Australia to ban incandescent bulbs

A Surprise Left

catefrances wrote:

yes i know how it works. but it would have been nice to make the gesture. i am not for carbon trading at all. it just allows the industrialised nations to continu to screw with the environment. it doesn't really address the problem.

you are not for carbon trading but think it would be a good gesture? sorry i don't really follow, why sign a treaty that you think is a bad idea and is going to hurt the economy? and isn't going to help the envionment much at all either, and as scubascott has said we met our targets anyway. a carbon trading scheme would work fine if EVERYONE signed it, but as i said before the aussie government would have being stupid beyond belief to sign it. and get what out of it? please a few greenies?

bigmuzz

some guy is comin to our house on friday to count and check all our lightbulbs, and give us the new ones.

i dont know why wer cant just TELL them how many we need and do it ourselves, but if they come to your house you get the new lightbulbs for free, so thats pretty cool.

anyway, thats all i really have to say

peaceout

polaris

A Surprise Left wrote:

you are not for carbon trading but think it would be a good gesture? sorry i don't really follow, why sign a treaty that you think is a bad idea and is going to hurt the economy? and isn't going to help the envionment much at all either, and as scubascott has said we met our targets anyway. a carbon trading scheme would work fine if EVERYONE signed it, but as i said before the aussie government would have being stupid beyond belief to sign it. and get what out of it? please a few greenies?

kyoto aside - is your gov't actually doing anything to reduce emissions?? ... the PR/propaganda surrounding kyoto is ridiculous ... the treaty is not perfect but by no means is it an economy killer unless u operate an economy that doesn't give a shit about the planet ...

catefrances

A Surprise Left wrote:

you are not for carbon trading but think it would be a good gesture? sorry i don't really follow, why sign a treaty that you think is a bad idea and is going to hurt the economy? and isn't going to help the envionment much at all either, and as scubascott has said we met our targets anyway. a carbon trading scheme would work fine if EVERYONE signed it, but as i said before the aussie government would have being stupid beyond belief to sign it. and get what out of it? please a few greenies?

i think scuba was mistaken. even he expressed doubt.
that's right i am not for carbon trading, because it allows the developed world to get away with the same thing they are already doing. i hardly call it accountability. signing the kyoto protocol would have shown good faith in joining with the rest of the world as a community and maybe trying to get their act together. and please don't hold the economy up as some sort of talisman to be preserved at all costs. i already know that the state needs capital and that the capital comes from those big businesses who will be most affected by carbon emission reduction.

Scubascott

bigmuzz wrote:

some guy is comin to our house on friday to count and check all our lightbulbs, and give us the new ones.

i dont know why wer cant just TELL them how many we need and do it ourselves, but if they come to your house you get the new lightbulbs for free, so thats pretty cool.

anyway, thats all i really have to say

peaceout

My parents got a box of free CF bulbs in the mail. Some special offer that was advertised in a magazine. About $100 worth. Supplied by one of the companies that manufactures them, in conjunction with some green group. I don't think there was even a catch. There was alot of promotional material in the box too obviously, but it didn't cost anything at all.

I have CF bulbs everywhere in my house anyway. They're a lot cheaper to run, and they last forever compared to incandescent bulbs.

Scubascott

polaris wrote:

kyoto aside - is your gov't actually doing anything to reduce emissions?? ... the PR/propaganda surrounding kyoto is ridiculous ... the treaty is not perfect but by no means is it an economy killer unless u operate an economy that doesn't give a shit about the planet ...

The current rhetoric from the government is all about so called 'clean coal technology' and nuclear power.

The idea of the clean coal is that the carbon emitted from powerplants is sequestered underground. It sounds quite promising, but looks like its still a few years away, and some estimates say that it might add as much as 30% to our power bills.

gue_barium

sourdough wrote:

What if it is cost effective and works great but has great environmental consequences? Do you think things like DDT should not be banned? Sure it worked great killing bugs and was quite inexpensive to produce, but what about environmental costs?

I think he works for Ford. 'nuff said.

sourdough

Ontario is currently mulling the same law and outlawing incandescents. I don't think its a bad idea, however I do prefer offering incentives and education as an alternative.

Scubascott

sourdough wrote:

Banning certain products or practices can be a good thing if it is proven that certain things are bad and should be eliminated.

