Australia to ban incandescent bulbs

matrixshaman

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
3,410
Location
Outside the Matrix
I would say no effect on flashlights. But I've got mixed feelings on this and California's similar law (not sure if it has passed). CFL's have their own set of problems both environmentally and health wise. If they are going to mandate such a thing it should be for LED lighting and that would likely drive LED prices down in a hurry. But I really don't believe any country/state should be telling anyone what kind of light they can have in their home. The warmth of incandescent lighting is something I might like in a retro sort of way and NO ONE is going to tell me I can't have it. While I actually am thinking of installing LED lighting in my house in some areas both for energy savings and for the whiter light I still think it should be a personal choice and in the long run people will naturally go towards more affordable lighting in the way of CFL or LED on their own.
 

jar3ds

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
1,988
Location
USA
i have thought about this.... i don't think anything really should be banned outright... however, if i were president I would tax the snot out of incandescent bulbs to ENCOURAGE people to buy the CFL bulbs... maybe also give tax sensitives or something :)
 

leukos

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
3,478
Location
Indianapolis
jar3ds said:
i have thought about this.... i don't think anything really should be banned outright... however, if i were president I would tax the snot out of incandescent bulbs to ENCOURAGE people to buy the CFL bulbs... maybe also give tax sensitives or something :)

I agree with you, jar3ds. Put an environmental tax on incandescent bulbs so they aren't so much cheaper than CFL's or some other lighting source. Why legislate a ban? :ohgeez:
 

Glen C

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
849
Location
Australia
We will see if this gets up. The guy proposing it needs a few distractions to the fact we are running out of water down here. Good idea but odd it came straight after the California proposal.
 

Flash_Gordon

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
1,246
Location
NC USA
Is this a decision the government needs to make for us? Why, because they are historically so good at micro-managing our lives?

In a pattern similar to electric car mania of just a few years ago, where the replacement and disposal of millions of tons of highly toxic batteries was never addressed, CFL mania may be overtaking us in the same manner.

Florescent lamps, compact or otherwise contain toxics including mercury and other heavy metals. Disposal is an issue in some municipalities now. What about the additional millions (billions?) of dead lamps. This does not consider what, if any, material issues might exist in the ballasts which every CFL unit uses. How much additional fire hazard from these ballasts malfunctioning is there? Has anyone addressed this?

All types of lighting devices have a place in our lives and in our homes. I use CFL's in a number of places, but I do not want my den lighted with them. Imagine entire cities, states and now countries lighted with this cold unnatural light. Our world with the nighttime appeal of a giant public bathroom.

Let us choose, using our own judgment. Let me decide on the basis of aesthetics, economics and impact on the rest of the world. I can select a light bulb. Can't you?

Mark
 

Windscale

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
434
Imposing a tax is not a good idea. It merely gives the rich a right to do more harm to the environment whilst the not-so-rich are trying hard to improve it.
It is also not a matter of warm natural light vs. cold unnatural light. Think of your children and grandchildren and what they may have to suffer because of our irresponsibility.
I think the Aussies are taking a very brave step. A right one too.
The next item to be banned should be primary cells!
 

tussery

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
334
Location
Corpus Christi, Tx
Windscale said:
Think of your children and grandchildren and what they may have to suffer because of our irresponsibility.
And they will suffer just as much from the over production and disposal of CFL lights and the water supply will get contaminated with even more mercury from CFL's. It's a lose lose situation unless you bring LED's to the table.
 

greenLED

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
13,267
Location
La Tiquicia
As I mentioned in the other thread, it's all a "smokescreen". Australia's CO2 emissions due to burning carbon cannot be offset by this proposal alone. It's like trying to cover the sun with your thumb, and I'm not sure mandating everyone to put their thumbs up would be acceptable either.

On the other hand, at least they're thinking about doing something. A step forward (in some direction)?
 

woodrow

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
2,027
Location
New Mexico
I do not think a ban is the best idea. This month's 'The Economist' had a cover story about 'The Greening of America'. Consumers will automaticly switch to florecents and leds if they feel they will save money and the new technology is better. Look at the car ads for 'cars that get over 30mpg. When a new product is truely better than a old one, you do not need a law to get people to buy it.
 

AdamW

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
186
The most dangerous word in all politics is only three letters: BAN.
 

AdamW

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
186
George Orwell had the right idea, but got it wrong.

We didn't end up with Big Brother, rather, we now have Big Mommy.

Mommy wants to take away things to protect us. Mommy always knows what's best for us.
 

Flash_Gordon

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
1,246
Location
NC USA
woodrow said:
I do not think a ban is the best idea. This month's 'The Economist' had a cover story about 'The Greening of America'. Consumers will automaticly switch to florecents and leds if they feel they will save money and the new technology is better. Look at the car ads for 'cars that get over 30mpg. When a new product is truely better than a old one, you do not need a law to get people to buy it.

Exactly, woodrow.

A nice concise description of a free marketplace composed of willing and able sellers and buyers.

It's how things should work and in fact how things do work.

When I walk into Home Depot present me with displays of all types of lighting devices. I'll pick the ones that suit my needs and my wallet. The types that no longer do or never did, will wither away.

No government intervention or the sky is falling scare tactics needed.

