Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs

MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
edited April 2007 in A Moving Train
Wed Apr 25, 12:03 PM ET

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada will ban the sale of inefficient incandescent light bulbs by 2012 as part of a plan to cut down on emissions of greenhouse gases, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said on Wednesday.

Canada is the second country in the world to announce such a ban. Australia said in February it would get rid of all incandescent bulbs by 2009.

"Making the switch to more efficient lighting is one of the easiest and most effective things we can do to reduce energy use and harmful emissions," Lunn told a news conference.

If households installed compact fluorescent bulbs -- which use about 75 percent less electricity than old-style bulbs -- they could save C$50 ($44) a year, he said.

"By banning inefficient lighting, we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by more than 6 million tonnes per year," Lunn said
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    MrBrian wrote:
    Wed Apr 25, 12:03 PM ET

    OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada will ban the sale of inefficient incandescent light bulbs by 2012 as part of a plan to cut down on emissions of greenhouse gases, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said on Wednesday.

    Canada is the second country in the world to announce such a ban. Australia said in February it would get rid of all incandescent bulbs by 2009.

    "Making the switch to more efficient lighting is one of the easiest and most effective things we can do to reduce energy use and harmful emissions," Lunn told a news conference.

    If households installed compact fluorescent bulbs -- which use about 75 percent less electricity than old-style bulbs -- they could save C$50 ($44) a year, he said.

    "By banning inefficient lighting, we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by more than 6 million tonnes per year," Lunn said

    smart people don't use incandescent lightbulbs anyway so it shouldn't effect too many people. they are a good source of heat for chicks and other small animals though.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    what do canada and australia have in common? ... two countries who are doing squat about climate change ...

    these token PR moves are pathetic ... this gov't has shown it to be two-faced beyond belief ... they are incapable of leading and governing ...

    although i really don't know who can ...
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    polaris wrote:
    what do canada and australia have in common? ... two countries who are doing squat about climate change ...

    these token PR moves are pathetic ... this gov't has shown it to be two-faced beyond belief ... they are incapable of leading and governing ...

    although i really don't know who can ...

    100% agree.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    When are they going to ban snowmobiles. Heck, why not just make everyone turn off their lights at 10PM and not back on until 6AM?

    This ban is just ridiculous.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • brain of cbrain of c Posts: 5,213
    walmart already did in the usa
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    know1 wrote:
    When are they going to ban snowmobiles. Heck, why not just make everyone turn off their lights at 10PM and not back on until 6AM?

    This ban is just ridiculous.

    I think in the same line of thought as polaris, it's just easier this way, a small move to try and make themselves look good. anything more would be too much of a step forward. and politics don't tend to move forward, just round and round.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    edit, double post....
  • taratara Posts: 293
    i thought the ban was ridiculous too until i read that banning the use of incandescents (except for specialized use, such as medical equipment) is equivalent to taking hundreds of thousands of cars of the road each year (can't remember the exact #, but it was high), so i think that this is a good idea. several companies are already trying to work on making compact fluorescents that are dimable. they're thinking that the next revolution will be l.e.d lights, which use less energy than fluorescents, are dimable, and can come in a variety of shapes and sizes. my only problem is why can't we do this faster, why 2012?
    No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it.
    Albert Einstein
  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    If and when I break one of the new bulbs, can I sue for the mercury that will come out of it? WTF are they thinking about not putting that there is mercury in the bulb or the clean up instructions that come along with a break on the package. Step in the right direction? Not! How about just not having to need every single light on in the house at the same time. Changing a light bulb weighed against the other factors of "global warming" is pretty petty in my eyes. Way to go Canada. Have a fat headed tool stand up in parliament to tell the public that there is really nothing they can do to get to the Kyoto agreement and then come up with a light bulb as the fix. Idiots!
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    tara wrote:
    i thought the ban was ridiculous too until i read that banning the use of incandescents (except for specialized use, such as medical equipment) is equivalent to taking hundreds of thousands of cars of the road each year (can't remember the exact #, but it was high), so i think that this is a good idea. several companies are already trying to work on making compact fluorescents that are dimable. they're thinking that the next revolution will be l.e.d lights, which use less energy than fluorescents, are dimable, and can come in a variety of shapes and sizes. my only problem is why can't we do this faster, why 2012?

    this is the cdn gov't here ... they are setting emissions targets for 2020 ... and using 2006 levels no doubt ... their first plan didn't call for any reductions until 2050 ... it is so sad - it's laughable ...

    at the end of the day - we are pooched here in canada unless we do something about the oil sands - they are looking at a 5 fold increase in extraction there with little regulations - biggest environmental disaster in canada ... combine that with the fact most of the profits from that will go to american companies - it is beyond comprehension ...
  • It's so great, i believe and have faith in this govt. when it comes down to environment.

