ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade Non-US Electrical Systems & Trades Australia to phase out standard light bulbs

Has anyone behind the fawning press coverage stopped to think what's going to happen with all those fancy decorative light fixtures that only take incandescent bulbs?

A lot of fixtures are going to have to be changed out (and thrown out) when owners find out the larger CFLs can't fit the space of the old lightbulb. That and they just won't LOOK right.

Good point Sven,
How is the Xmas tree going to look with heaps of CFL lamps on it?

Trumpy,

Well I've seen new sets that use LEDs instead of standard bulbs. The trees in the lobby of my job's building had them this year.

In this application it could be a definite advantage, seeing as the little Christmas-light string bulbs are so short lived anyway.

Aussie bulb ban sparks UK interest

From correspondents in London
February 22, 2007 11:26pm
Article from: AAP

AUSTRALIA'S move to phase out standard light bulbs has prompted UK campaigners to ask: why can't Britain do the same?

The Guardian newspaper's Leo Hickman pointed out the decision to ban incandescent light bulbs, announced by Australian Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull this week, was taken in a country that refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol enforcing targets for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

“Isn't it rather embarrassing that a country as ungreen as Australia is showing up Britain?” he asked.

Ban the Bulb campaign founder Matt Prescott has been lobbying for Britain to introduce tax breaks on fluorescent bulbs, meaning manufacturers could make them cheaper for consumers.

But the British Government has rejected the suggestion, saying European Union rules prevent single states from altering Value-Added Tax rates without the consensus of all member states.

“How are you going to get consensus from 20-odd countries on this?” the paper quoted Dr Prescott as saying.

“If relying on the EU means this issue is delayed, then we should just take a stand as a country. We take them on over much harder issues than this.

“It's great to see Australia has a can-do approach ... in the UK we seem to have a can't-do approach that means you have to solve every conceivable problem or petty quibble before committing to action.”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21272688-1702,00.html

Huh?

I don't think it's any secret that I hate the EU and its bloated, dictatorial bureaucracy, but that doesn't sound right.

As I understand it we're not allowed under the V.A.T. rules to simply exempt something from the tax, but we can set the actual rate charged at whatever we like.

For example, the U.K. has a standard rate of 17.5%, and a reduced rate of 5% on domestic fuel. Ireland has a higher standard rate of 20 or 21%, but they apply a reduced rate on a much wider range of domestic repairs.

Most EU countries charge a reduced rate on food, but the U.K. and Ireland make no charge. (We weren't allowed to make food exempt as such, but there was nothing to stop us setting the V.A.T. rate at 0%!).

I suspect this one might be another example of a government which doesn't want to lose an opportunity to collect tax and is trying to pass the blame. Unless the V.A.T. rules have changed recently, that is.

As Norcal has mentioned, various "energy codes" are being implemented here that effectively do the same thing ... with California mis-leading the way ... as usual.

When I submit plans to the local authorities these days, I am required to use a US Govt. program to analyze the lighting loads, and this program is heavily biased in favor of fluorescent lighting.

It is ironic that Australia is making the headlines, over what is essentially 'old news' here. Even a popular talk-show host, Rush Limbaugh, has diverted from the usual political chat to delve into this nonsense.

My home is 100% fluorescent lighting, of which only six of the bulbs are NOT replacements for standard bulbs. This is my choice, for which I have my reasons. I cannot agree with mandating this, as a matter of law, though.

