Australia’s Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull MP, today announced the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs.
He said, “A normal light bulb is too hot to hold – that heat is wasted and globally represents millions of tonnes of CO2 that needn’t have been emitted into the atmosphere if we had used more efficient forms of lighting.”
“These more efficient lights, such as the compact fluorescent light bulb, use around 20 per cent of the electricity to produce the same amount of light.”
“A compact fluorescent light bulb can last between 4 and 10 times longer than the average incandescent light bulb, which can lead to major savings in household energy costs.”
So why not just run some advertisements? Why ban the old technology?
According to the media release the banning will save on average 800,000 tonnes of carbon emissions per year during the 2008-2012 period. Given annual emissions are predicted to be about 603 million tonnes each year for this period then we are looking at a saving of 0.13 percent of total annual emissons.
Other abatement measures are predicted to save a total of 35.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
from http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/projections/pubs/stationaryenergy2006.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
How much is the cost of disposal of all those required fluorescents going to be? They contain mercury and I think are cosidered hazardous waste.
It’s just a bit of a smokescreen in an election year. We need to do much more.
we better stock up then on the old bulbs,the compact flouros don’t work too well on dimmer switches.
‘How much is the cost of disposal of all those required fluorescents going to be?’ – Bob K
The same as it is currently when they go ‘pop’ after six weeks………
I have a problem with this proposal because:
A stack of halogen downlights is the current popular form of lighting. Banning incandescents may result in lots of people sticking in halogen downlights instead – which would be worse for energy (100W incadenscent is lower watts than 4x50W halgen downlights)
So its a very wobbly policy unless they also ban halogen downlights, which i doubt they will have the gumption to do.
That’s what happens when you try and substitute itty bitty bits of policy fluff to appease voters while avoiding the serious measure in highest regard (emissions trading). This is punters paying directly for the perceived need to protect coal and aluminium from emissions trading.
Poor old Malcolm T. I thought he was a doer. But now that he has some responsibility, he has run smack bang into the rest of the party and has to do what he’s told, which means media releases, not good policy.
I also think their 800,000 tonnes figure needs some scrutiny. So many people already have either compact fluoros or else halogen downlights, or were already planning on getting one of the above, that i’m not sure banning incandescents will greatly alter what is already happening in the lighting market. And if you live in Sydney, you probably already have a drawer-full of compact fluorescents from free train station handouts.
Even 35 million tonnes CO2 is piddly. It is only 10 million tonnes of carbon or 20 million tonnes of hardwood.
There is more than 6 million hectares of national park in NSW alone, of which only a small portion is old growth. It is nearly all older regrowth that has ceased growing due to excess competition from too many stems.
When subject to a 50% partial harvest, these forests will regain the harvested volume in about 20 years. And as we now know that even newsprint will last in a landfill for 50 or more years, the emissions will be delayed for longer than it takes the forest to replace it.
These forests are also on the most productive sites with gross wood volumes in excess of 200m3/ha. So a 50% harvest would allow 600 million tonnes of wood, 300 million tonnes of carbon, or 1,080 million tonnes CO2 to be sequestered over 20 years, or 54 million a year from NSW parks alone.
We have 150 million ha of open woodland that only needs fertiliser and thinning to add another 1 tonne of wood, 0.5 tonnes of carbon or 1.8 tonnes of CO2/ha each year. That is 270 million tonnes CO2 each year.
But the fact that the green movement will not even contemplate these options is all the evidence one needs to conclude that they know there is not really a carbon crisis. If there really was a carbon crisis they would be all over us like a rash.
Any similarity between the fictional characters portrayed here and the living (or dead) is purely coincidental and further, the opinions expressed herein do not represent the opinions of the site host …
Humphrey … HUMPHREY! Can you come … Oh you’re here. Look we have a problem. What’s your take on this poll?
Ah, the departmental consensus is that this recent census is a nothing more than the manifestation of the public consensus that believes that the media consensus with respect to the scientific consensus … is right.
Eh? Never mind. Look Humphrey, the little man in the big room is scared that when it’s released tomorrow, the K-Rodd will look as he has the upper hand. And he wants something done immediately.
Something done? I’ll immediately set up an interdepartmental inquiry that…
No Humphrey – I want SOMETHING done about the environment – you know like we did with the water thing. After all there’s a moral principle involved!
