Christian McArdle wrote:

It might be if it were unreasonable use of electricity, but it isn't.
Other uses are far more significant.

And should be tackled also. I'm not one to pick and choose. However,
lighting IS a very significant use of CO2. OK, the bulbs don't use as much
as many appliances, but they are on for hours at a time. At least a third
and possibly more than a half of electricty use in a house goes on lighting
when using incandescent bulbs. When people have obscene halogen room
lighting throughout, often in excess of 500W per room, lighting can
absolutely dwarf the other electrical usages. Often these are the same
houses that get so hot in summer from the lighting, that people insist on
installing air conditioning to take away the heat!

There is no need for wasteful lighting as low energy alternatives exist.
Therefore, punitive taxation should be applied for wasteful methods. I would
like to see this principle consistently applied to all energy usage, where
it can be practically applied and where low energy alternatives exist.

Christian.

I quite agree with the points you make. But there is one basic problem.
Since there are other reasonable viewpoints as well, is it really a
good idea for one camp to force others to live by its views? If you
vote yes to that, youre voting for others to force their views onto you
too. It cuts both ways. You'd effectively indirectly be voting for part
p and other such crap.

IMHO nannying and dumbifying is the cause of a lot of problems in
British society today.


NT