Zach LarkinsDIM BULBS
By now the word must be out. Energy Minister Dwight Duncan has come out with a brilliant idea of how to make the world a greener place to live. He plans to outlaw incandescent light bulbs by the year 2012 and replace them all with flourescent bulbs. There are just a few snags in this idiotic scheme.
First of all, judging from the Liberals track record so far, come next election, October 2007, they are going to be booting into a time zone closer to India's than ours. An admittedly unscientific poll released the other day showed the Conservatives ahead with 62% of the decided vote and the Liberals sitting on 17%. Duncan hasn't done much research into this project as he knows he's probably headed for the unemployment line rather than back to the office and perks he enjoys today.
Second, the government has been trying to give away the flourescent's for years with no success. Give them away, mind you. For some reason, the public never really caught on to these things. Perhaps it's because they make your skin look splotchy. Maybe it's because you can't read by them. Possibly they make the colours of your room look, well, weird. Perchance they contain mercury and when they burn out, they die a colourful death of loud bangs and smoke.
Now, of course, GE is on stream with this lunatic idea. They stand to make a bunch of money. In fact, it's hard to see who's more excited by the brain drizzle, the environmentalists or the manufacturer's who stand to make about a bazillion dollars selling us this crap. The industry has already managed to get Australia, California, New Jersey, Europe, and Venezuela, to name just a few, to set about replacing upwards of five billion old bulbs with new ones by varying deadlines, ranging from 2008 to 2012. Consider also that the industry wants European Union bureaucrats to put "incentives" in place to get people to buy bulbs they don't want. Europe's lighting cartel, GE, Philips, Siemens, also has a 66% "anti-dumping" tariff in place to protect them against CFL (compact flourescent light) bulbs from China, which already controls 70% of the global market. You can bet the Chinese are rejoicing at the West's headlong rush to make the world economy safe for more of their products.
"This action alone represents a huge step forward in reducing greenhouse gas emissions," said Ontario Environment Minister Laurel Broten."It's the equivalent of taking 250,000 cars off the road." Pretty impressive until one realizes that Ontario puts 200,000 new cars on the road each year, meaning that all the light bulb gains by 2012 are likely to have been cancelled four times over by the addition of as many as a million new cars.
This whole, ill-conceived notion comes from the same man who blamed Ontarians for our last power blackout. Apparently we used too much energy and had to conserve. It seems we did. Up to the point that power generators began to lose money. So Duncan allowed them to raise their prices in order to recoup their lost profits. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
This ranks right up there with Sheryl Crowe's idea of using one sheet of toilet paper. We must all do our part. But I'd like to suggest to Sheryl something she seems to have overlooked. There is always the other side of the paper that hasn't been used yet. Maybe we could stop glo-bull warming twice as fast if we just flipped it over on our next trip to the head.
Sources: Terence Corcoran Ontario Moves To Outlaw Light Bulb National Post
S L Bradish Sheryl Solves The Problem Political Brief
First of all, judging from the Liberals track record so far, come next election, October 2007, they are going to be booting into a time zone closer to India's than ours. An admittedly unscientific poll released the other day showed the Conservatives ahead with 62% of the decided vote and the Liberals sitting on 17%. Duncan hasn't done much research into this project as he knows he's probably headed for the unemployment line rather than back to the office and perks he enjoys today.
Second, the government has been trying to give away the flourescent's for years with no success. Give them away, mind you. For some reason, the public never really caught on to these things. Perhaps it's because they make your skin look splotchy. Maybe it's because you can't read by them. Possibly they make the colours of your room look, well, weird. Perchance they contain mercury and when they burn out, they die a colourful death of loud bangs and smoke.
Now, of course, GE is on stream with this lunatic idea. They stand to make a bunch of money. In fact, it's hard to see who's more excited by the brain drizzle, the environmentalists or the manufacturer's who stand to make about a bazillion dollars selling us this crap. The industry has already managed to get Australia, California, New Jersey, Europe, and Venezuela, to name just a few, to set about replacing upwards of five billion old bulbs with new ones by varying deadlines, ranging from 2008 to 2012. Consider also that the industry wants European Union bureaucrats to put "incentives" in place to get people to buy bulbs they don't want. Europe's lighting cartel, GE, Philips, Siemens, also has a 66% "anti-dumping" tariff in place to protect them against CFL (compact flourescent light) bulbs from China, which already controls 70% of the global market. You can bet the Chinese are rejoicing at the West's headlong rush to make the world economy safe for more of their products.
"This action alone represents a huge step forward in reducing greenhouse gas emissions," said Ontario Environment Minister Laurel Broten."It's the equivalent of taking 250,000 cars off the road." Pretty impressive until one realizes that Ontario puts 200,000 new cars on the road each year, meaning that all the light bulb gains by 2012 are likely to have been cancelled four times over by the addition of as many as a million new cars.