Are you sure Minister? After all when there’s four billion dollars of tax revenue at stake, we have to consider very seriously how far we are entitled to indulge ourselves in the rather selfish luxury of pursuing moral principles.
Yes, yes, yes. What can we do?
Well, there’s one thing we can do… I just happened to notice this white paper that passed across my desk this morning…
Gimme that… Hmmm, CFL what’s that… Oh I see… Good good. Yes! This is good Humphrey… How many power-stations will we be able to mothball?
Mothball? Umm… You want to know exactly how many Minister?
Yes – round numbers is good…
Umm… none.
What – NONE? Look were’re reducing the emissions by 4 MILLIYUN tones – we’ve got to be able to shut down a couple! Then we actually will be doing something!
Minister, it’s about baseload, and I’m sure that if you want the exact numbers I can start an interdepartmental inquiry…
No, no, no – we don’t have the time. Can’t we just shut down one or two and kind off increase the output in a couple of others?
Minister, you must be aware that the Labor/Union Knowledge Examiners will be all over this immediately… And LUKE will see through it straight away.
You’re right – but I have to be seen as doing SOMETHING real.
But Minister, you are doing something! You are reducing the emissions by 4 million tones! The MODELS don’t lie.
Is four million tones enough?
Well Minister, the beauty of this is that you can announce this number straight away, and when in the fullness of time all the local lightbulb manufacturers close down , you can announce that you have saved more!
How much?
Well Minister, I think if you look at the bottom of page 42 it says another 4 million tones.
8 million tones…Good good… Can we find another couple so that we can say we saved 10?
Minister, you can always plant a couple of trees.
Will there be any objections? I read somewhere that these new lightbulbs have mercury in them… Won’t the watermelons object to us crating landfill pollution?
Minister, this is the future you are saving after all, this is the precautionary principle in action. You know the means justify the ends and all that.
What about new technology, I heard that the future is going to be LED lights.
You do realise that they are very expensive.
How expensive?
About $70 each bulb.
What $70! I just bought a CD player for $70 and it’s got more lights on it than the Martin Place Christmas tree! The public won’t swallow this… OK we’ll do it. Besides I heard on the grapevine that K-Rodd’s involved with some sort of TV show to Ban the Bulb… This will rip the carpet right out from under him HEE HEE HEE. OK Humphrey, make it happen.
Yes Minister.
Here is what GE has to say about disposal.
“If your local waste management agency offers no other disposal options except your household garbage, place the CFL in a plastic bag and seal it before putting it in the trash. If your waste agency incinerates its garbage, you should search a wider geographic area for proper disposal options. Never send a CFL or other mercury containing product to an incinerator.”
http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/faq_compact.htm
Think about all the people you are acquainted with. What percentage of the population do you think will be ‘good citizens’ and dispose of the bulbs properly without odious penalties and of course yet another layer of bureaucracy?
I think they are banning incandescents because we will actually save money by switching over. It is a first easy option and there will be plenty more ways to save energy and money at the same time. Sometimes the big bad government just has to be cruel to be kind.
I have been looking around my own office, which was only built about 5 years ago, and supposedly to the best commercial, and environmental standards. I would bet that we could easily halve our electricity bill for lighting at the cost of lower lighting levels in some areas, some extra switches and other modifications. This would easily pay for itself considering we are a long term tenant. The trouble is that at the moment electricity is so cheap that no one worries about turning off the lights — it is someone else’s problem. We could save a lot more electricity by turning off lights than by converting everything to fluorescents.
I agree that it would be worrying if halogens are not included, but as far as I’m concerned they well and truly fit in the definition of incandescent. There are now compact fluoro’s which can be used physically in place of halogen downlights. It costs about $20 to replace the whole thing; the packaging indicates they can be switched 200,000 times! and I think they would pay for themselves even at the current price.
As for recycling problems: aren’t most councils having to go to a system, because of landfill constraints, where rubbish is taken to a transfer station where some poor guy rummages through it for such stuff before it is finally dumped? That seems to be what is happening in Canberra. I know many on this site are cynics, but surely our keenness to fill our recycling bins suggests that compact fluoros, batteries and other low volume stuff could be included in the system if it were felt necessary.
