Energy efficient light bulbs have come to symbolize the promise of smarter, greener, cost-saving technologies. The image of the coiled CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) reminds us that we can save money while saving energy. And for good reason: The federal government's Energy Star program found that if every American home replaced just one light with a CFL that's earned the Energy Star rating, we could save enough energy to light 3 million homes for a year, or reduce our electric bills by $600 million annually while preventing 9 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions per year, equivalent to the annual emissions from about 800,000 cars.

An energy-efficient CFL can save more than $40 in electricity costs over its lifetime compared to the old incandescent bulbs. It uses about 75 percent less energy and lasts 10 times longer.

The free money from these kinds of commonsense energy efficiency gains is why Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a landmark bill that mandated a host of efficiency standards for cars, lighting, and appliances. Now Congress doesn't always use logic and foresight, but this bill was smartly based on a few very logical premises that employed some solid forward thinking.

Among them, two major premises:

There is no reason to beat around the bush: Tuesday's election results are a setback in our progress towards a cleaner, healthier, more sustainable planet.

At a time when the world desperately needs leadership from the United States, voters have installed in the House of Representatives those who have vowed to do all they can to obstruct progress in cleaning up dirty coal-burning power plants, reducing health-destroying and climate-disrupting pollution, and protecting wild places and wildlife.

Yet, while the news is bad, we can take heart that the election was not a referendum on the environment. Voters still want clean water, healthy air, protected public lands, and action on transitioning from dirty power plants to a clean energy economy.

The familiar EnergyGuide label comes to TVs near you

The best part about energy efficiency—aside from its amazing potential to cut national energy use by 23 percent according to McKinsey by 2020 (that’s the amount of energy coal supplies for our nation)—is the money it saves consumers. Sometimes the savings are so great that the best way to promote efficiency is to make sure consumers see the clear money-saving opportunities.

That's what the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is doing with its EnergyGuide label, which allows anyone buying a new TV to compare its energy efficiency with that of other models, as well as the annual cost of powering it. Yesterday, the FTC announced some big news for efficiency in this country: TVs will now be required to carry the EnergyGuide label.

Currently, we are unable to compare the efficiency of different TVs—we have no way to even determine the most and least efficient models. And for the exact same size, type of TV, and brand, you can pay three times the amount to power one TV over another. That can translate into about $50 more per year for the least efficient TV of 40 inches or larger, for example.

So, the energy and cost savings for the consumer are clear. But what kind of a difference can one little label on one appliance, TVs, make nationally?

A strip of houses in southwest Florida. Image courtesy of Google and The Boston Globe.

BP greases the facts
As if writing California's environmental curriculum wasn't enough, BP is back to meddling in the school system, this time to "dispel myths" about oil and chemical dispersants, reports ProPublica. Among the myths being dispelled is the idea that the chemicals are mostly harmless to people and wildlife, a claim that Earthjustice is currently disputing in court.

Court ruling makes milky waves
Milk fans who don't like their cow juice coming from animals pumped with growth hormones and full of pus won a major victory earlier this week after an appeals court overturned an Ohio ban on labels that identify whether milk products were produced with or without growth hormones, reports Grist. The decision could have repercussions beyond the pasture by establishing a standard that altered foods (i.e. genetically engineered) can be labeled as such.