Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Australia agrees with my incandescent bulb idea

I blogged about the possibility of banning incandescent light bulbs back in September in the blog entry 'Time to Ban Incandescent Light Bulbs?'. On that note, Australia announced today that it would ban incandescent light bulbs in a bid to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

With this announcement, incandescent light bulbs would be phased out within three years and replaced by compact fluorescent lighting. 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.

Australia is not the only place in the world resorting to these measures. 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. Even 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.

This might seem like a small thing to do, but every bit helps. Hopefully Canada will follow suit and phase out incandescent light bulbs as soon as possible.

2 comments:

Wayne said...

But it makes more sense to have incandescent bulbs in Canada since much of the "wasted" energy is heat and we can use the heat here in the Great White North whereas that just requires more AC in Oz.

Adrien said...

Actually dude not everyone in Oz agrees with the plan to ban lightbulbs as you can see if you check out the following stoush:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2566#comment-20267

Me myself, I agree that we have to cut down on our power use but I'm not certain eliminating the light bulb is a good reason.

It makes it easier for fluros to sell their wares. Right now they're the only main alternative and they're expensive to buy (save money in the long run true) and unpleasant. If you cut out the competition you remove the incentive for them to make their products chaper and more user friendly.

Also forcing people to pay more for less pleasant life for the environment will create resentment. I think it'd be much more effective if people bought sustainably friendly products because they wanted to.

Of course the ecology's more important than choice but anyway.