Marohasy strikes out again:
“The simple use of current technology could have a dramatic impact on global warming, if only we would adopt it. The low-energy light bulb and other efficient lighting systems could prevent a cumulative total of 16 billion tons of carbon from being added to the world’s atmosphere over the next 25 years, according to a report by the International Energy Agency.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1155236.ece
If you people ever get tired of your government micromanaging every aspect of your life, let me know and I’ll ship you some decent light bulbs with which you can actually read. I can’t imagine how people in Australia take this nonsense without a fight.
Yeah, its a problem woody. At the moment, free market & small govt advocates in Australia like the IPA are still busy trying to demonstrate that we don’t need to do anything about global warming. As a result, they are effectively excluded from the real debate taking place now of what we must actually do.
The vacuum is filled by proposals like this light bulb one. Such proposals get accepted in Australia because it is more politically acceptable to foist a policy directly on just the punters, than it is to implement a fairer, market based policy across everyone (including the big industry polluters).
Eventually, the IPA and other free market proponents will catch up with debate, and then we might get some better and more comprehensive market based actions due to the greater advocacy for such measures, and less green-group-concocted piecemeal measures like banning incandescents.
Cmon Alan Moran, Cmon Jennifer, here is an idea for you: the IPA should suggest that all energy efficiency regulation of the building industry, all renewable energy subsidies, all clean coal research funding, and other itty bitty policies ranging from light bulbs to cattle vaccines to controls on new coal mines etc be replaced with a single, national emissions trading scheme.
Surely this is more efficient, better for markets, easier to understand, provides greater certainty and involves simpler regulation?
—-
NB. These comments are about the IPA broadly, not Jennifer in particular. I realise that Jennifer writes here independently.
Over the past two years, I’ve gradually replaced all incandescent bulbs in my house with compact fluorescents–all except those few I prefer to be on dimmers.
I did this voluntarily, because they are cheaper to run and last a good deal longer. Thus far I have had only one burn out, two weeks after installation. Obviously defective. The rest are fine.
They also run cooler, which is a major advantage. Many light fixtures are limited to 60 watt incandescents, because higher wattages create more heat than the fixture can withstand. With a compact fluorescent, it’s possible to put the equivalent of a 120-watt bulb in a fixture and it will still run cooler than a 60-watt incandescent.
It would be easy to argue that this experience demonstrates the wisdom of mandating the new bulbs.
I would argue that the experience demonstrates that people *voluntarily* implement more efficient technologies–which is nothing new–and that this makes legislation unnecessary.
It would also create new problems. For example, the compact bulbs create a “soft white” light. I found them nearly useless for outdoor spotlights. They are available, but current technology makes incandescent still the best option for this application. So would these become black-market items?
The captive reptile industry requires lights that give off heat, and museums and galleries want spots that provide the true colour of an object. At home I use compact flouros and they are fine, but there would have to be some exceptions made for certain businesses and industries where these are not suitable.
I replaced a lot of bulbs in my house with compact fluorescents, and my wife promptly changed them all back because she didn’t like the color or brightness of what I installed. (They were supposed to give off the same light, but they clearly didn’t.) If my goverment wanted us to change, I’d tell them to deal with my wife, and they would be, oh, so sorry. In the meantime, does anyone need a supply of only slightly used flourescent bulbs?
My experience of compact fluorescent light bulb is that as they age they take longer and longer to reach their peak brightness after being turned on. Indeed, it is this effect rather than sudden failure, that has made me replace them where I use them. If I had to use them, for example, in the bathroom, I’d probably turn them on when it gets dark, and leave them on until I went to bed. I dare say the habit of leaving lights on would spread to other rooms. The result would no doubt be greater energy consumption.
Standard compact fluorescent light bulbs cannot be used with dimmer switches. Quite a few switches in my house are of this type (not that I use that feature), so I’d either have to get the switches replaced (at considerable expense) or use special (and presumably more expensive) compact fluorescent bulbs.
These bulbs are not the plug-compatible replacement for incandescent bulbs that the government is making out.
You have to be careful about what they call “daylight” compact fluorescents (CFs). They are nasty, garish, and do not display colors correctly. Certainly not like daylight does.
I’ve noticed that the CFs don’t come on immediately. This is especially true this winter in the northern hemisphere–recently it’s been down to -14F repeatedly and I have eight CFs out there. It takes a while for them to “warm up.” Maybe three eyeblinks, as opposed to the ones in the house, which are *nearly* instant.
I’d still rather pay only 1/4 of what it would normally cost for the light.
