Like a scene out of Seinfeld's "Sponge-Worthy" episode (Click to See Urban Dictionary Definition), people in the European Union are hoarding standard incandescent light bulbs. I'll even bet some have closets filled with them like Elaine's sponges in that Seinfeld show.
You see, as of today, people in the countries of the European Union are unable to buy real light bulbs (Click to See Full Story: "Hoarding energy-guzzling bulbs ahead of EU ban").
Instead, they'll have to buy those curlycue bulbs (CFL's or Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs) that are slow to warm up and that require a hazmat crew for clean up after you break one of them. That's because they all contain not-so-environmentally-friendly mercury.
Because most people are throwing those used compact fluorescent bulbs into the trash and aren't properly disposing of them, I suspect the next big disaster to hit our planet will be our ground water being completely contaminated from all the mercury contained in all those planet-saving bulbs. Will we ever learn!
By the way: If you do plan to go to Europe in the years to come... Don't drink the water! I'm sure that by the year 2030, the officials of the European Union will advise everyone to restrict their water intake to one glass per week. The elderly, children, and pregnant women will be told to avoid water completely. Just kidding...I hope!
One last thing... You can dispose of CFL's by taking those used bulbs to Home Depot and placing them in the plastic bags and bins that are provided for their proper disposal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Yes George,
and here's more about the strange -and unpublicised EU and industrial politics that went on before the ban took place:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings that's good for them - no point in banning an impopular product!
If new LED lights -or improved CFLs- are good,
people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn't mean that more energy using radio tubes were banned... they were bought less anyway.
Supposed savings don't actually hold up, for many reasons:
(http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards
about brightness, lifespan, power factor, lifecycle, heat effect of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research)
Effect on Electricity Bills
If energy use does indeed fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans,
electricity companies make less money,
and they’ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate
(not least in USA where power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition)
Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise...
Energy?
There is no shortage of energy.
People -not politicians – pay for energy use, and if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products anyway – no need to legislate for it.
Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.
A direct way to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2):
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
The Taxation alternative
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
It's just about energy consumption amounts.
Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce consumption would therefore make much more sense, also since governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
A few pounds/euros/dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
However, taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply preferable to bans for all concerned.
Maybe the rising controversy of it will influence American and Canadian debate?
Post a Comment