Inefficient Lightblubs Banned In Canada By 2012
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Economy, Environment
Personally, I think this is a brilliant idea, but I know people will start crying “Nanny State” if any politician brings it up. Or maybe, just maybe, we’ll be okay with paying a few extra dollars for new lightbulbs if it can significantly cut down on energy consumption.
One can hope.
Ontario announced earlier this month it was banning incandescents by 2012. Australia is moving to ban the old bulbs by 2010, cutting the country’s emissions by four million tonnes by 2012.The new lightbulbs are three to four times as efficient as incandescent bulbs, which emit between five and 10 per cent light while the rest is heat.
[Natural Resources Minister Gary] Lunn said the ban will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than six million tonnes a year, saving homeowners about $60 annually in electricity costs.
And do note that Canada’s Conservative Party has proposed this.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 25th, 2007 and is filed under Economy, Environment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
What a “bright” idea! (Oh I’m such a punny guy… but seriously)
I hardly get the chance to applaud Canada, but this is a great idea. You save citizens money, and help out the environment. Unfortunatly if this were to be brought up here in the states I think the timeline would be somewhere around 2020. The legal battles that would be fought, the time wasted on the debates in legislative houses, and the cut-throat CEO’s of the companies that want to make more money.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I’m not screaming nanny state, but regulating a free market (at least in America) isn’t how our government was designed to work.
Honestly, if I want to light my house with 60 watt “oldschool” bulbs and someone continues to manufacture them, then so long as the free market allows, I should be allowed to do so.
I see ideas like this parallelled alongside moronic ideas like forcing car companies to buy back all their SUV’s and exchange them with Hybrids… it’s just NOT how the system works.
If the country as a majority push market pressure in the direction of the newer, more efficient bulbs, then so be it… but direct governmental force on a free market doesn’t work.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
As long as electricity pricing is where it is, this is what you’re going to get. Figures that someone who doesn’t really understand free markets would think this is a good idea.
Of course the Democrats would even *think* of pricing electricity higher — they would get their butts booted out so fast by their own “working class” constitutients. Of course the limo liberals that run the party wouldn’t even bat an eye.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Come on, they’re not even close to being the same things.
Direct governmental force on free markets does work. Because (newsflash!) if you think free markets are really free you’re kidding yourself. We put limits on goods and services ALL the time, and the market still works in a fairly efficient and orderly manner. When things go completely regulated or unregulated, that’s when problems arise.
However, I agree that in the US the market must demand this for a change to happen. But in some cases, that can be a pity.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
NZ has been treading the same path… in our own way.
First step was a promotion through the power retailers from the government giving every consumer a 10% discount voucher for flourescent bulbs (the new ones) up to ten bulbs, which finished October last year. Cost was about $50 per consumer that took up the offer.
Second step is to phase out the sale of incandescent (old) bulbs by 2010.
FWIW…
April 25th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
One often-missed issue is that CFLs move costs around from production to recycling - the tubes shouldn’t be thrown out like incandescents can (because their mercury will leak into the groundwater).
Also, there are legitimate areas where incandescent light is absolutely needed - I certainly support governmental incentives to encourage widespread adoption, but a blanket ban would go to far.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:13 am
I wonder if it takes any more energy to manufacture an energy-saving light bulb.
From an economic perspective, it would be much better for the government to just ban or limit the production of “regular” lightbulbs, rather than trying to incentivize certain technology. The idea is to maximize the markets freedom to adjust. The government trying to direct science and technology through incentives is a incredibly inefficient deal.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Probligo has a much better idea on handling this…give government discounts on efficient bulbs, and perhaps an increasing tax on inefficient ones. Unfortunately when buying bulbs, many people don’t look at the lifetime and energy savings, and buy the $0.50 bulb they’ll have to replace in 6 months rather than the $5 bulb that’ll last 5 years.
I can’t wait until they finally make LED bulbs a reality…they last even longer than fluorescents, and use even less energy. Unfortunately, that may make them unattractive to manufacturers, since replacements would be few and infrequent.
Much like electric cars, which were phased out because the manufacturers couldn’t figure out how to make a profit from them (most of their profit comes from selling spare parts and electric cars just don’t break down much). We seriously must soon move our society past the planned obsolescence forced consumerism model we’re stuck with today into a more sustainable long-term paradigm.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Incidentally I would mention that incandescents are probably required in some applications, such as certain kinds photography and filmography, though they may have alternatives available. Partly this is because fluorescents pretty much always flicker at 60 hz, and partly because the light quality and color spectrum differ from regular incandescents.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Sleipner, flourescents are generally blue/green. Tungsten incandescents are yellow. There are readily available filters to correct for both though that does increase exposure settings.
Photographing under flourescents is not a problem because the flourescing material in the tube has a “fade time” that is longer than 1/60 sec, plus the fact that most cameras use 1/60 or 1/30 to ensure timing of the flash with shutter. So a camera with standard “electronic” flash will have a 1/60 exposure but the actual flash (and picture) takes only 1/2000.
Where white light is required, the best sources come from neon/argon or more recently quartz/iodide tubes.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
In the US the market is already increasing the use of CFLs. Wal Mart’s promotion of them is lowering the price GE 8 packs at Sam’s Club sells for 12$ and GE 3 packs are 8$ at Walmart (down from 9$ last year) and new GE and Sylvania bulbs produce light that is close to the quality standard bulbs although they still flicker initially when turned on.
Given that fact that my power bill dropped by 10% when I converted the whole house to CFLs I have no complaints. I’d rather spend less on necessities (ie insurance, gas, and utility bills) so that I can either bank more or spend more on luxuries. Helping air quality is just icing on a fiscal cake.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:37 am
So what are we going to do when we have billions of CFL’s that have burned out?
Do you REALLY think your average American will stop to think… hey I need to call my local CFL pickup agent since this light burned out.
My bet goes into the “tossed in the bin” choice.
I find it equally ironic that activist groups out there protesting mercury thermometer factories, are pushing for the bans on regular bulbs for the mercury laden CFL’s.