Pollution footprints can get complicated

I'm converting the house over to compact florescent bulbs by an attrition process. I am aware of the mercury problem. I wonder if the statement in the article that the trade-off between the mercury in the bulbs and the mercury put in the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants is favorable is accurate?

Oh, and in further exploration of the crappy writing that is the news on the internet:

"One problem with recycling is that it isn't cheap.

Larry Chalfan, executive director of the Zero Waste Alliance environmental group, said the value of the metal, glass and mercury reclaimed from recycling fails to offset the cost of the process. "Someone has to pay," he said.

Costs can range from 20 cents to 50 cents per bulb -- not a paltry sum when some CFLs sell for less than $2 at Wal-Mart.

But, compared with the overall lifecycle cost of buying and using a bulb, recycling would be less than 1 percent, said Paul Abernathy, executive director of the Association of Lighting & Mercury Recyclers, "a small price to keep the mercury out of the environment.""

1% of what? It never seems to fail that when reporters start talking about percentages, they get confused.