THE LIGHT(BULB)S ARE GOING OUT ACROSS EUROPE!

Well, I note that the tyrants in EU are for literally  putting our lights out.

The death knell for the traditional lightbulb has been sounded. Tony Blair and fellow EU leaders agreed that it should be phased out within two years to make way for the low-energy version.

They told the European Commission to rush through proposals to phase out incandescent bulbs - the conventional version with a filament - in private homes by 2009. The most likely plan is to ban the sale of such bulbs from that date, although existing stocks could still be used. The replacement low-energy fluorescent bulbs are more expensive to buy. But they are longer-lasting and allegedly work out cheaper in the long run, as well as seemingly using far less electricity. This will cut greenhouse gases because CO2 is produced in generating the electricity which powers the bulb.

See the trend that is developing? The Euro-political class are imposing new taxes, curtailing consumer choice and raising prices - and all in the name of C02 reduction! I believe we will witness a continued imposition of new taxation and restricted liberty and all in the name of the environment. This is Enviro-fascism - and the European elite know all about how that works.

Comments

[daytripper]

you seem to have trouble convincing even yourself.

what a load of crock.

[BB]

I'm not entirely sure what your problem with this is David, fluorescent bulbs make a lot more sense.

[Bernard]

...not until you use them.
They take a while to 'heat' up, and if you just want to nip into a room to look for sommat, it's a case of standing around 'till you can SEE!

[Mike Cunningham]

I converted my home to low-energy flourescents some ten years ago, and my expenditure on replacements is very low indeed! THey do use less electricity to operate, and they do give out a pleasant light, but, and there has to be a 'but', as with all things engineered, you must be very careful from where your lighting equipment is manufactured!

I speak as an engineer when I state that you must beware of equipment which comes with the label 'Made in the E. U.' because the one thing which I drummed into my kids is that you get exactly what you pay for! When those compliant words are seen on a pack label, what it really can mean is that the light-bulb may have been made anywhere, and then re-packed within the E. U, boundaries, which then allow the product to qualify for the inclusion of those magic few words! No matter how slip-shod the manufacturing process, if they can tick their 'Quality control' sheets to say that their gear has been made according to the rules, they'll get through, and onto the shelves of B&Q, or Tesco, or any of the cheap-and-cheerful outlets who are just intent on taking your money!

Buy a low-energy bulb with a manufacturer's label, where it proudly states 'Made in Ireland' or 'Made in Holland', because the people who made that product are proud enough to state exactly where it comes from! They might cost a little more, but you'll be getting value, and what's more, they won't be from bloody China!

[Ian Macdonald]

Yes they could sell the energy saving bulb or they could just make the original light bulb that swan made. After that Edison’s version was a money making crap one. Swans one is still shining today. Edison was no inventor! He was just an investor! He should not take credit for our work. The light bulb was British! Also yes i can see what they are up to.

[Ian Macdonald]

From,
Ian Macdonald
www.IanMacNb.net

[Ned Lud]

I think back with fondness to the old steam trains. OK, so they blackened our buildings and our lungs. But these new-fangled diesel locomotives are actually MORE EXPENSIVE to buy. And don't get me started on the electric ones!!!

[Bernard]

Mike Cunningham:
Really glad you mentioned the China syndrome.
As an engineer I too am appalled by the sheer junk that is pouring out of China.And we have no choice iether. Like it or lump it.
If you want a replacement for anything that was once made in the UK or Germany for example, there is only 'made in China' available, and it's a cheap, flimsy, clunky, plastic, base-metal, immitation.

[David Vance]

Guys,

Thanks for the comments, and Mike, Ian and Bernard make interesting points.

My beef lies in the draconian nature of politicians BANNING things. That's my problem with this. I fully accept what Mike and Bernard say techno-wise, but let it be a matter of consumer choice, not politician draconianism.

[Bernard]

...and..AND..God help us if they bring across an all made Chinese car!
The roads will be littered with broken-down machines, discarded engine and bodyparts..don't get me started!

