, it’s probably best to use another type of bulb. Efficient, mercury-free incandescents like halogen lights, as well as LED lights will still be available after the new efficiency standards kick in.
The benefits of using fluorescent bulbs, experts say, far outweighs any mercury risk.
When it comes to mercury content, a fluorescent bulb ends up putting far less mercury into the environment compared to all the extra electricity required to run an inefficient bulb - four times less mercury, according to Noah Horowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
If the whole country switched to fluorescents, says Horowitz, it would eliminate the need to build 30 new coal power plants and save as much electricity as used by all the homes in Texas.
Then there’s the cost savings. Consumer reports estimates that each incandescent replaced with a $1.50 fluorescent will save an individual $56 in electricity costs over the life of the bulb.
"You’d be hard pressed to find a better deal for your wallet or the environment," said Horowitz.
Still, some people remain unconvinced.
For starters, many say if fluorescent bulbs were really better, people would buy them on their own.
For her part Bridges, contacted at her home in Maine, says she’ll never go back to fluorescent bulbs and has little faith in experts telling her what’s safe.
"Remember, at some point lead paint wasn’t a big deal either," she said.
Have you recently been laid off? Lost most of your retirement or college savings in the stock market? Dealt with the loss of the family breadwinner with no life insurance? If you’ve been confronted with some challenge during this recession and would like to have an expert review your situation, send an email to realstories@cnnmoney.com and you could be profiled in an upcoming segment on CNN. For the CNNMoney.com Comment Policy, click here.
Powered by WordPress -- XHTML 1.0