This whole, ill-conceived notion comes from the same man who blamed Ontarians for our last power blackout. Apparently we used too much energy and had to conserve. It seems we did. Up to the point that power generators began to lose money. So Duncan allowed them to raise their prices in order to recoup their lost profits. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
This ranks right up there with Sheryl Crowe's idea of using one sheet of toilet paper. We must all do our part. But I'd like to suggest to Sheryl something she seems to have overlooked. There is always the other side of the paper that hasn't been used yet. Maybe we could stop glo-bull warming twice as fast if we just flipped it over on our next trip to the head.
Sources: Terence Corcoran Ontario Moves To Outlaw Light Bulb National Post
S L Bradish Sheryl Solves The Problem Political Brief
Mum's Word
These seem like fairly trivial reasons to not use energy saving bulbs.
I've got them in my house and I can see just fine.
Are you saying that no-one should bother in trying to reduce green house gas omissions because it's a fruitless exercise?
I don't see it as a totally fruitless exercise because it will reduce greenhouse gas omissions. It's not a total solution but it is better than nothing. The equivalent to 250,000 less cars on the road is better than none. I know you are saying but there are more cars being put on the road every year. So that's another problem.
How about we tackle one problem at a time? Light bulbs are a problem. There's a solution.
Cars are a problem. Let's find a solution for that.
Just because at present one cancels the other out doesn't mean we shouldn't bother. That's just simply being defeatist.
The Australian Prime Minister has made no secret that he would rather have a strong economy than a healthy environment.
Having a strong economy is good but if you don't give the environmental issues that we are facing today the consideration they need, then I'm sure the economy in the long run will suffer.
I was pleasantly surprised when our government introduced the law that every household will have to use energy saving bulbs.
For my family budget, it doesn't really change much. An energy bulbs does cost 5 times more than a regular bulb but it lasts 5 times longer so the cost cancels itself out. And they do save on energy so my electricity bill will be less. And I feel good about doing something good for the environment.
Youranter, do you believe that we are facing an environmental disaster or do you think this is all a beat up?
Or do you believe that are in the middle of an environmental disaster but the approach to fix it is all wrong?
Love & stuff
Mrs M
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
First off, I must say that, yes, we do have to do something to help the environment. However, I do not believe, like Al Gore, that the sky is falling. Solutions can be found without making such nonsensical bans as this one. I just received an e-mail from a friend (sorry, already deleted) that pointed out the problems some people are having in disposing flourescent bulbs. One woman broke one while installing it and now she is facing a $2000.00US bill to have the mercury removed from her child's room. Another just vacuumed it up and unknowingly spread mercury throughout her house.
The main gist of the blog was to show how our Liberal gov't is taking away our rights, one by one. Perhaps freedom of choice is a better term. They started by banning certain breeds of dogs. They moved on to banning smoking. They took eye care and chiropractic care off our insurance and did nothing to reduce wait times for things like cataract, hip or knee surgeries that are now cropping up. They promised not to raise our taxes, yet still slapped a health care 'surcharge' on us for removed what were once covered services. This was the biggest tax grab in Ontario's history, to date.
Where I work, we are surrounded by flourescent lights. They're great to work under, but colours seem unnatural and many people develop headaches after a day at the shop. Incandescents seem easier on the eyes and the head. Having said that, it seems great strides have been made with LED's. If these are the wave of the future, why bother banning incandescents? Why not wait a bit? The bulb manufacturer's will gladly sell you today's product, make a ton of money and then tell you tomorrow that you need yet a newer technology.
The glo-bull warming scare certainly is a money maker. For a select few people that is.
Mum's Word
I agree that it is always a concern if your freedom of choice is encroached.
But we're talking about light bulbs here man. C'mon
But I would hope that if removing flourescent bulbs is that dangerous that there would be some sort of advertising campaign, if not a service provided to remove them safely. Especially if it is mandatory to remove them.
A few years ago here in Australia, 'Sydney Water' (providers of water to Sydney...genius title
Sydney (and most parts of Australia) is in the middle of a major drought so water conservation is a BIG issue here right now. Anyways...
What you said about your health system is a real concern. Here in Australia our private health insurance premiums have gone up every year for the at least the past 6 years. They do 'add' services that are claimable but unfortunately I don't often have a remedial massage or see a naturopath...so yes I am offered more...but in reality I'm not going to use it. But having said all that, hopefully there are people out there that use these services...otherwise I really would feel ripped off.
Youranter, no matter which way you go on this matter, someone is going to be making money. Australia at the moment are making a lot of money from exporting coal to China.
As long as my family budget doesn't all of a sudden go through the roof then I'll be satisfied...because big businesses and governments are always going to be making a buck. Nature of the beast.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern