NDP wants to ban the incandescent light bulb
An NDP MP is putting forward a bill to phase out incandescent light bulbs.
Bravo!
A Private Members’ Bill that would effectively phase out the sale and use of incandescent bulbs is being drafted by NDP MP Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre).
Reaction is remarkably similar. Consider that Australia has made the same move ahead of Canada.
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.
This one simple act by the NDP will do more to reduce GHG emissions in this country than the Liberals’ 13 years of inaction did or the Conservatives have over the past year. I won’t be surprised though, if this bill faces fierce opposition from the global warming ditherers.
Actually, this "ditherer" thinks it's a great idea. Not that I think it'll affect the climate -- that's absurd. But lightbulbs are a 19th century technology that wastes over 90% of the energy put into them.
As an engineer, I abhor waste and inefficiency. It smacks of inelegance.
I don't need apocalyptic fantasies of the eco-warming-jihadists to appreciate that.
Recall what I said about the Australian move:
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.
It ought to be mentioned that the Tories did not suggest this idea either. But let's state the obvious. When the NDP offers this move up, the roar of approval from the greenies is deafening. If a Conservative had suggested it, the mocking ridicule of how this token move is the piddling best that Canadians could hope for would have drowned out any reasonable commentary. Sometimes the messenger really matters.
Nice to know that there are smarts across the floor. That bodes well for measured and constructive debate in this country. I hope the Tories come on board with this one.
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
NDP New Democratic Party Conservative Party Liberal Party Canada Australia light bulb Kyoto climate global warming Paul Dewar
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Whoever puts togeter a LED cluster that screws into a standard light bulb socket is going to make a mint.
Posted by: Ed Minchau at March 9, 2007 08:54 PM
I like the idea - although I have heard concerns about the mercury contained in CFLs... from what I've read it may be offset by the fact that mercury is used in the production of Incandescents...
Of course, I've been slowly switching to CFLs anyway...
Posted by: Jordan Alcock at March 9, 2007 08:58 PM
I heard about the mercury problem as well. It is significant. And mercury is far more damaging to life on the planet than water vapour and the carbon dioxide we all emit from our own bodies.
Maybe there is a safer replacement for the incandescant bulbs that does not contain mercury AND whatever gas that is in a fluorescent bulb which I am sure can't be good for us either.
Posted by: Lorraine at March 9, 2007 09:12 PM
The gases in a fluorescent bulb are noble gases, and my understanding is that they have never been identified as dangerous by even the most dedicated tree-hugger. As for mercury, it can be recovered and recycled. The energy wasted by an incandescent bulb cannot.
Posted by: Steve Janke at March 9, 2007 09:25 PM
Yes!!! But why stop at light bulbs. If we really love efficiency we should pass laws restricting the size of people's houses, force them out of private cars, ban all wasteful and unhealthy foods, confiscate all jewellery, televisions in excess of 24", and restrict clothing to something sensible.
That way no one on the left can criticize us for making piddling, token moves. Because if a little bit of state intervention is good, a lot of it must be really great.
Posted by: at March 9, 2007 09:52 PM
Actually there is a LED cluster that can screw into a socket but it is large and costs ~$400can
Posted by: ArthurFach at March 9, 2007 09:57 PM
In a country where the heating season is darned near 330 of 365 days of every year; how can anyone call incandescent lightbulbs a waste?
Certainly the lumens out for the amperage in is awful, however the balance is heat, pure 100% efficient heat.
Perhaps! just perhaps, my 60 watt lightbulb is saving me a few GJ's of natural gas over time.
Now... the real issue is that converting to compact flourescenets may mean perhaps they won't need to build another coal fired generating station to supply my other 60watt bulb... Instead we can let the CHINESE and INDIANS do it...
By the way... Compact flourescents steal the show in my dining room chandelier... Who needs the crystals anymore
Posted by: Jim at March 9, 2007 10:28 PM
Sorry guys but I refuse to join in the group-think here. If the Government wants to BAN something that is currently in wide usage,and is used for a mandatory task, then it can darn well PAY ME for the conversion costs required.
