On 2006-08-24 13:01:07 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
said:

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!

The trouble is that the alternatives are not at all attractive.....



There is no need for wasteful lighting as low energy alternatives exist.

But not aesthetically acceptable. Until that happens, these are not
viable alternatives.

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.

There's more than enough taxation already and this would simply promote
a black market in light bulbs or people would pay the money.