If you want a very gloomy, overall view of the China threat to just about everything, then read Will Hutton's new book, 'The Writing On The Wall'. (£20)

Put up the barricades, NOW.

[SBK]

The newer type are more expensive now. But. The old fashioned light bulb has had 100 years or so of development the new type only 10 or so. Therefore the technology isn't yet fully mature. The price of the new type is continually falling. You really shouldn't have to pay more than about 70p for the energy saving bulb.

I don't know why you are objecting to energy saving bulbs. They will save you a fair sum of money on your electric bill.

[Mike Cunningham]

David,

Agree wholeheartedly with your point about banning things, there should really be a ban on politicians banning things, but they'd probably find a loophole in the law, and get around it by naming it an 'ElfanSafety' issue, or something similar!

[Richard Carey]

I don't suffer from it myself, but a lot of people complain of health problems caused by fluorescent lighting, which they don't have from the old-style lightbulbs.

[Frank O'Dwyer]

It's an interesting economic case. If the bulbs are really so great then why isn't everyone using them of their own accord, why doesn't the market drive out the old ones.

It probably has to a large extent but there are those who want a brighter bulb or one that comes on instantly or can't find an energy efficient one that fits their fitting, etc.

[Mike Cunningham]

Frank,

Since most people buy the cheapest, the old-fashioned incandescents still sell the most!

Richard,

They are probably working in an office where there are lots of old flourescent fittings. Most modern engineers don't understand the problems associated with old style gear, because the modern fittings use faster frequency ballasts, which have an extremely high flicker rate, but the old style switch-start gear generated flicker in the 100hz range, well within the human sensory envelope; so if you were susceptible, you felt lousy all day long!

[Frank O'Dwyer]

Mike (or David),

"Since most people buy the cheapest, the old-fashioned incandescents still sell the most!"

So, assuming the extra CO2 emissions are undesirable, would you agree with a tax on the bulbs? Or what would you propose?

[Tom Tyler]

What about halogen lamps (very high wattage, those) - will they be banned too?
Also, low energy bulbs do not work with dimmer switches.

[David Vance]

Frank,

Totally agree with your first comment.

[Lithcol]

Produce a cheap alternative that costs less to run and people will flock to buy and use it. But of course, many attracted to politics just love to impose things on us. The market will sort it, we don’t need ecofascist EU MP’s to impose their views on us.

[Lithcol]

Forgot to say, some very nasty chemicals in these new bulbs. Need to educate the public in their safe disposal. There could be a green cost, so a new tax will have to introduced for their disposal.

[Peter]

Australia has recently announced a ban on the old light bulbs. If we're serious about saving energy it's a no-brainer. I have them 100% in both home and office and I can say with certainty that they can be as bright as you need them to be. There's no downside.

[Peter]

David

As to the allusion to Lord Grey's remark in August 1914. Apparently he never said it. It was quoted inaccurately many years later.

Other famous non-quotes:

Marie-Antoinette: "Let them eat cake!"
Humphrey Bogart: "Play it again Sam!"
Ted Heath: "We will cut prices at a stroke!"
James Callaghan: "Crisis, what crisis?"

[Frank O'Dwyer]

Peter,

Why a ban? Why not a tax?

[Richard Carey]

Peter,

what about James Cagney "you dirty rat"? I see an interesting thread on misquotes developping

[BB]

"Why a ban? Why not a tax?"

If the aim is prevent their use altogether then a ban is much more efficient and avoids the bureaucracy of taxation.

[Frank O'Dwyer]

BB,

But we already have numerous laws and bans which do not seem to work so well and which also cost money.

Just seems a bit draconian to me. Someone may have a valid reason for using one of those bulbs, and if there are costs to the rests of us then they could be recouped via a tax. It may seem like a trivial issue in some ways but it is a microcosm of the larger issue, i.e. what do you do when the market doesn't work and/or people externalise environmental costs.

Another option I forgot to mention is that incentive could be offered to those who use the efficient ones (although that is naturally present already and isn't working).