I do think this one is a bit of a joke. Australia has a horrible environmental record so it appears to me that this is some sorta media stunt to show Australia's newfound environmental conscious while ignoring bigger issues like their reliance on coal for energy.

I don't know that our environmental conscience is newfound. Its always been there. Its just that our governments, particularly the current one, seem to place environmental issues fairly low on their agendas. This is hardly surprising, since our economy depends heavily on primary industries such as mining and agriculture.

The coal issue isn't being ignored. I don't know that the solutions being offered are really the best ones, but there at least some ideas being put forward.

By the way, is this the solar project that was mentioned in the other thread on nuclear power in Australia?

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/800

There has also been talk about building a solar tower at Mildura. If built, it would stand 1000 metres high, with a base area of 25,000 acres. The idea is that air heated by the sun at the base rises through the tower, turning electricity generating turbines on its way up.

You can read all about it here. Its a bit sensationlist, but it gives you the idea. I couldn't help laughing when they referred to Mildura as 'outback Australia', and saw the illustration showing the tower in the middle of the desert. Mildura is on the biggest river in Australia, and has a thriving irrigation industry. Those are just details though.

http://www.enviromission.com.au/pdfs/ecos_sept_oct_2003.pdf

sourdough

Sorry you're right. I was referring to the Aussie gov't which has a reputation for being less than green, not Australia in general.

Solar power would be an obvious alterative for sunny Australia.

Purple Hawk

Jeanie wrote:

And please don't remind me of the shame of being governed by a moron who refuses to sign Kyoto. It's just too embarrassing for words.

funny how we differ...can't really see any sane leader signing such a law. *see socialist conspiracy thread*

BTW - have I mentioned how much I envy you...being lead by a great man like your PM?

Scubascott

sourdough wrote:

Sorry you're right. I was referring to the Aussie gov't which has a reputation for being less than green, not Australia in general.

Solar power would be an obvious alterative for sunny Australia.

I don't know. . . Solar sounds great, but it doesn't seem to be particularly efficient. According to the information that I've been able to find, the first solar plant that I mentioned in the post above would be the largest ever built, and would only produce 154 megawatts of power. Britain's largest coal fired plant in comparison, produces 4,000 megawatts.

Anyway, here's another interesting tidbit that was posted on the news page of my university's website.

http://www.une.edu.au/news/archives/000710.html

A Surprise Left

Saw an interesting story last night about various plants that could be built which would result in greater amounts of algae growing in the oceans which would reduce the carbon in the atmosphere. We in Australia can't realistically expect renewable energy sources to supply much of our power (until they are more efficient) but ideas like this could be a solution in part to global warming.

polaris

Scubascott wrote:

I don't know. . . Solar sounds great, but it doesn't seem to be particularly efficient. According to the information that I've been able to find, the first solar plant that I mentioned in the post above would be the largest ever built, and would only produce 154 megawatts of power. Britain's largest coal fired plant in comparison, produces 4,000 megawatts.

Anyway, here's another interesting tidbit that was posted on the news page of my university's website.

http://www.une.edu.au/news/archives/000710.html

but that's 154 megawatts of clean energy, so to speak ... everything has to be done in conjunction ...

1. intense conservation strategy
2. upgrades in efficiencies
3. bringing renewables on-line

as for solar - new technology is being developed ... i expect to see their efficiency go significantly up within 5 years ...

Scubascott

A Surprise Left wrote:

Saw an interesting story last night about various plants that could be built which would result in greater amounts of algae growing in the oceans which would reduce the carbon in the atmosphere. We in Australia can't realistically expect renewable energy sources to supply much of our power (until they are more efficient) but ideas like this could be a solution in part to global warming.

I've read a bit about this idea. Basically the way it works is you culture large quantities of algae in 'bioreactors'. In a perfect world, the algae can be fed waste material, and would need only sunlight and atmospheric CO2 to grow. If the correct species are chosen, the resulting material is rich in hydrocarbons and can be refined to produce useful fuel products. The problem is that at this stage its very difficult to keep the cultures pure, and its an extremely expensive way to produce fuel.

Ethanol produced from sugarcane makes a lot more sense. The concept is the same, because you're taking CO2 out of the atmosphere to produce the fuel, rather than digging it out of the ground.

