Lighthouse10 had written this in response to
http://www.thestuccocompany.com/main...FL-386326-.htm
:

Hardly surprising about the German (and other European) hoarding Bob...

Europeans and Americans choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times
out of 10.
Banning bwhat people want/b gives the supposed savings - no point in
banning an impopular product!

If new LED lights -or improved CFLs- bare good/b,
people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them - no need to ban ordinary
light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn't mean that more energy using radio
tubes had to be banned... they were bought less anyway.

bAll lights have advantages/b
The ordinary simple light bulb has for many people a pleasing appearance,
it responds quickly with bright broad spectrum light, is easy to use with
dimmers and other equipment, can come in small sizes, and has safely been
used for over 100 years.

b100 W+ equivalent brightness/b is a particular issue - difficult and
expensive with both fluorescents and LEDS - yet such incandescent bulbs are
first in line for banning in both America and the EU

bEnergy?/b
Since when does Europe or America need to save on electricity?
There is no energy shortage.
Note that if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would make
people buy more efficient products anyway - no need to legislate for it.

Energy security?
There are usually plenty of local energy sources,
Middle East oil is not used for electricity generation, 1/2 world uranium
exports are from Canada and Australia.

Consumers - not politicians - pay for the energy used.
Certainly it is good to let people know how they can save energy and money
- but why force them to do it?


bEmissions?/b
Most cars have emissions.
But does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
In Sweden and France, as in Washington state practically all electricity
is emission-free, while around half of it is in many European countries
and in states like New York and California.
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they
obviously want to use?
Low emission households will increase everywhere, since emissions will be
reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology
or energy substitution.

Also, the savings amounts can be questioned for many reasons:
For a referenced list of reasons against light bulb bans, see
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x onwards


Even if a reduction in use bwas/b needed, then btaxation/b to
reduce consumption would make more sense since government can use the
income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects
etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
People can still buy what they want, unlike with bans.
However taxation on electrical appliances is hardly needed either, and is
in principle wrong for similar reasons to bans (for example, emission-free
households are hit too).





##-----------------------------------------------##
Delivered via http://www.thestuccocompany.com/
Building Construction and Maintenance Forum
Web and RSS access to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.home.repair - 366596 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##