I'm going to go off-topic here for a moment and if Paul or C-H want to edit/delete my comments that is OK with me.
I was in the unfortunate position recently where my Firearms licence, Explosives licence, Drivers licence, Passport all expired in the same week.
Now, the Government has made a fair profit from me over the last week.
My firearms licence is "good" until September, but I thought I would get in early and make sure that there was an overlap considering it takes a while for the licence to be made (it has your photo on it, which takes time to actually make the card).
Upon applying for a new licence I was told that the licence period has been reduced to 5 years and will cost NZ$175, the original licence I have lasted 10 years and cost me $75.
Also I will be subject to a police inspection of the storage of my firearms and ammunition, that doesn't worry me at all, I have nothing to hide from the police, what does annoy me is the increase in fees, are the general public any safer from criminals that don't have firearms licences?.
I went and saw OSH here about my Explosives licence, lo and behold, the licence is issued yearly these days, when it used to be a 5 year licence and cost $235, now however, it costs $355, I was also told that I would have to re-apply for this licence as my old (but still current) licence was now null and void and I would have to apply under the "New" system.
My Drivers licence did actually expire, as was pointed out to me when I was stopped by one of our local constabulary(sp?), I went into our local agent for the LTSA underwent the eyetest and got a new licence, I got home and had a look at the card and it had me as a female and half of the endorsements I have were missing.
Went back and was told that I have to pay more to have them on there, I disagreed, the lady wasn't very happy but I got what I was after.
All told the new licence cost me $138.
Now, the passport, I wrote (yes, wrote) to the Ministry of Internal Affairs back in January about the expiration of my passport, last week I got a reply, it told me that because of terrorists, I would have to fill out a whole heap of forms and submit a picture of myself and a few other things, the forms themselves were like sitting an exam, they basically wanted to know everything about me and my movements in the last 10 years, and also that of my partner or other person living in my house.
One thing I disagree with is the last page of the form where you have to indicate your annual income, I don't think that that is appropriate, sure if it was an IRD form yes, but the MIA?.
At this end of the week guys, I feel beauraucratically(sp?) raped.
So much money and so little to show for it.

{Edit:It's Practicing Licence year here as well, thankfully work pays for them}

[This message has been edited by Trumpy (edited 02-23-2007).]

Sounds like we're going to ban incandescants here in NZ too. I love my incandescant lights, but if shifting to CFLs is better for the planet ( Is it ?) then I'll comply.

My only beef is..........

Why isn't our government also banning gas guzzling SUVs ?

Big 4WD vehicles should be limited to those that need them ( Farmers, Fishermen etc.)

You don't need a 6 cylinder 4WD to get from Remuera to Queen St.

I bet that was interesting! I can just imagine Rush's views on this!

Mike,
I understand your frustrations. We're seeing a similar increase in bureaucracy here. From this April new applicants for a passport are going to be required to attend a formal interview, and that's going to be extended to renewals as well within a couple of years. The price is also going through the roof, and of course this is due to be tied in to the new "Big Brother" national ID database. I'm going to make sure I get my passport renewed for another 10 years before all that comes in.

As for asking your income, I'd tell them it's none of their business and leave that entry blank.

Driver licenses? Don't talk to me about the British DVLA (Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency). Totally inept and incompetent just about sums up that department.

My vehicle license is due the end of this month. Another £175 into government coffers for what is jokingly referred to as the "Road Fund Licence." (On top of the 300% tax on fuel.) Except for the main highway, none of the roads around my local area seem to have had any maintenance for years. Rough surfaces and potholes are becoming the order of the day. Pretty soon we'll need Sherman tanks, nevermind 4x4s!


[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 02-25-2007).]

I gradually changed over all of the incandescent lights in my parents' house when I was still living with them, starting some 8 (maybe even 10) years ago. Although there were some problems with the first generation type that simply used a PL-7 CFL lamp in a cheap Type A ballast/holder, none of the newer "spiral" type have been replaced. They were even transfered to their new house 4 years ago. While the older spiral types are slightly larger than a standard sized bulb, the newest ones are much smaller. There are also dimmable CFLs, although they are still rather expensive. The only place they still use incandescents are the lights at the end of the driveway, which are the clear type in some old lantern-style fixtures where the bulbs are clearly visible.

The only problem I've seen with LED christmas lights, is that they need a decent reflector, otherwise you end up with a string of narrow colored spots.

Did I mention that I haven't changed a light bulb in 8+ years? I would have forgotten how to change one, if I didn't do it during my routine work. If you buy the decent kind of CFLs, they are waranteed to last a certain number of years, so it's no extra cost to you if they do go out.