A Surprise Left

Scubascott wrote:

I've read a bit about this idea. Basically the way it works is you culture large quantities of algae in 'bioreactors'. In a perfect world, the algae can be fed waste material, and would need only sunlight and atmospheric CO2 to grow. If the correct species are chosen, the resulting material is rich in hydrocarbons and can be refined to produce useful fuel products. The problem is that at this stage its very difficult to keep the cultures pure, and its an extremely expensive way to produce fuel.

Ethanol produced from sugarcane makes a lot more sense. The concept is the same, because you're taking CO2 out of the atmosphere to produce the fuel, rather than digging it out of the ground.

We should really be fueling as many vehicles as possible on ethanol. There is a bus around my local area that is completely fueled by it, why can't we have cars using it? Reducing the dependece on fossil fuels? Solar and wind power simply are not efficient enough at the moment, but fuels like ethanol and nuclear (if the elecorate is willing to go that route) would be much cleaner than using coal and petroleum.

breakmarysfall

...about this subject I have an opinion and I would like to share it...

...thank you Australia.
I think it is great news cause maybe a law is needed to change things.

Not always it works to try to change the world by counting on good will.
Sometimes a government needs to act and make a law to improve our living circumstances and maybe improve life in general.

so, please go on with making great examples, Australia.
and it seems it is true what I heard on telly: the world counts on Australia now cause they do experience climate change and its impact already very clearly.
so time for action and setting examples that the rest of us can follow.

p.s. in Germany such a law is discussed as well those days.
And the industry said it is easy to follow such a law.
We just need 2 years til we change the production of light bulbs.
So there is the agreement now that by the end of 2008 there will be only those energy friendly bulbs produced and sold here in Germany.

Jeanie

Purple Hawk wrote:

funny how we differ...can't really see any sane leader signing such a law. *see socialist conspiracy thread*

BTW - have I mentioned how much I envy you...being lead by a great man like your PM?

Look Hawk I agree with cate here. It would be a gesture of good will on our behalf to stand up and be counted as at least having the nouse to be wanting to participate in making change. It's not like we couldn't have signed and then set about getting the damn protocols changed anyway. But not signing is like saying we can't be bothered at all. We didn't sign so we can do what we like. That is pretty pathetic. Like so many of the decisions made by our short and annoying leader. At the very least if he wasn't going to sign he could have lead the way by making a real alternative a viable option. Didn't happen. Won't happen. Because Johnny doesn't give a shit about the environment.
It's all about the bucks and bending over for George and big business.

And yes dear, I know you love him! As I've said before you can have him!!
Except I don't want to swap for W!!!

A Surprise Left

How could we sign the kyoto protocol and then set about getting the protocol changed? You don't sign a treaty and then after the fact, set about getting the treaty changed. You either think its a good idea to sign or you do not, there is no option to sign it purely for goodwill purposes and yet have no desire to follow through with the treaty's intention. Am I missing something here? Instead of worrying about stupid treaties how about taking some real action and reducing our carbon emissions? We could start by reducing our dependence on oil and fuel more cars via ethanol. We could vastly improve our public transport systems, particulary in the outer suburbs of Melbourne for instance. Forget about the stupid treaty......

catefrances

A Surprise Left wrote:

How could we sign the kyoto protocol and then set about getting the protocol changed? You don't sign a treaty and then after the fact, set about getting the treaty changed. You either think its a good idea to sign or you do not, there is no option to sign it purely for goodwill purposes and yet have no desire to follow through with the treaty's intention. Am I missing something here? Instead of worrying about stupid treaties how about taking some real action and reducing our carbon emissions? We could start by reducing our dependence on oil and fuel more cars via ethanol. We could vastly improve our public transport systems, particulary in the outer suburbs of Melbourne for instance. Forget about the stupid treaty......

not change it. modify it, so it works better. more effeciently even.

yes i agree. start making some real moves to eliminate emissions. but that doesn't seem to getting done.there's an awful amount of rhetoric being blown around which harnessed could probably power a decent sized country town alone. the only reason there's any talk of it now is cause we are in an election year. otherwise we've be hearing diddleysquat.

and goodluck improving transport systems when they are privatised. and must return a maximum profit at all times.