Mark
 

2xTrinity

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
2,386
Location
California
Flash_Gordon said:
Is this a decision the government needs to make for us? Why, because they are historically so good at micro-managing our lives?

In a pattern similar to electric car mania of just a few years ago, where the replacement and disposal of millions of tons of highly toxic batteries was never addressed, CFL mania may be overtaking us in the same manner.
Current hybrid cars use either NiMH or Lithium cells, both of which are metals expensive enough that it's more cost effective to recycle them than simply dump them in a landfill (as critics suggest will happen on a wide scale). The fact that there is a whole lot of them in a huge pack means they will be more liekly to be recycled if anything. They're also designing them so that they last the lifetime of the car (performance gradually degrades, but the batteries still continue to work).

Florescent lamps, compact or otherwise contain toxics including mercury and other heavy metals. Disposal is an issue in some municipalities now. What about the additional millions (billions?) of dead lamps. This does not consider what, if any, material issues might exist in the ballasts which every CFL unit uses. How much additional fire hazard from these ballasts malfunctioning is there? Has anyone addressed this?
The amount of mercury in a modern fluorescent lamp is a few miligrams, less than the amount of heavy metals in the coal fires used to generate the electricity (based on average percentage of coal power in US grid) to run the equivalent incandescent bulbs -- I'd rather have a few milligrams of mercury sitting in my local toxic disposal dump than spewing from a coal fire (though admittedly, in my area almost all the grid power is from nuclear... ).

I've said this before, I am against the government micromanaging this sort of issue, even though I am a big fan of energy efficient lighting (and electric cars for that matter, as it has the potential to offer high performance and excellent efficiency in the same package). It's unfortunate that there isn't better quality control (I'd rather see the government encourange higher quality standards in CFLs than ban incandescent) Recent brands have had worse reliability than CFLs of the past, and some of the dimmable ones have serious electrical interference issues. I'd rather see the government regulate these sorts of issues more -- then CFL will become a more attractive solution rather than simply forcing people to use them.

The issue of spectral output being bad is not something that is insurmountable. Even amongst different brands of CFLs there's a big difference between good and bad ones. Also, LEDs are also pretty close to a natural spectral output, a two-phosphor LED variety could very closely approximate the natural blackbody curve, too bad I haven't seen any high power LEDs designed specifically for good color rendering.

Admittedly, if you are looking for yellowish light, it will be hard to beat incan -- the best CFLs (color rendering) are ones that have a cooler color temperature, rather than those designed to be incandescent look-alikes. I actually prefer the cool light from my 3500k-4100k fluorescent lights to the 2700k incan bulbs they replaced, even aside from power costs, as I prefer the color and it throws less heat into the room, but people should be able to make that decision for themselves.
 

frogs3

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
256
Location
Philadelphia 'burbs
What do you expect from a socialist country? The government representatives have been empowered to believe that they know best. I suggest that the "law of unintended consequences" be carefully studied and those citizens whose brain is still working use it to stop this idiocy. The free marketplace does work, when left alone, and as greenLED, Flash_Gordon and several others have noted, the ban on incandescents is another "feel good" law, like the "third stoplight" requirement based on a tiny study of NY city taxicabs for a few weeks and never revisited to see if it really was worth the cost to YOU AND ME. In the USA, the costs for "alternate" fuels like alcohol and generation of hydrogen end up in reality higher than the methods already in place, as bad as they may be. Creativity and thinking are required -- so don't look to legislators so fast, as you will not find these qualities there. Long term solutions are often complicated. Don't throw away your Surefires yet! My Eveready 2 D cell with new-fangled K 2 bulb --yes I said BULB -- rests next to my bed for over 25 years now. (I don't want to use the cliche about that flashlight and my "cold, dead hands" -- been done.)

What has this to do with flashlights: legislation about our batteries, bright lights outside, defending ourselves from wild animals (dogs for example) while walking in our neighborhoods... Give a congressman a salary and time and he/she will write more laws to restrict OUR lives, even involving something as tame as flashlights.

They need to be reminded in the USA and elsewhere, THEY WORK FOR US, since we pay their salaries.

Sorry about the rant, but one thing leads to another.

-hak
 

InfidelCastro

Banned
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
2,266
Location
USA
It won't be long before we've banned and taxed ourselves back into serfdom. And it'll have been "a great idea".
 

Mr Floppy

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
2,065
frogs3 said:
What do you expect from a socialist country? The government representatives have been empowered to believe that they know best.
Australia? Socialist? I wish.

In any case all the news reports are a little misleading (probaly because the minister for the environment announcing this proposal needed the attention because he has absolutely no environmental credentials).

They are not banning it, they want to impose efficiency standards on light bulbs that have to meet a certain efficiency rating. Effectively that will ban the normal household bulb but the little incandescent bulb should be ok for your torch and car headlights.

Of course your 50W halogen downlights are going to be ok too because the building industry dont want to have a good revenue earner to be taken away from them. Like all environmental policies from this government its lacking in detail and only come out when theres a bad poll result.

tussery said:
And they will suffer just as much from the over production and disposal of CFL lights and the water supply will get contaminated with even more mercury from CFL's. It's a lose lose situation unless you bring LED's to the table.
No, we wont. We'd pollute other countries instead. Dont have the people for manufacturing any way.
 
Last edited:
Top