The government’s policy will plunge me into darkness. I get awful headaches from flourescent lighting and suffer them whenever I venture to a place that is lit by them. My home is my salvation as I do not have to endure them, but it seems that in order to avoid these flourescent induced headaches in the future, I will have to forgo lighting in my home completely. Unfortunately my eyesight is not good enough to be able to read by candlelight. For me, it will mean a return to the old ways before the lightbulb was introduced and is more evidence of the government’s failure to look at the whole picture. How about some basic advertising urging people to turn OFF lights that are not actually being used? How many people have their houses lit up – lights on in every room, even when there is nobody in that room? In my home, we only the bare minimum of lights on, if you leave a room, you switch the light off.
Unfortunately the old concept of ‘one size fits all’ just doesn’t exist. I for one will now be adding lightbulbs to my weekly shopping list, in order that I can have a good stock ready for when the oppressive policy comes into effect.
Of course, I guess that will only work if the government doesn’t engage a ‘lightbulb police force’ to inspect everyone’s home to ensure the correct lighting is being used.
Jane
Well being a goodie goodie I switched over – much better light, good longevity, power bill is down. Couldn’t be happier. Lead free petrol was a bit annoying intially – but we adapted – so get over it and stop whinging. I don’t want my tax dollars wasted on an unnecessary bloody big new power station.
Anyway it’s all a diversion – look a rabbit – let’s chase it.
I believe the guvmint is also introducing unprocessed toilet paper which has the texture of sandpaper for mandated use in all Labor electorates.
Yes Woody – no lead, no guns, bright lights and sore butts. Defines John Howard’s new Australia. Have a cafe latte and chill out.
Why stop at mandating what sort of light globes we are permitted to have? Those heating globes in bathroom light arrays surely use a huge amount of power. A brisk rub with a towel will do the same thing, and may burn a few calories (that will help fight the obesity epidemic too!).
And do we really need hot water? Electric hot water services use about 35% of household power. Ban them and that will stop millions more tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere. As a side benefit, everyone will have (much) shorter showers. Think how far that will go towards Saving the Murray! Maybe the governments could use the “Save the Murray” levy on our water bills to fix up the hospital and school systems.
Everyone has drinkable water piped into their house these days, so why do we need to buy drinks in bottles and cans? Ban the sale of plastic bottles and aluminium cans, and prevent millions more tons of carbon from choking the planet. It will probably fix the obesity epidemic too.
Implementing these few sensible measures will save everyone quite a bit of money, and hardly affect quality of life, might even improve it a bit. It’s hard to see how anyone who is concerned about what sort of planet we will leave to our children could object to these few simple precautions.
(sarcasm off)
If Howard continues down this policy path, I think he will make his government unelectable. Symbolic gestures that increase government control for no practical reason are the hallmarks of socialist politicians. So if it comes down to a choice between Howard, a socialist calling himself a conservative, and Rudd, who’s just a socialist, we might as well go for the genuine article.
yes, quite the piecemeal distraction from a government who’s main idea for reducing emissions is to waste taxpayer billions on building nuke stations.
and as pointed out countless times already, there are plenty of applications where compact fluoros wont work.
watch the libs helplessly attempt backflip after backflip in this election year!
Anybody else noticed the annoying buzz they make?
Who? the Libs?
I thought it was Labor that did that.
THE FOOL FOR ALL SEASONS, MALCOLM TURNBULL DOES HIS NAME PROUD. IT IS ALL A LOAD OF BULL!!
THE WATER MATTER AND THE LAMPS.
IT IS CALLED: PLAY ACTING, ALL SCRIPTED AND EDITED. ESPECIALLY USEFUL WHEN SOMETIME IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE, HE WILL COME ALONG AND SAY, IT IS TOO COSTLY TO KEEP THE SNOWY RIVER SCHEME AND THEN THE TREASONOUS POLITICIANS WILL SELL IT OFF TO FOREIGNERS OVERSEAS.
THE FOOL STILL HAS MUCH TO DO WITH GOLDMAN SACHS BANK. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU??
AND STILL THE SHEEPLE GRAZE HAPPILY ALONG.
Heya Hasbeen, sadly they all seem to be doing that at the moment!…But I meant the compact fluro’s!…maybe we just bought cheap ones….but we had to take them out cos the noise was so annoying.
Elizabeth…isnt that exactly what they all do? Thwaites and bracks are at it big time in victoria today…apparently they have a plan to give more water back as environmental flows AND ensure secure water rights for farmers. Beats me how you can do both.
Both sides of govt are equally guilty of playing the environment card. I am dissapointed in turnbull though that he has stooped to such a pathetic attempt with banning lightbulbs.
It really is worrying what ‘big brother’ is doing…and its only going to get worse if we are not very careful. Pretty soon they’ll have our speedo’s tapped and a direct fine for 3 km over the limit …all because of safety (NOT).
The only way to really control emmisions and water use is to raise the price. And that has to have a nasty effect on all of our living standards.
Which side of politics do you think is more likely to demand more control?
THERE IS NO WATER SHORTAGE ONLY A SHORTAGE OF CATCHMENTS. SHOULD HAVE BEEN THOUGHT OF 100 YRS AGO ALREADY.
WATER HAS BEEN MADE A COMMODITY AND PUT INTO BLUE TINGED BOTTLES, MUCH LIKE PERFUME BOTTLES.
HAPPILY THE SHEEPLE KEEP GRAZING ALONG.
THOSE LIGHT BULBS WITH THE HIGH PRICE SEEM TO BE TOTALLY INEFFICIENT TO GIVE PROPER LIGHT. I CAN’T READ WITH THEM ON, THAT’S FOR SURE. THEY ARE NOT IN THIS HOUSEHOLD.
IF THE FOOL FOR ALL SEASONS WANTS US TO USE THEM, HE SHALL HAVE TO PAY……
Mrs V – you will find the caps lock key on the left of your keyboard. THE LIGHTS ALSO WORK BETTER IF YOU TURN THEM ON AS WELL AS YOUR HEARING AID !
Toby just write Turnbull a letter or two if you’re really upset. Public opinion will get him to back off.
Jeez imagine if we really had to do something serious about AGW – Woody would be right in his element – enter the freedom fighters – you guys would have the guns out. It would be on.
Of course a few were going to get the guns out after Gough as sacked too. But after a few beers the rage subsided.
Will the government use their guns to shoot out your illegal lights? Maybe after they come up with an unleaded version of bullets so as to not offend people concerned with lead poisoning.
We actually had a bunch of liberals in the U.S. so overly concerned about water usage that the government limited the size of the holding tank on toilets, which forces people to often “double flush” to handle the matter and, in turn, use even more water. I still have the larger tanks in case some liberal who is full of _ _ _ _ wants to use one.
Regarding drinking water, I don’t remember the statistic, but I heard an astounding number yesterday that went something like this… Given that bottled water is popular (particularly among the “elite”), one should realize that for the cost of one bottle of water you can receive over a thousand gallons of tap water. If you want to save the globe–quit wasting plastic, quit wasting fuel for transportation, and quit polluting the air–then get your water from the tap.
No – they won’t do that. They don’t know how to shoot.
I’m confused – so here in Aussie our Liberals are the good guys, but in the US they’re the commie bad guys – is that right? Ya gotta remember Woody that everything is upside down down here.
I’m also confused – if it’s my unalienable God-given right to use as much H2O as I like, why cannot your spring water bottling neo-con business-person be discriminated against.
Woody – have you been infiltrated by liberals? Maybe even sol out? That would be the US kind of liberals not the Aussie Liberal kind. If they’re holding you under duress and making your drink Evian you can always Morse Code us for help.
Luke, I truly don’t understand the term liberal as applied to politics in your country. In the U.S., they are part of the Left and opposite of where I stand.
Regarding bottled water, I think that the market place should dictate how people spend their money with little artificial manipulation by the government. I was expressing my surprise at the high costs to move a bottle of water from Norway and other far-away places to the end users. (Heaven forbid that someone would buy a product from France.) There is a lot of fuel and pollution related to that shipping.
As my perception is that the same people who fear global warming are the same ones who favor bottled water, then it would seem that those people would forego their pleasure for the good of the Earth.
Myself? I drink the hometown Coca Cola, which is far cheaper and better tasting than French water–and, loaded with caffeine. We even use it to fill our aquariums!
Woody
In Aussie, Liberal/National Party coalition govt = right wing guys (but not as nutty as your neocons), our Labor party = middle of the road to slightly left dudes, academics, trendies and assorted wankers = Democrats.
Nothing wrong with a Coca Cola in moderation – so see we have something in common; and I was pulling your leg/taking the piss/having some fun with you.
Woody, don’t listen to Luke.
The Liberal/National Coalition is basically schizophrenic, they ban guns and light globes like true lefties, but deregulate the labour market and strike free trade agreements with other countries. They pretend to be sane and responsible.
The Labor Party is insane, it would like to corner the Green voters and the Trade Union dinosaurs, ban everything that is politically incorrect, sign Kyoto to save the planet and legislate that everyone just gets along. At the same time, it knows that voters like jobs and a strong economy, so it pretends to be schizophrenic.
The Democrats are dead, they will cease to exist after the next election.
Then there’s the Greens and Family First, which are so far apart they agree on quite a lot of issues.
Hope this helps.
Thanks to Bob.K for his link to GE:
http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/faq_compact.htm#mercury
Nothing short of a deposit legislation scheme will do.
Bob Brown was vilified for purportedly seeking to have coal exports stop within three years.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2007/1843834.htm
Malcom Turnbull’s pronouncements have the odour of Policy Lite
Paul – That’s his Democrats not our Democrats – jeez. Our Democrats are kaput for sure. Wouldn’t disagree with your description of Libs/Nats though.
Thank you, everyone, for the lessons in Australia’s political parties. I did get the distinction between your and our Democrats. People are basically the same but with different labels.
Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk radio host in the U.S., is discussing Australia’s mandating of fluorescent bulbs today. I also had to replace an indoor flood bulb in the canned ceiling light fixtures that are controlled by a dimmer switch. I guess your PM would have frowned on my choice.
One of my houses is not on the grid, using solar power with generator back up. At times of very high demand the generator is used and as this generator’s capacity is more than most applications, we need to run extra high voltage lights to ensure that the Genset does not burn out from under use. The cost of repairing a generator after it has burned out because not enough power was extracted is much more than the cost of a few light bulbs.
And the same amount of fuel is used no matter how much current is extracted. Instead of a few 500w incandescant bulbs we will now need 30 flouros. So now our mate Mal has outlawed the bulbs we use we will just have to make do with turning on a bar heater to do the same job. A real bitch in January.
Don’t you have a battery bank Ian? Can’t you use the genset at its full, rated capacity to charge the battery bank?
Having to have high power consumption lights (they are all at the same voltage) doesn’t seem like a very sensible way to ensure the longevity of your genset.
Of course there is a battery bank, Steve, but the kind of recharging gear that is needed is very high risk in a rental property. They need to be welded onto a very substantial metal bar embedded in concrete. Otherwise they tend to get reported as “stolen” about 2 months before the renters hand in their notice.
If my predominantly green voting tenants were more trustworthy there would be one in place quick smart. That is not to say that the renters do it but if friends know they are leaving then it becomes fair game. Just another day in the Pax Ecologia.
I have tried these compact fluoresant globes, and quite clearly, they are rubbish.
The light, even from “Warm White” brand name tubes is simply horrible for domestic use. The nice solid warm glow of incandesant is streets ahead. I will be stokcing up on a lifetime worth of Halogen Downlights and 25w globes for my lamps.
They take a few minutes to reach full brightness and can’t be dimmed.
The only place in my house I will ever use fluoro’s is in the garage!
Adam.
What about car globes? Because there are no replacements for them. There are some L.E.D.s are for sale but there are not recomended for use on road cars as they don’t produce enough light to be cosidered legal or safe. In short Governments love to ban things like light globes and leaded fuel but don’t like thinking things through. For example the repacment adative for lead in fuel is more toxic than the lead it self.
Amusing set of comments in this blog.
I am having trouble finding a fluoro to fit into the socket inside the electric oven, to keep the temperature down.
Hs anyone ever done a cradle to grave costing of the fluoro versus the incandescent, including the cost of production of raw materials and the cost of special disposal? Seems to me we are jumping the gun by mandating fluoros.
On bottled water, simply take the popular brand EVIAN and spell it backwards.
This is a lightweight blog to fit a lightweight subject. Where does our Constitution empower a minister to dictate which light is used in private by consenting adults?
I have been searching but I can’t find how much electricity it takes to produce one of these light bulbs. Has anyone taken this into account? Also Canada has a recycling program to remove the mercury etc under negative pressure. Again, how much electricity to do this per globe???