I should not be compelled to spend my assets to fulfill a Government Mandate. That is not part of my 'social contract'.
I use dimmers, turn off all unnecessary lights, keep my house COOL in Winter, and drive very rarely. I am not the problem. Nor are the incandescent lights I use. If you want us to use replacement technology then price the things on an equivalent basis. And I don't care about the 'longer' life argument either. That is a 'theoretical' factoid as opposed to a 'real 'factoid which is the purchase cost of the asset. Like buying 'concentrated' cleaner instead of the cheap stuff. No-one ever saves by doing that. Too much math involved.
I can buy 4 bulbs for $1.00 which last a VERY LONG TIME in my applications. I should no be FORCED to buy 4 bulbs for $10.00 and hope desperately that they last a VERY,VERY,VERY,VERY,VERY,VERY LONG TIME.
You want to force compliance then price them so that everyone can reasonably afford them. Otherwise butt out of my life. Conversely, they should just ban everything that annoys them. Starting with ALL Private Vehicles. Now that ban would make a WORLD OF Difference in the carbon footprint.
Once this nasty little game starts where do you think it will end?
No place good, I hazard.
Posted by: dougf at March 9, 2007 10:37 PM
But the real question is this, what kind of lightbulb comes on in Jack Layton's little pinhead every time he comes up with another really ineffective, meaningless idea for all of the chickens in Chicken Little's barnyard to fall all over themselves with. By the way, Mars is warming up just like the earth. Wonder what kind of light bulbs the martians use?
Posted by: RM at March 9, 2007 11:21 PM
Argg.. I hate incadescent light bulbs, they make me feel gross and clamouring for real sunlight. Can't we just strongly encourage people to buy them (subsidies on them, funded from "sin taxes" on regular hot light bulbs) so we don't have to actually BAN them? An old school Reform-Conservative would never think it's a good idea to BAN something and restrict individual liberties and choice.
Posted by: Meany at March 10, 2007 12:24 AM
You can buy the the small ones at the dollar store now for a buck.I've been slowly replacing my old ones as they go out
its an easy way to cut your electicity costs.
As for an outright ban I'm not qiute convinced but i think incentives to change might be the answer.
Posted by: dave at March 10, 2007 03:03 AM
Hey,I prefer my incandesant bulbs and like dougf @ 10:37 PM,I use dimmers etc.I never have a hydro bill over 50 bucks.
I've used my diesel pickup twice this winter and consider my ecological footprint to be very reasonable.
Want some better ideas? Try double shifting office buildings or schools for one :lots of heated down time in those babies.
Or what about all those open-fronted refridgerator convenience display cases at your local friendly supermarket
(about a gadzillion of them spewing frost across the country)
Or probably the biggest offender of all,the 45minute to one hour urban commute twice a day to and from work....NO,NO not my car PLEASE!!
My thoghts on the subject?...tell Layton et al that if they really want to do something useful for the environment then stay home and teleconference more as the technology is there and its far less polluting.
Just don't take away my choices(incandesant lightbulbs) when the replacement is about as illuminating as two candles and a shade of ghostly green too boot!
Posted by: Simon at March 10, 2007 05:32 AM
The light spectrum on flourescent sucks. It's okay for an emotionally cold environment like an office, but I far prefer the halogen spectrum for a living area. The recent flourescents are a mild improvement, but forcing flourescent is like forcing people to wear polyester instead of cotton. Energy efficiency might be the overarching prioirty for engineers and econuts, but others of us have an aesthetic dimension to our lives.
Posted by: murray at March 10, 2007 06:19 AM
Yes Halogen or led is the way to go . flourescent sucks.
Halogen produces light very close to the sun's spectrum AND a dimmer works with them. (low voltage halogen)
Led's are super cheap to operate.
Ed is onto something ( led cluster for incandescant socket)
The challenge is whether to make a small step down transformer for each bulb OR create home light circuits with a built in 12 volt supply instead of the 120 volt currently used.
There are a few "bright bulbs " in the NDP.
At least its a practical solution worth considering.
Posted by: banjotom at March 10, 2007 07:09 AM
Some people just do not think --Have you tried turning on one of these fancy new bulbs at 20 below --Just think of all the heat that will be wasted to keep our shops heat so we can turn on the lights. During the heating season it is not a waste of energy --it just reduces your need for other heat source--I use the regular bulb to heat my pump house--a problem you city folks do not have --but then again many in the city have no clue what go on in the country. If you want to save energy ban all the MPs from flying home ever weekend.
Posted by: Les at March 10, 2007 07:10 AM
Its a rare movie that comes out of Hollywood(specifically) that doesn't have :
a) someone getting gunned.
b)something being blown to smithereens
c)a car exploding or burning up in a ball of flames
d)high speed car chases/heicopters/planes etc.
All that excitement leaves just too much of a carbon footprint for an ecologically savvy industry such as Hollywood;which has been known to give out carbon credits with awards so that even the most "in" actors can feel less anguish and guilt.
Just by a few carbon credits from Honest Al(Gore) and take off in your private jet for a photo-op halfway around the globe.
Posted by: Simon at March 10, 2007 07:59 AM
Put me in the "don't ban it, just tax it" camp. Change the economics of the situation and let Canadians work out for themselves whether they should switch all their lights to CFL, just some of them, or none of them. An outright ban is just statist crap.
And I say this as an engineer myself. An electrical one to boot.
Posted by: Ian in NS at March 10, 2007 09:36 AM
I can understand the dippers aversion to light bulbs....they envy the ability of a nation to turn on a light whenever they want when it has been over 3 decades since a light bulb was turned on in the Dipper public policy rooms.....now they claim groping in the dark is Kyoto-friendly act. ;-)
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at March 10, 2007 09:39 AM
ArthurFach, do you happen to have a website for that product? I *know* that I can come up with an LED cluster that fits into a regular light socket, for a lot cheaper than that, and whomever makes the bulbs you're talking about would be my target market.
Posted by: Ed Minchau at March 10, 2007 11:56 AM
To hell with the Dippers and the light bulbs. I have no bloody
intention of changing bulbs, if forced it will be kicking and
screaming. There have to other more pressing things in the
world for us to be concerned about.
If Jack and the crew want to have a party and see how many of
those silly bulbs they can shove where the sun doesn't shine
they are welcome.
Florescent lighting makes everyone look like they've just been
to the embalmer.
Posted by: Liz J at March 10, 2007 02:17 PM
As mentioned earlier by Les, fluorescent bulbs simply do not work well, or not at all, in below freezing temperatures. Winter in Canada would become a very dark time if incandescent bulbs were banned.
Halogen bulbs have been mentioned as an alternative in several previous posts. This particular alternative would not be available if incandescent bulbs were banned. Halogens are a form of incandescent bulb, just with a different gas inside that reduces filliment erosion and allows higher operating temperatures. http://members.misty.com/don/bulb1.html#hb
In fact most outdoor and street lights, metal halide, mercury vapour and so on are all types of incandescent bulbs.
I wonder what would happen if I replaced the incandescent bulb in my oven or refridgerator with one of the alternatives. Everything from flashlights to the tail lights on most cars are incandescent.
So what exactly are you asking for Jack, a new dark age?
Posted by: fred at March 10, 2007 03:59 PM
Encourage people to see the video “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.
Here is an easy URL to remember to see the program. Pass it along to friends and family.
http://gorelied.notlong.com
Posted by: Sean at March 10, 2007 10:46 PM
All the "don't ban it, tax it" idea will do is give Big Brother another means of digging into peoples' pockets, because that won't stop the use of flourescent bulbs. And if there's anything government doesn't need, it's ways to inflict new and larger taxes on those who can afford them the least.
Global warming is all about the money, honey - nothing more. How many millions have changed hands already as a result of it, and how many billions are destined to change countries?
Posted by: Conrad at March 11, 2007 08:46 AM
Global Warming Swindle is a must see.
The Global Warming scam is a huge industry, it may not pollute
the air directly but it sure will pollute the minds of the vulnerable
and there are many who don't have the resources to get the
information and decide which is truth and which is damned lies.
Like the Snake Oil Salesmen, that is who they play on, as well those
not paying attention to what is going on around them, aka, not
responsible citizens.
Posted by: Liz J at March 11, 2007 03:34 PM
I thought 'energy' issues were a provincial responsibility?
Is it possible we could 'ban' the NDP?
Posted by: missing link at March 11, 2007 09:38 PM
WOW! Is THIS what we pay politicians our hard-earned tax dollars to come up with?!? My 6 year old has more useful ideas than that!
Posted by: at March 11, 2007 11:40 PM
It's ideas like this that keep the NDP is in the Opposition....
Posted by: Proud Albertan at March 11, 2007 11:43 PM
There is another issue with an outright ban - some light fixtures simply cannot use CFL's. I have switched more than half of the lights in my home to use CFLs, but some applications like ceiling fans just don't work (I've found the vibration kills them pretty quick in the one where the CFL can physically fit) and in others they use a different bulb style which makes the use of CFLs physically impossible.
If incandescents were banned, I'd probably have to replace at least 4 light fixtures / ceiling fans (assuming halogen lights would be okay, otherwise the number goes up to 6).
Posted by: Denis at March 12, 2007 10:47 AM
I'm not averse to the idea of government intervention in and of itself, and the efficiency (in terms of initial investment vs. life-of-use return) of CFLs beats incandescents in just about every application you could ask for. (That incandescents waste 95% of their emission energy in the infrared does not make them a viable replacement for other heat sources -- try cooking a meal or heating bath water over an incandescent bulb.)
That said, one of the questions that always has to be asked about any proposed government interference in the market is, will the benefits justify the total practical cost of execution?
If you want to enforce a ban on incandescents, you're looking at possible reimbursement costs (especially for fixtures and systems not built to use CFLs that will have to be replaced), payment for the officials charged with carrying this out, processing time wages for anybody slapped with an offense (which will probably amount to ridiculously high numbers), the tremendous incentives poured into either beefing up CFL manufacture or import to meet the mandated requirements, and over and above all that the problem that the vast majority of such usage is in private residence and therefore reasonably immune from prosecution under unreasonable search and seizure laws? (Not to mention the potential for abuse if someone finds a loophole on this -- "I had reasonable suspicion the defendant was using an illegal incandescent, and thus had grounds to enter his home without a warrant, Your Honour"?)
Nobody had to outlaw candles or horse-drawn buggies when they were superseded. Once the technology becomes truly superior, the process will happen on its own. The only reason to suggest government intervention is necessary would be if you think that process will not, unaided, happen quickly enough before (insert disastrous consequence of choice here). I'm not a physicist, economist or climatologist, but it does seem highly unlikely to me that even the considerable energy savings a theoretical total incandescent-to-CFL switch would produce would all by itself constitute such a magic bullet.
Posted by: Stephen J. at March 12, 2007 02:02 PM
Steve J said "try cooking a meal or heating bath water over an incandescent bulb."
just think Easy Bake Oven
(yup, 3AM and a few silly pops :-)
Posted by: fred at March 13, 2007 02:01 AM
In a warm climate, an aggressive program to encourage folks to convert to compact fluorescents might make sense (although even there, banning would be at the extreme end of aggressive). In this country, for much of the year, the reduced heat production of the fluorescents must be made up by more heat from the home`s primary heating source, typically natural gas. Compact fluorescents have their uses: outdoor applications, or in unheated spaces, or summer only applications.
Indoors, there are also the issues of fixture incompatibility and esthetics.
No, this is another moonbat idea from Canada`s natural socialist party and its WackytabbackyJacky leader.
Posted by: felis corpulentis at March 14, 2007 09:52 PM
hello
Posted by: michael@gmail.com at May 6, 2007 02:01 AM
 
|
|
