Stephane Dion: Dim bulb
Australia, not a signatory to Kyoto, takes concrete action under its Liberal government.
Canada, signatory to Kyoto, achieved nothing in a dozen years of its Liberal government.
But remember, the Liberal Party of Australia is centre-right, that is, conservative. Canada's Liberal Party is centre-left, that is, ineffective.
Australia is making a move to more energy efficiency:
Australia, which has yet to sign the Kyoto Protocol, has come up with a bright idea to tackle global warming, announcing yesterday plans to ban traditional lightbulbs.
By phasing out incandescent lightbulbs in favour of more fuel-efficient fluorescent bulbs, the government believes, that within a decade, it can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by four million tons a year.
"It will be illegal to sell a product that doesn't meet the energy standard," said the environment minister Malcolm Turnbull. "And, by 2010, you simply won't be able to buy incandescent lightbulbs because they won't meet the energy standard."
Makes sense. It is a solution that does not hurt the economy. Indeed, it creates a market for a new product and for further technical innovation.
But, of course, environmentalists are never happy:
Environmental groups said the initiative was a step in the right direction. However, they insisted that a more meaningful gesture would be for the government to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
More meaningful? Just how stupid do you have to be before you can qualify to be an environmentalist?
I invite these Australian moonbats to come to the Up Over from Down Under. Canada made the "meaningful gesture" of signing the Kyoto Protocal in 1998 and formally ratified it in 2002. In that time, nothing else happened. The government spent millions on studies, and not a single member of the Liberal brain trust came up with the idea of swapping out lightbulbs, which of course through away 95% of the energy put into them as useless heat.
Presumably, it was too hard for Stephane Dion, the environment minister at the time, to set the correct priorities. Instead we got the "One Tonne Challenge" commercial spots featuring comedian Rick Mercer.
Light bulbs aren't the way to meet the Kyoto targets. Nothing will do that. I doubt we need to, frankly. But incandescent lightbulbs are wasteful, and based on a 19th century design (Alexander Nikolayevich Lodygin received a patent in 1874, though the principle was first demonstrated as early as 1801). We can do better. As long as we get our priorities straight.
For some environmentalists, the priority is to sign a piece of paper instead of taking action.
For Stephane Dion, well, priorities are really, really hard. Best not to worry too much about them.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Australia Canada Liberal Party Stephane Dion Canada lightbulbs Kyoto
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
I disagree. The best way to deal with products that are harmful to the environment (such as incandescents and petrol) is to apply externalities to the products. If 1 bulb costs society $0.05 cents worth of damage, then that 5 cents should be passed onto the consumer. The extra fee will help deter them away from it, and towards a more eco friendly alternative. The fee can be used to pay for projects that help the environment, such as planting trees. This allows people the free will to choose what is worth it for them. If someone deems incandescents worthy to buy at a higher cost (because they produce a warmer light), and are therefore willing to pay for damage caused by using the said product, who are we to say no?
If we outright ban a product like this, then it will just spawn a blackmarket (see drugs for an example).
For a good example, see London's downtown driving fee.
Posted by: Jonny_eh at February 22, 2007 03:28 PM
You do know, Your Jankiness, that the main reason Canada has failed to be on Kyoto track is the Oilsands project.
What exactly do you propose we do about that messy elephant in the room?
Posted by: Not-Angry at February 22, 2007 04:04 PM
I hate flourescent bulbs. They're not as bright.
Posted by: Dennis (Second Thoughts) at February 22, 2007 04:09 PM
"More meaningful? Just how stupid do you have to be before you can qualify to be an environmentalist?"
Ahem, I guess the no name-calling policy does not extend to environmentalists.
That aside, look at the word itself: environ (to form a circle or ring around) mentalists (a mind reader, psychic, or fortune teller).
Instead of trying to paint a doomsday scenario, why don't those young able-bodied & idealistic environmentalists go to third world countries to offer their services to plant trees, dig wells, show people how to compost, how to recycle, show them how to rid their cities & villages of raw garbage, etc. A sort of Peace Corps for the environment, instead of showing up at demonstrations here dressed up like polar bears.
Another aside: I miss the preview function.
Posted by: Gabby in QC at February 22, 2007 04:13 PM
.."What exactly do you propose we do about that messy elephant in the room?"
The Libs should have answered that before signing Kyoto.
Posted by: David at February 22, 2007 04:24 PM
To top it all off, the Polar Bears are thriving.
It would be kind to say the Enviro-Cultists are spreading a myth but I prefer to
call them what they are, FLAMING LIARS AND SCAREMONGERS, they've
crossed the line into the realm of brainwashing our children.
