Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:52 pm    Post subject: Environment: Australia to make CFL Light Bulbs Mandatory Reply with quote

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Arti.....TopStories

Australia to ban old-style light bulbs
Updated Tue. Feb. 20 2007 12:30 PM ET

Associated Press

SYDNEY, Australia -- The Australian government on Tuesday announced plans to phase out incandescent light bulbs and replace them with more energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs across the country.

Legislation to gradually restrict the sale of the old-style bulbs could reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million tons by 2012 and cut household power bills by up to 66 percent, said Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Australia produced almost 565 million tons of greenhouse gases in 2004, official figures show.

Prime Minister John Howard said the plan would help all Australians play a part in cutting harmful gas emissions: "Here's something practical that everybody will participate in."

In incandescent light bulbs, perfected for mass use by Thomas A. Edison in the late 19th century, electricity flows through a filament to create light. Much of the energy, however, is wasted in the form of heat.

Australia is not the only place looking to replace them with fluorescent lighting, which is more efficient and longer lasting.

Last month, a California assemblyman announced he would propose a bill to ban the use of incandescent bulbs in his state. And a New Jersey lawmaker has called for the state to switch to fluorescent lighting in government buildings within three years.

Cuba's Fidel Castro launched a similar program two years ago, sending youth brigades into homes and switching out regular bulbs for energy-saving ones to help battle electrical blackouts around the island.

The idea was later embraced by Castro's friend and ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who announced his own program to save energy and in recent months has given away millions of incandescent bulbs in neighborhoods nationwide.

Under the Australian plan, bulbs that do not comply with energy efficiency targets would be gradually banned from sale. Exemptions may apply for special needs such as medical lighting and oven lights.

Fluorescent bulbs are currently more expensive than incandescent bulbs, but use only about 20 percent of the power to produce the same amount of light and last longer, making them more competitive over time, advocates argue.

Environmentalists welcomed the light bulb plan, but noted than the vast bulk of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions come from industry, such as coal-fired power stations.

They urged the government to set national targets for emission reductions and renewable energy.

"It is a good, positive step. But it is a very small step. It needs to be followed through with a lot of different measures," Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman Josh Meadows told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

Howard has become a global warming convert, conceding in recent months for the first time that human activity is having an effect on rising temperatures.

But he has steadfastly refused to bring Australia into line with most of the world and ratify the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas reductions, arguing that doing so could damage Australia's coal-dependent economy.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ahem...

If I may point out (from Feb 3rd):

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/f.....mp;start=0


Quote:
Environmental Policy Proposals

I thought I'd start a thread to talk about ideas that could be done on the environment side of things.

Here's a few ideas, some obviously are heavy on government intruding in our lives and have obvious downside, but I'm just throwing them out there:

1) Change Housing (provincial and federal) Code to require that all new houses be built to a minimum r-2000 or "energy star" rating.

Include in this that all new water heaters be the energy efficient "tankless" heaters.

Require the use of energy efficient lighting. ....
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So what do you folks think?

Do you think something similar could work in Canada?

FYI: I've just ordered an LED light bulb to try out.

I've been using CFLs for about 7 years now.

This LED light uses .35 watts and will last 100 000 hours! For comparison CFL bulbs use 9 to 23 watts!

It costs $29 bucks though. A brighter .75 watt version costs $41.

I'm gonna try it out and if I like It I'll slowly convert all my lights over to LED (or as many which are practical).
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is the spectrum on the LED lights? For a long time I didn't care for the light from CFLs but CFLs have come a long way. They now come on immediately instead of flickering. I'm replacing all my lights with CFLs. They are pretty cost competitive now. I think a law banning incandescent lights would be the single most effective and politically popular environmental move to make.
Azimech





Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 75
Reputation: 10

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well if it's advocated by Castro, Chavez and California Democrats, then it has to be a good idea!
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think a ban on producing incandescent lights would be a fine Idea... I started the switch-over this past summer. One thing I really like is that I can now use a much brighter bulb in my bathroom(the one that was in there was 50W)... The cost of the CFLs is not very high anymore, so I don't see a problem with saying no more incandescents.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think people should be free to use whichever light bulbs, and in whatever number, that they wish. Maybe a light bulb registry is the solution? We could grandfather all those old incandescent lights...

