Canada will ban the sale of inefficient incandescent light bulbs by 2012 as part of a plan to cut down on emissions of greenhouse gases, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said on Wednesday.
Canada is the second country in the world to announce such a ban. Australia said in February it would get rid of all incandescent bulbs by 2009.
“Making the switch to more efficient lighting is one of the easiest and most effective things we can do to reduce energy use and harmful emissions,” Lunn told a news conference.
Has anyone noticed that these are two Conservative governments that still consider questions about responsible energy use something worth answering?
Here’s a great article on CFLs. His answer is “no.” He also explains why CFLs don’t save nearly as much power as claimed:
Should There be a Ban on Incandescent Lamps?
http://soundwesthost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
Another excellent article on the topic:
What Compact Fluorescents to Use Where
http://members.misty.com/don/cfapp.html
This link is to the HTML version (via Google) of a DOC file. I wish people wouldn’t post DOC files on-line because they have a risk of macro virus infection:
Compact Lessons Learned
from International Lamp Testing Programs
http://tinyurl.com/yuovm8
Forum discussions of CFL problems:
http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/2295/161958
Concerns about catastrophic failure modes of some CFLs:
Yup, gas prices going up would be good – In Canada at least, phasing out AC would be worthwhile – no one really needs it in our climate – it never gets above 40 C even in the hottest days of summer. (That’s approx 104 F for you American types) (get with the program and standardize on Metric – everyone else does) an average day would be closer to 28 C (about 80 F)
“I’d love to see the price gradually approach the real $15/gallon price tag.”
Be careful what you wish for. The entire economy would crash with fuel prices that high. If fuel prices quintupled, everything you use and buy will dramatically spike up in price. Entire corn crops would be used for methanol. A corn dog would cost $15 (considering the rise in cost of corn and cattle feed).
$15 a gallon gasoline is a liberal’s dream come true. Everyone would be forced to walk or ride bicycles, become vegetarians, and live in densely packed hive-like cities where we can be more easily watched and governed. Utopia!
But not, of course, if you are rich. They will still have limos and Gulfstream jets at their beck and call. Only the little guys will be inconvenienced.
Sounds like Mexico to me.
Why wait to 2012? Why even ban them?
Just tax power-hog bulbs so that they cost a little more than energy efficient ones. The government could do this right now.
People who really love those old bulbs could still get them but it encourages people to make the switch.
5.37 a gallon isn’t that bad. Over here in Germany it’s about 1.60Euro a liter. Which runs out to $8.22 per gallon.
#15 – off topic but to comment on your one of your statements : Nobody has banned gun ownership in Canada that I know…I own some legally, many of my friends/relatives own them legally. The government made it more expensive and in some cases more difficult to get them in the last few years, but they certainly aren’t banned. That being said, I own a couple rifles and a shotgun, but no handguns, they are more restricted, and personally I don’t have a big problem with that. I’ve never had a need to pack a pistol. Right to bear arms? Absolutely, in defense of my country, but not in the streets, at least not where I live.
To #19.
Yes, the lamps yellow over time. And, I like most everyone else who posted, have not received the promised 7-10 year life span.
Regardless, I did get quite an energy savings after replacing all of my incandescent bulbs with CFLs, but as pointed out, the cost of the lamp vs the shortened life span and energy savings…it was a savings wash.
I don’t even think it helped the environment since the chemicals in a CFL are bigger pollutants than the extra energy used.
On the other hand…LED lamps should solve most of the problems listed above. They should be inexpensive once they reach ample market penetration, they provide instant light (no warm up time), they last long, and they don’t move the pollution from the manufacturing facility to the household. The question is, when will they be available?
#23 – Mark T.
First, I did say gradually. Second, please keep in mind that we already pay this. We just don’t pay it at the pump. So, we’re lulled into thinking that gasoline isn’t a hugely expensive item. But, we all complain about our tax bill and just don’t think about how much of that is paying for our gasoline.
I’m merely suggesting paying it at the pump to encourage people to make correct decisions by having costs noted at the point of purchase.
Scott, so you think you will get a tax refund as gas prices go up to where they would be otherwise? Wishful thinking, I am afraid. It will come out of the economy and not out of government.
Oh, and Exxon will have record profits that will make last year look like a startup company.
#14 Jägermeister’ s comments got it bang on. Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are just trying to deflect criticism for backing out of Kyoto.
#1 If we reduced the birth rate by 70%, these problems would correct themselves.
Yeah, and that would be a whole lot easier than getting people to switch light bulbs!
#20, for somebody who hates religion so much, you sure seem to be fine with the idea that everybody else should be made to live in your ideal world.
Bush’s plan to reduce gas prices – metrication!
16 and 26 – you should understand we have a flavor of proto-fascist here who consider it a reasonable tactic to identify themselves as “conservative”. The fact their brains are mired somewhere to the Right of Attila the Hun means nothing to what they consider to be a mere semantical jog.
Sometimes they use “neocon”. They always use “patriot”.
I STILl have to point out that Efficentcy, SUCKS..
As more people use less energy, the Corps wont make enough money(in their minds) and will raise the prices…
It only Gives those folks ON TOP more reason to get more money.
ECA -
Looks like you fell asleep in economics class.
Raising the price of a product, when the demand is falling, will cause people to buy even less of that product.
And if you can’t understand that, I have a 1985 Yugo that I would like to sell you, for $10,000.
Misanthrope -
Where do you keep coming up with this insane claim that the “real price of gas is $15/gallon”? As I said previously, even in oil-scarce heavily taxed Europe, gas doesn’t cost even half that much.
Yup. Those gas prices are Algore’s energy plan, not GW’s.
Scott, we DO make good vehicle choices. That’s why there are so many SUVs and trucks.
#37 – Frank IBC,
I have provided that link twice now. Here it is again.
http://tinyurl.com/2n6fyt
#29 – Mark T.
I didn’t say that the price would be charged by the oil company. Just cutting their subsidies will only raise the price to about $4.50 a gallon or so.
The rest of the price would be in shifting our tax burden from our income tax form to the gas pump where it belongs. It’s a tad idealistic, I admit. But, if we don’t talk about it at all, it can’t happen.
36,
Last year, the Toronto Hydro embarked on a huge push to get the citizens of Toronto to reduce their energy use. We listened. In fact, we reduced our consumption so greatly that Hydro profits were significantly reduced. so, they raised rates to make up for the shortfall.
You may be correct theoretically, but ECA is correct practically. No corp loses on profits… that’s mission statement number 1.