Energy -> Energy in general
Standard light bulbs to be banned in Australia

Örjan Lundberg  [2007-02-21  06:47]   #1822 The Australian federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull proposes to ban all standard light bulbs, they shall be replaced with energy efficient alternatives. Thurnbull said: "If the whole world switches to these bulbs today, we would reduce our consumption of electricity by an amount equal to five times Australias annual consumption of electricity," The opposition leader Kevin Rudd agrees that the proposal is a good idea stating "I think its a good idea, Ive always said part of our job in Opposition is not just to oppose; its also to agree when we think the Government has come up with a good idea," --From my understanding will Australia be be the first country in the world with such a standard. Has anyone heard about such an initiavtive elsewhere? and what do you Ecoprofilers think about governments acting with restrictions and bans to improve the environment?  http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/lights-out-for-standard-bulbs-turnbull/20 Johan Erlandsson  [2007-02-21  18:07]   #1825 I cant help to think it is a bit cowardly to go for something like this instead of doing something proper like increasing carbon dioxide taxes or signing the Kyoto protocol. Are there going to be light bulb policemen? Are they going to impose bans on every single energy using item in the future? What about large LCD and Plasma TV sets that consume 250 watts? They consume about 4-5 times the energy compared to "old" CRT TV sets, about the same difference as between light bulbs and more recent alternatives. I suggest that the Australian government instead increase taxes or join an emission trading program. The market will then mitigate greenhouse gases in the most cost efficient way. Örjan Lundberg  [2007-02-21  23:53]   #1827 I agree with you Johan, the light bulbs are not Australias most important environmental issue. But I find it interesting that environemntal actions are taking place in Australia, even though the Prime minister not is taking a lead in these issues (understatement of the day...) When it comes to the bulb-police, I think the ban will be on retailing the bulbs not on using them. The resaons for the Australian government for not ratifying the Kyoto, is becoming more clearer to me, It has nothing to do with their environmental stance, much more to do with keeping good relations to their american allies. What could be an approporiate way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, without ratifying the Kyoto protocol? Johan Erlandsson  [2007-02-26  08:21]   #1831 Interesting insight that not signing the Kyoto protocol is because of relations to the USA... Again, I believe the best way of reducing GHG emissions is to raise the costs. Australia can introduce emission allowance trading schemes even without signing the Kyoto agreement. Raising taxes is another option. This should be done in co-operation with the opposition and complemented with information campaigns. Suleyman  ER  [2007-03-01  11:43]   #1835 Gentlemen, I agree your proposals in principle. However there is one more thing that ýf taxes were raised for reducing GHG emissions the cost of products would increase. There is a reality which humanlife is depend upon energy. In term of social positions of people in especilly developing countries your proposals would be unrealistic. Ýnstead Govenments in all over the world should encourage developing and using Renevable Energy Resources as Joan said This should be done in co-operation with the information campaigns. With my best regards. Johan Erlandsson  [2007-03-06  22:08]   #1839 If GHG emissions are not stopped, people in developing countries will be in a situation that is really unrealistic. I have hopes for the development of renewable energy, so I do not believe expensive carbon-intensive energy necessarily needs to lead to misery. The development will be further accelerated if carbon-intensive options are made expensive. John Macgregor  [2007-03-07  19:02]   #1846 Interesting discussion. Suleyman points out an immediate problem that cannot be glossed over simply by referring to the long-run costs of letting GHG concentrations keep on rising. Lower-income people everywhere would be particularly hurt by higher energy prices now. But Johan is right too. Without higher carbon-based energy prices, the worlds shift towards energy efficiency and renewable energy (EE/RE) will be too slow to save our children and grandchildren from climatic disaster. The solution involves protecting lower-income people with (i) subsidies for adopting EE/RE measures in their own homes and activities and (ii) where the above measures dont make up for the higher costs of fossil fuels, subsidies in cash (ideally) or reduced-rate energy bills for these people. These subsidies can be paid for out of carbon taxes or small additions to our electricity or fossil fuel bills. Johan Erlandsson  [2007-03-07  20:57]   #1847 My argument about raising GHG costs primarily referred to Australia and the rest of the high-emitting industrialised countries. People in developing countries still emit a fraction of GHG compared to industrialised countries. Johns suggestion sounds reasonable enough to me!

Log in to be able to reply!