There has been no publicity, presumably to stop consumers from buying stocks of proper light bulbs before they're banned like they have in Germany where sales of proper light bulbs are up 34% this year.The Department for the Environment says that there are lots of misconceptions about energy saving light bulbs such as them being dim, taking an age to warm up, giving off a poor quality light and not working with dimmer switches. But they are dim, they do take an age to warm up, they do give off an inferior quality of light and an energy saving bulb that works with a dimmer switch will set you back in excess of £15.
But it's not just the fact that the European Empire is forcing us to buy expensive, inferior light bulbs that will irritate people - the reason why they're so expensive is that the European Empire imposes tariffs on imported energy saving bulbs to stop foreign manufacturers undercutting the German bulb manufacturer, Osram, whilst it slowly turns over its factories to energy saving bulb production.
Let the panic buying commence!
wonkotsane is an author at Bloggers4UKIP.
Posts
13 comments:
The European Union’s ban on the good old British light bulb takes effect on 1st September 2009.
From September the people of Britain will have to put up with those very unpopular energy saving light bulbs.
This EU ban will finally mean the end, for the good old British light bulb.
Thanks for the heads up. In my experience, most energy-saving bulbs are totally naff. We've had two instances of them randomly flickering on when the switch is off, which is not good in a bedroom!
I refuse to use the energy-saving bulbs because they're dim; give off a different kind of light; and I'd rather not have to wait for it to come on before I can see properly.
I'm sure I can still order them online if necessary.
I'm afraid it's going to be illegal to import them into the European Empire as well.
That's a shame, Wonkotsane. Nevertheless, I won't give up my hunt for resellers who will still post them to me - have just emailed one to find out if they'll still be stocking them after 1st September.
Something I forgot to mention in my original comment was that I don't believe energy saving bulbs are any more 'environmentally friendly' than proper bulbs. Of course they use less energy, but they also contain mercury which is very dangerous to wildlife when not disposed of properly. Since most people will (understandably) just chuck them in the bin, you've got the huge risk of mercury seeping out into any number of different places where it can cause damage.
Oh, and I've just found this, which gives extra information and a timetable as to when you'll no longer be able to buy them: http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/info/incandescent/ .
Even more info here: http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/article/the-light-bulb-ban/
By 'proper' or 'good old' light bulbs I presume you actually mean 'environmentally damaging'.
Warelane
We are all doomed !
Mercury from these new bulbs will poison the environment. Get into the oceans and accumulate in the fish. This will make the fish not fit to eat.
Murcury does not breakdown in nature. Quite the opposite it accumulates in the ecosystem and will eventualy poison the seas, unless these new dangerous long life bulbs are banned.
Murcury has been banned by the EU from thermometers and all household equipment, because of the environmental dangers posed by mercury.
Unfortunately they forgot that poisonous mercury is used in the making of these enery saving light bulbs.
There are 450 million people in the EU, and everyone is now forced to use these poisonous light bulbs, because of EU regulations.
These new light bulbs will poison the planet.
Unless these new EU Laws are changed "We are all doomed."
lets all campaign to bring back the environmentally friendly "Good old British light bulb."
The protagonists in the debate over the future of coal, nuclear or wind energy disagree over many things.
However, they are all agreed on the need to CONSERVE ENERGY.
In these cash-strapped times, people can save money with these light bulbs (around £37 a year according to the Energy Saving Trust -see http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Energy-saving-products/Energy-saving-lightbulbs-and-fittings) by replacing inefficient bulbs with efficient ones.
That is because these bulbs use up to 80% less electricity than a standard bulb.
On the subject of mercury, it is true that energy-saving bulbs DO contain tiny traces of mercury.
The Energy Saving Trust says this is equivalent to a pellet smaller than the tip of a biro.
If Steve Halden is concerned about mercury poisoning, then he might like to concentrate his energy on the biggest source of mercury in the air: burning fossil fuels like coal.
Huw, the light bulb manufacturers are lying about the performance of their bulbs, the European Empire has just admitted it one day before they are banning proper light bulbs. The Telegraph has tested the claims on the bulbs and found that an 11W energy saving bulb that is supposed to be equivalent to a 60W incandescent bulb produces only 58% of the light. So where's your cost saving now? You actually need a 20W energy saving bulb to give off the same light as a 60W incandescent bulb after a 10 minute warm up which I would imagine would pretty much wipe out the supposed cost saving.
The Energy Saving Trust's figures assume changing a 100W incandescent bulb for a 20W energy saving bulb which will give only 58% of the light. It's easy to claim a cost saving by replacing bulbs if you are dishonest. I could cut my food bill in half by only feeding half my family but the cost saving will be at the expense of half the family starving.
