Canada To Ban Incandescent Light Bulbs By 2012

Again PM Harper is following another of his idols and personal friends PM Howard of Australia.

One would think that he would had thought it out first and improve on the idea by including a recycling program clause for fluorescent light bulbs as well since they contain mercury. It is a safe program to sell as far as the Canadian public since they already are buying them at a rate of about 3 to 1 to that of regular light bulbs even with there higher cost. If the Prime Minister and Tory Party wanted to be innovated they would have added putting money into research that would developing the LED bulb or other technology which is even way more efficient.

Now I don’t know about any one else but I think I have a average house and I surly don’t have places for 30 light bulbs which is a stat I heard quoted on TV.


---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

Why don't they ban something of real consequence, like shipping 65 percent of our oil production down to the US for a pittance of it's real value?

Or how about banning the shipment of raw logs out of the country?

Or how about making it illegal for cruise ship lines to dump their sewage tanks in BC coastal waters?

Sorry, I was heading in the direction of a rant.

Banning incandescent lights is just another smoke and mirrors trick done by a government determined to look green while not actually doing anything about it.





---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.

Banning incandecent lights is a non-starter as far as energy savings go. Less than 1% of our energy goes there. But it's a small step in the psycological direction.

People see that they can make a difference. Then they look at other ways they can make a difference. And that is what helps.

As for JensonJ's 30 bulbs - I took an informal count of my 3 bedroom place, and came up with 28, not including outdoor lights. I replaced them all with CF bulbs years ago, and still have the first $25 CF bulb I bought back in the early 90's. I use it to read by every evening, and it still works.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Although it did take an Edison to invent the lightbulb, it
doesn't take an Edison to ban them. I'd prefer to see the
banning of pretentous assholes who drive around in
Hummers and other gas guzzling egotistical penal
extensions.

You mean like premiers, ministers, and prime ministers in limos and jets?

Me too.

---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.

I agree with you. Too many vehicles on the road are not being used for their intended purpose. Hummers with 1 person, that will never take it offroad. Sky high lifted pickups that will never carry anything in the bed. 7 Passenger minivans with 1 person.

Why do they need a minivan? I can fit 6 adults in my car comfortably, and I get 9.8 l/100km on average. Why don't more people have a daily driver that meets, but not exceeds, their daily requirements? Anything else is waste.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

It's like banning the smoker rather than banning the smokestack.

It looks like the lightbulb above the head used as the idea symbol has had a
dimmer switch attatched to it by the dim and dimmer crowd.

---
"The most sustainable product is the one you never bought in the first place."
Alex Steffan

Here's the real point. The government likes to ban things, that's about all it's good at doing. With the more expensive bulbs, it will generate more revenues in from taxation, also there will be a savings in electricity so more can be sold to the US in bulk which is more profitable, the savings in electricity will be used to rubber stamp the bulbs once they are imported from some polluting slave factory in China or Mexico which will pollute and consume more energy than will ever be saved by using the bulbs. The transportation of the bulbs back to Canada will dump more CO2 into the atmosphere as well. Meanwhile a black market in incandescent bulbs will flourish, which means well need more doughnut eating police to stop the "illegal" trade of what people want. We'll also be taxed on the bulbs like we are with pop bottles to encourage recycling, of course the "deposit" will be adjusted to generate a nice profit from whatever private company is selected to manage the fund. The recycled bulbs, like with some "recycled" garbage, will go straight to a land fill where it will leach mercury, lead, and toxic gases into the environment. If the bulbs are recycled, the process will probably consume more energy and produce more pollution than is saved from using the bulbs.

Instead of yet another police state banning, how about we encourage the invention of a new bulb that people will actually *want* to buy?

rearguard:

Eloquently put! Especially the mercury getting dumped into the garbage dumps. (And leaching into the ground water!)

The REAL killer is when these light bulbs get broken in the home, the mercury winds up in the rug, and a vacuum cleaner is used to suck-up the mess AND BLOW THE MERCURY VAPOUR ALL THROUGH THE HOUSE!

Yes, I have low-energy light bulbs, but no small children. With small children I certainly would not have low-energy bulbs in any table lamps or anywhere else a child could reach them.

It seems to me that wherever governments stick their snout into technological areas, rubbish results.

H.F. Wolff

The trouble is the knee jerk reactions to the unfounded hysteria surrounding CO2 production and global warming.

CO2 is *not* a pollutant, it is in fact a very much natural and healthy to have component of our atmosphere which is used up by many different life forms! However, mercury is highly toxic and damaging to most forms of life.

If the goal is to reduce CO2 during a heightened state of hysteria for highly questionable reasons, then silly things will get done that will cause more problems than those that were intended to be solved. First and foremost the goal should be to reduce the dumping of toxins into the land, water, and air! CO2 is on the rise precisely because we're doing some very unhealthy things to our planet. CO2 production is a byproduct or symptom of a root problem, yet the solution being proposed is to mask the symptoms while doing nothing necessarily about the root cause.

From my view point, I see a lot of people with their heads screwed on backwards as they jump around worrying about a gas that keeps the world fit and healthy, while accepting solutions to a non problem that will make us sick and unhealthy.

What I see happening is absurd! Global Warming(TM) the scam of the century, next to 9/11, the bird flu pandemic, etc. No wonder we have not yet found intelligent life outside of our solar system, there isn't even any to be found right here on earth!