    Baird and Harper (and the lobby supporting them) are right, you should believe them, they told us that gas price would go up 60% if we'd try to achieve the Kyoto accord targets, damn Canada will lose thousands of jobs, it would be hell and major recession for the country...

    haha, they make me laugh so hard, bunch of ignorant idiots that are in charge right now... i can't believe people will still vote for the Cons, but hey, i thought nobody would still vote for Charest in Quebec, and he's still the PM here, the way people vote right now is really... interesting.
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:

    although i really don't know who can ...

    Dude, quit blowing shit completely out of proportion. A move to ban light bulbs means the government is incapable of leading?

    At least you added this last comment in. No other previous government in recent memory has done any better.
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    It's so great, i believe and have faith in this govt. when it comes down to environment.

    Baird and Harper (and the lobby supporting them) are right, you should believe them, they told us that gas price would go up 60% if we'd try to achieve the Kyoto accord targets, damn Canada will lose thousands of jobs, it would be hell and major recession for the country...

    haha, they make me laugh so hard, bunch of ignorant idiots that are in charge right now... i can't believe people will still vote for the Cons, but hey, i thought nobody would still vote for Charest in Quebec, and he's still the PM here, the way people vote right now is really... interesting.

    People would still vote for the Cons because no one else looks any better. You guys just bitch about Harper no matter what he does ... But you do have any concrete suggestions for improvement.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    Dude, quit blowing shit completely out of proportion. A move to ban light bulbs means the government is incapable of leading?

    At least you added this last comment in. No other previous government in recent memory has done any better.

    dude ... we've been on this board for years ... what have i said from day 1? ... that climate change and the environment are the biggest issues facing the world today ... then, now and the future ...

    it's not just the light bulbs ... i could go on and on about the ineptitude and the hypocrisy that is this gov't ... it would be one thing if they just did things i didn't agree with - but they are every bit the liars the liberals were ... so, the only thing they had going for them (supposed integrity) they have lost ...
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    People would still vote for the Cons because no one else looks any better. You guys just bitch about Harper no matter what he does ... But you do have any concrete suggestions for improvement.

    everybody looks better ... check out the latest scandal coming out of bev oda's office - same shit, different colour ... and the prisoner exchange ... only way we can hold these hosers accountable is to vote them out and keep voting them out until they do something ...
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    everybody looks better ... check out the latest scandal coming out of bev oda's office - same shit, different colour ... and the prisoner exchange ... only way we can hold these hosers accountable is to vote them out and keep voting them out until they do something ...

    Whatever you say. Doesn't seem any worse that the last guys. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    One is tempted to vote Green. If the party had a serious mandate to govern, I'd be seriously tempted.
  • People would still vote for the Cons because no one else looks any better. You guys just bitch about Harper no matter what he does ... But you do have any concrete suggestions for improvement.

    ... and you bitch about us bitching Harper, no matter what he does, always come down with the same catchphrase. It's called an opinion that we have on him, maybe you should come down defending them if you agree, instead of pointing out the fact that we have an opinion on them. I'm sure you have one too.

    Improvement? Just try to meet the Kyoto accord is one, and stop the fear campaign over this environment plan proposed by the opposition, they sound so dumb, i can't believe what they said about it, it's such a shame to hear all that from the Canadian govt., it sound like a private biased "study" but it's from the govt.. About the lightbulb story it's so great, what a great accomplishment for Canada... hehe.

    How about supporting this Afghan govt., you agree with this i guess, no problem supporting and helping with ALL our national efforts a govt. that is questionable at best, torturing prisoners, violating international convention... but hey, it's all about spreading Canadian values and showing the world that we're big guys, a real big united nation, Vimy fame alike. No matter what he does, there are good chances that i will disagree with him, it's true, but it's not personal, it's what he does that i disagree with, when he does something i agree with, i say it, don't worry.
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    dude ... we've been on this board for years ... what have i said from day 1? ... that climate change and the environment are the biggest issues facing the world today ... then, now and the future ...

    it's not just the light bulbs ... i could go on and on about the ineptitude and the hypocrisy that is this gov't ... it would be one thing if they just did things i didn't agree with - but they are every bit the liars the liberals were ... so, the only thing they had going for them (supposed integrity) they have lost ...

