Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

C4LED

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
463
Location
East Coast, USA
It looks like Australia is going to follow CA's lead...

----------

Australia to ban old-style light bulbs

By ROHAN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_sc/ban_the_bulb_2

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.
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
From the link I posted, Australia will save up to 0.14% in its overall CO2 emissions if they pass the "ban the old-style light bulbs".

From this article:

Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planet:
It's not just the well-known and frequently joked-about flatulence and manure of grass-chewing cattle that's the problem, according to a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Land-use changes, especially deforestation to expand pastures and to create arable land for feed crops, is a big part. So is the use of energy to produce fertilizers, to run the slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and to pump water.

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems," Henning Steinfeld, senior author of the report, said when the FAO findings were released in November.

Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

The latter two gases are particularly troubling – even though they represent far smaller concentrations in atmosphere than CO2, which remains the main global warming culprit. But methane has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 and nitrous oxide has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.

...
Animal-rights activists and those advocating vegetarianism have been quick to pick up on the implications of the FAO report.

"Arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products," writes Noam Mohr in a report for EarthSave International.


Changing one's diet can lower greenhouse gas emissions quicker than shifts away from fossil fuel burning technologies, Mr. Mohr writes, because the turnover rate for farm animals is shorter than that for cars and power plants.

"Even if cheap, zero-emission fuel sources were available today, they would take many years to build and slowly replace the massive infrastructure our economy depends upon today," he writes. "Similarly, unlike carbon dioxide which can remain in the air for more than a century, methane cycles out of the atmosphere in just eight years, so that lower methane emissions quickly translate to cooling of the earth."

Researchers at the University of Chicago compared the global warming impact of meat eaters with that of vegetarians and found that the average American diet – including all food processing steps – results in the annual production of an extra 1.5 tons of CO2-equivalent (in the form of all greenhouse gases) compared to a no-meat diet. Researchers Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin concluded that dietary changes could make more difference than trading in a standard sedan for a more efficient hybrid car, which reduces annual CO2 emissions by roughly one ton a year.

"It doesn't have to be all the way to the extreme end of vegan," says Dr. Eshel, whose family raised beef cattle in Israel. "If you simply cut down from two burgers a week to one, you've already made a substantial difference."

If you really want to make an impact on global warming--go vegetarian...

-Bill
 

Erasmus

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
1,077
Location
Belgium
I think it is a good evolution to save some energy and the environment. But they should make a good plan for disposal of the fluorescent lamps, there's some nasty stuff inside that should not be disposed in the environment. And of course there's also the opportunity for LED lighting to grow if they ban incandescent lighting :)
 

greg_in_canada

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,146
Location
Saskatoon SK Canada
What will happen to appliance bulbs? I don't think CFs can handle a 400 degree oven or start well when inside a refridgerator or freezer.

Maybe they should just put a sin tax on incandescents and use the funds to make CFs and other energy efficient lighting tax-free.

Greg
 

2xTrinity

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
2,386
Location
California
greg_in_canada said:
What will happen to appliance bulbs? I don't think CFs can handle a 400 degree oven or start well when inside a refridgerator or freezer.

Maybe they should just put a sin tax on incandescents and use the funds to make CFs and other energy efficient lighting tax-free.

Greg
They explicitly said there would be exceptions for oven lamps and other similar devices where fluorescent would be inappropraite.

I'm generally against this sort of policy, but if they do it, they should at least at the same time mandate better quality control for CFLs. I know of several businesses that have wanted to switch to CFL, but actually found that the bulbs they put in generated interference/noise on the electrical lines. Also, there's a lot of bulbs out there with terrible longevity/lumen maintenance, extreme heat sensitivity, and overall poor quality -- the difference between good CFLs and bad ones is huge, yet short of being a lighting enthusiast like the people in this site, it's very hard to tell the difference when shopping in stores.

Would this include items such as incandescent heat lamps?
Certainly there would need to be an exception for that. If all you need to do is heat a small area, to keep food warm or to heat up people sitting in chairs, incan heatlamps are a lot more efficient than unnecessarily heating a huge space with gas heaters.
 

KROMATICS

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
563
BB said:
From the link I posted, Australia will save up to 0.14% in its overall CO2 emissions if they pass the "ban the old-style light bulbs".

From this article:

Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planet:


If you really want to make an impact on global warming--go vegetarian...

-Bill

Well I'm already a vegetarian but I would think the ever increasing human population and their polluting ways are more to blame. Of course eating less of anything would be beneficial not just animal products. Processed and packaged junk food comes to mind.
 

greg_in_canada

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,146
Location
Saskatoon SK Canada
Thanks 2xTrinity. There are also places in a house where the light is switched on and off many times per day so the CFLs will never achieve their rated life.

I alread have CFLs in all the places in my house that make sense. And dimmers on chandelier-type fixtures that can often be run dimmer than full brightness.

Greg

2xTrinity said:
They explicitly said there would be exceptions for oven lamps and other similar devices where fluorescent would be inappropraite.