Seriously, are you guys really advocation for even more government regulation in our lives here?
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
I think people should be free to use whichever light bulbs, and in whatever number, that they wish. Maybe a light bulb registry is the solution? We could grandfather all those old incandescent lights...

Seriously, are you guys really advocation for even more government regulation in our lives here?


It's an interesting question of course... where does the balance between regulation and freedom come in?

Cars are emissions tested and certified.
Cellphones, blackberries, wireless laptops are tested and regulated by the FCC (in the US)
Food is tested by Food Inspection agencies...

is it unreasonable to ask the same of lightbulbs if there is a better, more efficient option available?

But, where do we draw the line on government regulation?
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
I think people should be free to use whichever light bulbs, and in whatever number, that they wish. Maybe a light bulb registry is the solution? We could grandfather all those old incandescent lights...

Seriously, are you guys really advocation for even more government regulation in our lives here?


Hey maybe we can put lead back in our gasoline and allow the use of DDT!!!!

I'm not an anarchist. If both the lightbulbs produce light and one is better for the environment than what difference does it make to the consumer? Not all government regulations are bad.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we had kept using DDT, malaria would be a disease that maybe your grandfather remembered hearing about one time. Millions of lives would have been saved in Africa, asia, and South America, if we had kept using DDT. Perhaps you should pick some better analogies?

If the price of electricity is such that no one even thinks twice about what kind of bulbs to use, then I think that says plenty. Utility companies should charge what electricity costs, and if consumers feel that they need to change light bulbs, then I am fine with that. I view any new government regulation of my life with suspicion.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PS. Lead replacements in gasoline:

Methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) has been used for many years in Canada and recently in Australia to boost octane. It also helps old cars designed for leaded fuel run on unleaded fuel without need for additives to prevent valve problems.

US Federal sources state that MMT is suspected to be a powerful neurotoxin and respiratory toxin, and a large Canadian study concluded that MMT impairs the effectiveness of automobile emission controls and increases pollution from motor vehicles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Lead

Yet another example of the law of unintended consequences....
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting question - I think that we need to watch our government regulations to some extent(the smoking bans and their far-sweeping powers are good examples of this). But at the same time, there are some things that should be legislated.

The lighting debate is a good example, and so is banning the production/sale of 2-stroke cycle engines.

I would suggest that both are good options - why? neither would have any sort of massive impact on business or consumer. With proper lead-in times, companies would have the chance to change their businesses to meet the legislation, and costs for customers aren't massively higher for the consumer.

I don't mind paying $6.00 for a lightbulb - I've seen them $3.00 for about $13.00 before even. Not bad, and it helps with reducing power usage(so maybe we can avoid another east-coast blackout).
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a fascinating article that I read last year concerning this topic. I recommend the full read:

http://www.fastcompany.com/mag.....bulbs.html
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for that Stephen, great article.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If the price of electricity is such that no one even thinks twice about what kind of bulbs to use, then I think that says plenty. Utility companies should charge what electricity costs, and if consumers feel that they need to change light bulbs, then I am fine with that. I view any new government regulation of my life with suspicion.


Ah, but there is the rub. Utility companies don't charge what electricity costs, at least here in Ontario.

The price of electricity is subsidized by tax dollars; consumer's only pay like 30% of what it actually cots to produce.

In light of the fact that we're not dealing with a market that is free of government regulation, can we trust in the market to self-regulate, or do we need government regulation?

IMO, if people paid the full price of electricity then CFLs would be a much more attractive option in order to reduce costs.

However, since we're unlikely to see the energy market deregulated within my lifetime, so I don't think that we can rely on the market to regulate itself.

Perhaps another option would be to impose a tax on incandecent bulbs to increase their purchasing price?

Unfortunately, all this is rather contrary to my conservative way of thinking and I'm finding it hard to square this circle.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Environment: Australia to make CFL Light Bulbs Mandatory

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB