Posted on 02/20/2007 9:38:04 AM PST by presidio9
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.
Laughable, like the Gore toilet you will have to buy twice as many bulbs or stronger ones to get the same amount of light. Envirowackos at work.
Nothing wrong with the more efficient light bulbs. Especially if it would reduce household power usage. Tho, considering you now have to have a 1kW power supply to run your new gaming PC, it pretty much evens out.
It amazes me that John Howard would be on board with this, but maybe he senses that eventually SOME concession is going to need to be made to the nutballs. Australia is more reliant on coal than we are.
When is someone going to mention that fluorescents contain that eeeeeeeevil MERCURY?
Forget fluorescent, LEDs are the future.
Not really. Advances in LEDs and fluorescents can produce matching lumens and similar spectra -- so you get the 'warmth' of incandescents.
Technological advancements in this arena are a good thing.
Plus florescents are incapable of producing soft diffused light. Goodbye romance.
California is considering the same thing. Wouldn't it be more expedient to try to jump directly from incandescent lightbulbs to LEDs (at least legally) rather than going for the fluorescent lightbulb middle step? Are LEDs still too expensive to be a viable option?
Yep, a lot of my neighbours saved a small fortune by replacing their Christmas lights with LEDs.
I was reading somewhere that Global Warming is big on Aussies' minds. They may have a conservative govt at the moment, but for Howard to ignore this, however ridiculous, would be a bad political mistake.
I can't see a fluorescent light bulb inside an oven.
"Vayamos, los niños, and if you happen to find anything else en la casa, be sure to let Uncle Fidel know..."
Ah, assumptions by the 'smart' people about what the rest of us need. That heat, along with the heat from my oven and dishwasher, allow me to get by withOUT turning my heat on for most of this last winter. I dress warmly, and use a good comforter, and my apartment's electric bills were ALL under $40 each month this winter.
http://www.topbulb.com/find/Product_Description.asp_Q_promoid_E_118_A_intProductID_E_48367
Dimmable bulbs exist, but they are super expensive.
Makes zero sense. Australia has one of the lowest population densities on the planet. I've heard that they blame global warming for recent droughts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.