    For sure. What bothers me is that the criticism is totally selective. You're blowing a gasket about this government, but in reality, they ALL ignore climate change. No one in the political mainstream wants to touch it, probably because there ARE economic repurcussions. Are they as bad as Baird says? Hard to say, but any government who actually does what needs to be done (tackle climate change) is going to pay the political price and unfortunately no one has the fortitude to do this. Both major parties have big business ties ... Thus both are not going to do anything substantive.
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    ... and you bitch about us bitching Harper, no matter what he does, always come down with the same catchphrase. It's called an opinion that we have on him, maybe you should come down defending them if you agree, instead of pointing out the fact that we have an opinion on them. I'm sure you have one too.

    Improvement? Just try to meet the Kyoto accord is one, and stop the fear campaign over this environment plan proposed by the opposition, they sound so dumb, i can't believe what they said about it, it's such a shame to hear all that from the Canadian govt., it sound like a private biased "study" but it's from the govt.. About the lightbulb story it's so great, what a great accomplishment for Canada... hehe.

    How about supporting this Afghan govt., you agree with this i guess, no problem supporting and helping with ALL our national efforts a govt. that is questionable at best, torturing prisoners, violating international convention... but hey, it's all about spreading Canadian values and showing the world that we're big guys, a real big united nation, Vimy fame alike. No matter what he does, there are good chances that i will disagree with him, it's true, but it's not personal, it's what he does that i disagree with, when he does something i agree with, i say it, don't worry.

    I have said enough about Kyoto on the board, and I am not going to repeat it.

    Afghanistan ... I agree with the ideology behind the mission but I am forced to admit that such a battle is probably unwinnable, and the combat mission should not be renewed. Actually, I have my doubts about ANY Canadian troop presence there. Personally, I think that Taliban militants should expect nothing less from the new government ... The Taliban probably shot their prisoners in the head back when they ran the show and payback is a motherfucker. Of course this sort of thing is morally wrong, and Canadians should not condone or participate in it. So yeah ... We actually agree on Afghanistan. Where we disagree seems to be the way in which you hold Harper's government responsible for the mission. He didn't sign us up for it.
    And no government should renege on our commitment to be there.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    Whatever you say. Doesn't seem any worse that the last guys. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    One is tempted to vote Green. If the party had a serious mandate to govern, I'd be seriously tempted.

    well ... does that make it excusable??
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    well ... does that make it excusable??

    Not at all. I am just not sure why some Canadians let inexcusable behavior go from one party and then completely lambaste another. I guess Westerners are as guilty as Easterners in this regard, they just blame the other guys.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    For sure. What bothers me is that the criticism is totally selective. You're blowing a gasket about this government, but in reality, they ALL ignore climate change. No one in the political mainstream wants to touch it, probably because there ARE economic repurcussions. Are they as bad as Baird says? Hard to say, but any government who actually does what needs to be done (tackle climate change) is going to pay the political price and unfortunately no one has the fortitude to do this. Both major parties have big business ties ... Thus both are not going to do anything substantive.

    how is it selective?? ... its not like i was not griping about it way back then ... say what you will about the last gov't ... they did 10 times what this gov't is doing ... look at all the programs the cons have announced - they are regurgitated liberal programs they canned in 2006 ... how sad is that??

    these guys don't have a clue ... remember - this is the same guy who like 3 years ago doubted the science ...
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    Not at all. I am just not sure why some Canadians let inexcusable behavior go from one party and then completely lambaste another. I guess Westerners are as guilty as Easterners in this regard, they just blame the other guys.

    well ... we voted the liberals out ... time to vote out the cons ... read my previous posts - we keep voting them out until someone does the job ... it is the reason why we vote ...
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    they did 10 times what this gov't is doing ...

    Complete and total BS, man. That's just plain inaccurate. And I agree, the Cons have rehashed some Liberal proposals. Worst case scenario, that makes them the Liberals with different stripes. How can that translate into the former doing 10 times more?
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    well ... we voted the liberals out ... time to vote out the cons ... read my previous posts - we keep voting them out until someone does the job ... it is the reason why we vote ...