I'm generally against this sort of policy, but if they do it, they should at least at the same time mandate better quality control for CFLs. I know of several businesses that have wanted to switch to CFL, but actually found that the bulbs they put in generated interference/noise on the electrical lines. Also, there's a lot of bulbs out there with terrible longevity/lumen maintenance, extreme heat sensitivity, and overall poor quality -- the difference between good CFLs and bad ones is huge, yet short of being a lighting enthusiast like the people in this site, it's very hard to tell the difference when shopping in stores.
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
I have CPFL's just about everywhere--and they have seemed to last pretty well... The only place I have had any obvious early failures is on table lamps with those really cheap/flaky rotary switches... You know--the ones where the contacts jump and you have to backup/rotate a couple times to get the right light string to turn on...

Over the last 6 months, I have been saving CPFL's to recycle (limit environmental mecury), and still only have one (maybe two) in the bin. Compared to the el-cheapo incandensents from Sylvania (would only last about 6 weeks for outdoor light sensor controlled lighting)

Overall, other than the pretty poor color of the lamps--they seem to last very well (just getting the cheap--$0.50-$1.50 per lamp with utility rebate built in from Costco). Willing to put up with poor color but a cool house (during the summer without AC--installed in my ceiling fans) and a very low electric bill.

-Bill
 

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
chevrofreak said:
I almost exclusively use CFL's in my house, but I don't think a government has a right to make decisions like this.

How about low flow toilets?
Seat belts as standard equipment?
Emissions controls required on cars?

I'd be more comfortable as well if we just simply got people to do this ...without a law compelling them to do it. However, our over dependence on fossil fuels (and nuclear too for that matter) is causing pretty significant pollution issues for everyone.

I suppose the other option is to let people buy whatever kind of appliances they want, but tax carbon contribution highly enough that most people will naturally conserve to the best extent possible.
 

chevrofreak

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
2,543
Location
Billings, Montana, USA
ikendu said:
How about low flow toilets?
Seat belts as standard equipment?
Emissions controls required on cars?

I'd be more comfortable as well if we just simply got people to do this ...without a law compelling them to do it. However, our over dependence on fossil fuels (and nuclear too for that matter) is causing pretty significant pollution issues for everyone.

I suppose the other option is to let people buy whatever kind of appliances they want, but tax carbon contribution highly enough that most people will naturally conserve to the best extent possible.

Low flow toilets were born of the silly notion that it is actually possible to "waste" water, so, no, I don't think there should be any laws regarding them.

I also think a person should be allowed to decide whether they use a seat belt or not, as long as it doesn't endanger anyone else, such as not having any passengers in the vehicle.

Emission control isn't as big of a problem today as it was when it was first introduced since it doesn't effect performance like it once did. I still don't think it should be required, but perhaps a tax incentive to the manufacturer and purchaser would be enough to make them want to have it.

I am absolutely tired of government being involved in every aspect of my life.
 

greenLED

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
13,267
Location
La Tiquicia
Smokescreen (pun intended). The amount of emissions coming from coal burning in AU is by far greater than the potential reduction in CO2 emissions coming from switching to CFL's. And, while I'm (mostly) in favor of sensible use of natural resources, I don't like Big Brother telling me what to do.
 

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
chevrofreak wrote:

Low flow toilets...I am absolutely tired of government being involved in every aspect of my life.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I was listening to an NPR piece about water policy. It was explaining that we've conserved so much water that even though we've doubled our population that the existing water supply systems were adequate to continue the supply. So... as much as I hated only being able to purchase low water flush toilets, they have helped to hugely reduce the cost for tax payers and water rate payers. Now that lower water flush toilets are required, guess what? Companies have figured out how to make good flushing toilets and still meet the low water consumption limit.

Once the industry was forced to figure out how to conserve... they did!

I'm no fan of over-regulation and I do agree it can get tiresome.

I also see plenty of cases where it was not only necessary, but highly beneficial in the end.

As far as CFBs... if we can figure out how to achieve wide spread adoption without compelling their use, then I like that better. Taxes, incentives or education are all tools we could use. We do need to use our energy more efficiently though. Since 1940, carbon in our atmosphere is 27% higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. If even just a portion of the consequences our scientists are projecting are correct, the cost to society will be huge. Couple that with pollution from fossil fuels and you've got a good case for wide spread adoption of efficiency measures.

It's not like they are outlawing light, just inefficient production of light. Using CFBs will save their citizens money for energy and also on the cost of bulbs in the long run. It doesn't seem so awful. Maybe, that's why they are doing it.
 

TorchMan

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
805
Location
Texas
When I read this and the California thread, I wonder how industry lobbying affects all this? Is it mostly a feel good measure, driven by profit?

I don't claim to have the answers or inside information. I do know that flourescent lighting gives me headaches and is hard on my eyes. I don't like the idea of big government telling me I can't use incans.

I don't use them anymore, but the most soothing light to my eyes is quartz halogen. Maybe there are already LEDs that can produce this spectrum more efficiently, or will soon.

Black market incan light bulbs? Or just no longer made?

"My uncle has a light device
That no one knows about
He says it used to be a lamp
Before the Incan Law

And on Sundays I elude the eyes
And hop the turbine freight
To far outside the wire
Where my white haired uncle waits...

Down in his barn
My uncle preserved for me an old light engine
For fifty odd years
To keep it as new has been his dearest dream

I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining bulb
A brilliant GE incan
From a better, vanished time"

Apologies to Rush (and all of you) for the bad parody! :grin2:

Who needs beef when you can have delicious, nutritious Soylent Green?
 
Top