It may take a generation to correct when the real truth is revealed.
No one denies we need to decrease pollution. It might start in places that still
dump raw sewage into our oceans on both coasts. Halifax, Montreal and
Victoria. It's not a pretty picture to imagine Dolphins and other beautiful
marine life being hit with crap form Humans who are supposed to be superior
and thus know better.
NO BLOODY EXCUSES!
Anyway, as light bulbs go, Dion does not shine TOO BRIGHTLY.
Posted by: Liz J at February 22, 2007 04:41 PM
Charge more for bulbs to stop people from buying them? Just like cigarettes? Just another useless tax that would be.
Posted by: Jon at February 22, 2007 05:25 PM
Low hanging fruit, people. We could work for decades on the oil sands and still not make much progress. But we can tackle some easy problems, with little downside to the economy, and make some progress. Eventually you run out of low hanging fruit, of course. But to go the other direction is to invite paralysis, and the job doesn't get done, even a little bit.
Posted by: Steve Janke at February 22, 2007 06:04 PM
Why does every environmentalist bash the oilsands? Unless you walk everywhere and live in cold and darkness you are supporting the oilsands in one way or another (oh yeah and when you are sleeping in the cold, you better not be wearing any of those polyester fibres either).
When you put that nozzle in your gas tank, you don't get to choose what comes from the oilsands and what does not even if you are putting that nozzle in your Prius or Smart Car.
If everyone who claims to support Kyoto would live without the 'fruits' of the oilsands, then we would have no problem meeting Kyoto. The problem is that people are willing to talk the talk, but not willing to walk the walk.
Posted by: greg at February 23, 2007 01:39 AM
Steve:
What about the environmental concerns over the "dead" lmini-florescents, which have mercury in the. They are hazardous waste which in my community means they go into the landfill.
Posted by: Fergy at February 23, 2007 12:37 PM
sorry for the bad post but your comment box is wonky.
Posted by: Fergy at February 23, 2007 12:38 PM
Hey Not_Angry,
How is it possible to blame the Oilsands projects as the "main reason" for failure to meet Kyoto?
The oilsands are currently responsible for producing 34 MT of CO2 per annum, (growing yes) but as out total output is 550-600MT, this amounts to only 6% of emissions and we're over the targets by more than 30%.
Posted by: Mikey at February 23, 2007 11:38 PM
Er - I used the target rather than the current emissions level - emissions are 760MT - so oilsands production is 34/760 4.5%.
Posted by: Mikey at February 23, 2007 11:46 PM
"the idea of swapping out lightbulbs, which of course through away 95% of the energy put into them as useless heat."
Ok, I'll protest this one. My house is electrically heated so I run my lightbulbs for free since the heat they create reduces the amount of heat my forced air electric furnace must produce. Even better, the heat from lightbulbs tends to be in the rooms I'm in (as opposed to the furnace that heats the whole house at once.)
I do have lots of lights on timers, and each of those are CFbulbs since they'll come on even when I'm not home. Again, though, the amount of heat they produce reduces my furnace heating requirements.
The only time this is not true is in the summer. But then, we hardly use electric lights at all, since the days are longer.
And while CFbulbs may use less energy, why are they overpackaged in plastic. Not just around the bulb but huge packaging that creates wasted space in the shipping cartons. It seems to me that regular lightbulbs are much more environmentally friendly in their packaging and since they are lighter, will cost much less to ship to market.
I'd like to see full disclosure on all the energy that goes into a CFbulb compared to a regular light bulb. I'm sure the savings are not as great as they say.
Posted by: CanadianKate at February 24, 2007 07:44 PM
The biggest problem with the Oilsands is they are located in the West.
We all know that is NOT Liberal territory. Now if it were located in say,
Queeeebec, or even Ontariareeeo, there would be no holds barred.
No questions of pollution either, it would be all about the Ecomomy stupid.
Those yippy little terriors called Dippers would be yipping away of course, to
deaf ears. There would be no Heros called Gore or Suzuki, they'd be scorned.
Posted by: Liz J at February 25, 2007 07:28 PM
I agree with Dennis- fluorescent light is NOT friendly to human eyes, but if eyestrain is your thing, go for it. I also agree with CanadianKate that the packaging for these new bulbs is incredibly wasteful.
Steve, I'd say bravo to the Aussies if their initiative was voluntary and not simply the iron fist of Big Brother with yet another prohibition on human activity. Cripes, if there was a law written and enforced every time someone said "there ought to be a law", or "they should just ban xxx", we'd all be in bloody jail.
Posted by: Larry at February 28, 2007 05:51 PM
 
|
|