    Well, I cannot really dispute this point. Simply voting people out before they've had a chance to do much could also backfire, though. We'll see. I don't want to see a Liberal government under Dion (at least not yet), and I think many Canadians would agree with me.
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    polaris wrote:
    how is it selective?? ... its not like i was not griping about it way back then ... say what you will about the last gov't ... they did 10 times what this gov't is doing ... look at all the programs the cons have announced - they are regurgitated liberal programs they canned in 2006 ... how sad is that??

    these guys don't have a clue ... remember - this is the same guy who like 3 years ago doubted the science ...
    Sorry but you are very biased in your assessment of the Libs. They had more than 10 years to take action and show results. All Canada did was get worse and worse and have an even worse record of GHG growth than your much hated Americans. The Libs did nothing that was effective. Call it 10 times more all you want but in the end the Libs did nothing effective and the problem grew under them. Your hatred of Harper and the Conservative Party seemingly leaves you unable to make a balanced assessment.

    A balanced assessment would not care what someone may have said or thought 3 years ago, and at a time they were not part of the ruling government. A balanced assessment looks at actions only. The Libs did nothing, you can't get worse than that. Painting any party as worse shows a lack of balance or perspective.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    Complete and total BS, man. That's just plain inaccurate. And I agree, the Cons have rehashed some Liberal proposals. Worst case scenario, that makes them the Liberals with different stripes. How can that translate into the former doing 10 times more?

    ok ... 10 times was a figure of speech ... but consider these facts - the liberals had a kyoto plan - whether they would have succeeded is speculative ... understand that when the cons got in - they scrapped everything essentially setting us back 3 years ... they said they have their own plan - which we horrifically found out was not true ... now, they are scrambling to come up with one and short of doing that - they have re-introduced programs that were cancelled when they got in ... so, in essence - all they have done is put us back 3 years ...

    the reality is that this gov't is not interested in doing anything and is stalling for as long as possible - they won't comment on the revised clean air act put together by committee because they don't want to do it but don't want to lose face either ... so, they will stall and continue to do nothing ...
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    ok ... 10 times was a figure of speech ... but consider these facts - the liberals had a kyoto plan - whether they would have succeeded is speculative ... understand that when the cons got in - they scrapped everything essentially setting us back 3 years ... they said they have their own plan - which we horrifically found out was not true ... now, they are scrambling to come up with one and short of doing that - they have re-introduced programs that were cancelled when they got in ... so, in essence - all they have done is put us back 3 years ...

    the reality is that this gov't is not interested in doing anything and is stalling for as long as possible - they won't comment on the revised clean air act put together by committee because they don't want to do it but don't want to lose face either ... so, they will stall and continue to do nothing ...

    Arg, Kyoto again? Dude, they had that plan, and did absolutely nothing to implement it. Like surferdude said, under the Libs we had a worse track record for emissions than the Amis down south did! That's not stalling? They didn't even put forth an honest effort beyond signing a piece of paper.
    ... All they did was kill a tree! ;)
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    surferdude wrote:
    Sorry but you are very biased in your assessment of the Libs. They had more than 10 years to take action and show results. All Canada did was get worse and worse and have an even worse record of GHG growth than your much hated Americans. The Libs did nothing that was effective. Call it 10 times more all you want but in the end the Libs did nothing effective and the problem grew under them. Your hatred of Harper and the Conservative Party seemingly leaves you unable to make a balanced assessment.

    A balanced assessment would not care what someone may have said or thought 3 years ago, and at a time they were not part of the ruling government. A balanced assessment looks at actions only. The Libs did nothing, you can't get worse than that. Painting any party as worse shows a lack of balance or perspective.

    you have accused me of this plenty of times - it gets tiring ... in each instance i have shown you the relevant information by which i make my claims but all you do is keep putting the i hate harper and therefore i know nothing claim ...

    if you heeded your own advice - you would see that a balanced assessment would show that much of our increase in gHg's has come from the oil sands - an increase that grows exponentially with the price of oil ... you can't control foreign wars that make an enviornmental and economical disaster profitable ...

    at least the liberals had industry looking at retrofitting their equipment to reduce their emissions - only to have harper come in and say no need ...
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    Arg, Kyoto again? Dude, they had that plan, and did absolutely nothing to implement it. Like surferdude said, under the Libs we had a worse track record for emissions than the Amis down south did! That's not stalling? They didn't even put forth an honest effort beyond signing a piece of paper.
    ... All they did was kill a tree! ;)

    you can buy into the PR campaign and the talking points the cons have ... the reality paints a different picture ... again - the liberals were far from perfect ... but this gov't is inept at best ...

    this is a gov't that wanted to set reduction targets for 2050!?? ... they insulted every canadian out there with that joke of an act ... but hey - as long as we keep harping on the libs - we don't actually have to hold these guys accountable ...
Sign In or Register to comment.