My family use energy-saving lightbulbs and have survived to tell the tale.
Strangely we don't seem to have the same problems with them that plague UKIP bloggers.
Steve Halden says these bulbs are 'unpopular'.
Why, then, have B&Q and Tesco seen a significant increase in demand for energy efficient lighting (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8222941.stm )?
To me it seems that many people want to do their bit for the environment and save money in the process.
What policies does UKIP have for saving energy, wonkotsane, or is energy efficiency and conservation not a priority?
Thanks for sharing this Update!
Light Bulbs
I understand from my discussions with wonkotsane that UKIP refuses to accept the overwhelming judgement of climate scientists and scientific academies and sees no need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But does UKIP have a policy on energy conservation?
If so, what does UKIP think is the best way for the UK to save energy, if they have such strong reservations about energy-saving lightbulbs?
Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency said in an IEA report last year called ‘New Energy Realities - WEO Calls for Global Energy Revolution Despite Economic Crisis” (November 12, 2008).
“We cannot let the financial and economic crisis delay the policy action that is urgently needed to ensure secure energy supplies and to curtail rising emissions of greenhouse gases.’
‘We must usher in a global energy revolution by improving energy efficiency and increasing the deployment of low-carbon energy.”
Does UKIP have any policies on improving energy efficiency and increasing the deployment of low-carbon energy?
Still banging that old drum Huw? This is why the Greens are never going to be taken seriously as a political force - where UKIP originated as a single issue party and diversified, the Greens are obsessed with global warming. The problem is, environmentalism - which is a noble cause - is being hijacked by the global warming conspiracy.
There is no overwhelming agreement in the scientific community about climate change. To have unanimous agreement on something unproven (to the extent that evidence actually disproves it) and of such broad scope is unscientific in itself. Climate change is a whole branch of science, you can never have a consensus on a whole branch of science. That aside, there are plenty of scientists that disagree with the climate change propaganda but they are denied publicity by the enviro-fascists.
UKIP has no poicy that I know of on a low carbon economy because it is not proven, even tenuously, that carbon emissions have an effect on the global climate. UKIP's energy policies are well known - nuclear power is the option for safe, clean and reliable energy. Under a UKIP government, the energy requirements of our country will not be left to expensive, inefficient and inadequate energy supplies like wind, solar and tidal power.
The anthropologist Margaret Mead once said, ‘I was brought up to believe that the only thing worth doing was to add to the sum of accurate information in the world.’
If global warming is a 'conspiracy' -to use your counter-factual term, wonkotsane- then this would suggest anonymous people or people hiding behind pseudonyms whispering and plotting in darkened rooms.
Is this REALLY what UKIP thinks about the scientific process?
Do people you talk to in the party and in the press keep a straight face when you use terms like 'conspiracy'?
Science is not like that; science is about openness, measurements and analysis, experimentation, publicly available information, challenge and counter-challenge.
And yet despite this peer-review process, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming IS taking place, that the situation is alarming, that people are dying already as a result of it and that urgent national and international responses are necessary.
The following highly respected institutions have made clear that action is urgently needed to combat climate change and cut emissions;
the IPCC, the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the UK and the USA, as well as the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences; European Academy of Sciences and Arts; Network of African Science Academies; the International Council for Science; the European Science Foundation; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the Federation of American Scientists; the World Meteorological Organization; the American Meteorological Society; the Royal Meteorological Society (UK); the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences; the American Geophysical Union; the American Institute of Physics; American Astronomical Society; the American Physical Society; the American Chemical Society; the National Research Council (US); the Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), the American Quaternary Association; the Geological Society of America; Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia); the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London; the European Geosciences Union; the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics; and the International Union of Geological Sciences.
Above, I made it clear that the International Energy Agency (whose reports, statistics, charts, research and analysis are PUBLICLY available) wants international policy action to ensure energy security, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a global transition to a low-carbon industrial revolution.
The Green Party sees this as a unique opportunity to create jobs and re-direct our economy in a sustainable direction.
UKIP says that there is no need to save energy and that the IEA is part of a 'global warming conspiracy'.
I think it is a 'noble cause' to expose the ridiculous arguments that your party is coming out with, preferably in a public forum like the internet.
I also think it is a 'noble cause' to urge ordinary citizens to ask UKIP in as PUBLIC, OPEN and TRANSPARENT a way as possible, to explain what their policies are to combat climate change and to save energy.
I use my own name, I live in Shrewsbury, and if/when I make mistakes in public forums like this, people can tell me why I am wrong to my face.
Why are the bloggers on the Shropshire Star site who tell me global warming is a 'lie' and a 'conspiracy' mostly anonymous, wonkotsane?
Post a Comment