"The Journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step."

You have to start somewhere, and if this doesn't get any support (just simply phasing out old lightbulbs) how can the more advanced things like you are advocating take place? Bear in mind the lightest of drizzle if sustained long enough can make the place very wet.

It might be small, but its the beginning and if this works out more will follow. Rome was not built in a day after all, you cannot do too much too soon, or people will dig their heels in and it causes more problems than it solves. People don't like drastic changes too quick, you have to be gentle about it.

If this small ministep is considered to be as a "first step", than I am deeply worried for the future. Too long the voyage, too little time, too much an excuse to stay within the comfort zone where one does not change profitable habits. It is an alibi only, and no further essence.If minstres and chief of governments meet on a summit and talk about energy and climate and at the end of the day they try to sell such a sweet nothing as the great deal, without having much more to show as a result than this, then this is not only ridiculous and absurd - it is a desaster and total failure in the face of recent climate reports. "Pipifax und Babykacke", that's what it is. But it helps to reduce cognitive dissonance and relieve pressure from our bad consciousness - almost for free! Isn't that great! Who would have thought that saving the world is so easy! It also helps to distract that for example especially the German government has successfully prevented to tight emission controlls for car engines - this illustrates where the real interest is.

Just because something is so simple, it doesn't mean it's not beneficial. "No pain, no gain" is not true 100% of the time.

For fun, see BanTheBulb.org. Are their statistics wrong? For example, in this BBC opinion piece by the same person, it states:
Are these statistics wrong? Overly optimistic? Yes, be grumpy all you want about so much more that can be done but don't gripe about the bit of good news coming our way.

And if you really think that the oil industry is behind the ban the bulb legislation, please document this.

As I said, the statistics trying to tell us that it is an important energy saving already were repeatdly questioned, but I have no reference to that, since it was on TV and I slipped into it by suprise only. The danger is that this story will be serving as an alibi not to tackle the real important variables and factors. If that happens - and so far nothing indicates it will not be like this while our exoperience with emission certificate trading is a failure story from A to Z - then the beig story of changing the bulbs could easily do more harm than good. I know that I am sounding like a never-satisfied party-killer, but hey, haven'T you followed the summit? All that big show, climate UN reports and telling the message over and over again -. and then nothing than a declaration of intention, and replacement of light bulbs? C'mon! That's really a bit too poor a perfomance, isn't it!

Several public offices, and local communities already have replaced their bulbs for energy-savers, btw, and years ago they did that. so far it scores on the bills. But so far no one was able to show in numbers that it had a measurable effect on the global emission calculation. And while we sit here and talk, brown coal powerplants as well as black coal powerplants get build both inside and outside europe, which is absurd. My point is simply this: we do not have the time anymore to waste our time with such stupid and ifantile propagandistic campaign nonsens like "Change your bubble, save the world!" Minsteps is not enogh, we need huge jumps, very huge jumps. We have wasted decades with avoiding even ministeps.

It will end up like with those bands that refuse to join things like "Band aid" that were attacked for not caring for the third world, being not solidaric, when they said "No". these concerts changed nothing, but were a very entertaining media event - for the first world audience - this was what it was about.A nd if you refuse to jump on the change-the-bubble-train, you will soon be accused for wishing to destroy the planet, not caring for the environment, and being antisocial in general and having a doomsday-fetish in special. And irresponsible you are anyway. Greater players in emission and energy consummation feel the relief of temporarily not being targeted, thank you. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE WILLING DO ACCEPT BEHAVIORAL CHANGES AND EVEN QUALITY LOSSES IN THEIR LIFES TO HELP CLIMATE AND REDUCE RESSOURCE WASTING, ASK THEM HOW MANY OF THEM WOULD BE WILLING TO SKIP TRAVELLING TO FOREIGN CONTINENTS IN SUMMER HOLIDAY, NOT USING PLANES IF IT IS NOT URGENTLY NEEDED; AND TO STOP SHIPPING AND TRUCKING GOODS AND PRODUCTS AROUND THE GLOBE AND TO PLACE THAT ALREADY CREATE THE SAME GOODS AND PRODUCTS. OR ASK THEM IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO BOYCOT PC HARDWARE UPDATING THAT CONSUMES MORE AND MORE ENERGY, SINCE WE ARE AT IT :lol: "Me? But I want to play silent hunter 4, I need that new PSU and graphixs board!" "Playing with less than 1000 frames at 1600 x 1200 and all maxed out?! This is a democracy, I can play like I want!" :lol: You get th idea, so please don't de dissapointed with the result.

We had car-catalysators, and particle-filters for cars, and the things I mentioned above. Nothing of that changed the general trend of increasing energy consummation, and the climatic price for that. Econimocal arguments still go first. And the public still loves to get lulled if it is done in a way that leaves it the illusion that th Peter and Pauld actively have helped to change the world for the better.

Do a substantial job, or don't. This bulb-hype (because the Australians politically most correct had the idea) is simply not sufficient. If the Australians wouldn'T have had the idea, europe wouldn't talk about it. Europe wants to be seen as the leader of the pack in environmental issues, and do not want to be second best concerning light bulbs - so they copied the Australian decision. You could as well let it be. Kinderkacke.

I think we should have light free fridays.

Only essential services can have power like hospitals, military bases and the like. Make people go back to early nights and going blind by candle light.

Here I am - the only one who is in opposition again.

How many people here know of studies based on flourecent lighting and how it is bad on your eyes?

I'll always have bulbs. I don't care what it costs me.

-S

I can't find the statistic for how much energy is consumed on the manufacturing of the new bulbs, and the comparison with how much energy it takes to build the older one.

Also, I can't find the statistic about the bulb industry in Europe. Where are the factories, what will be of the incandescent ones and its workers and what is the current and projected market share. Although not energy related, I'd like to have information on pollution.

It seems that the new bulbs are more complex than the older ones and require more petroleum components to be made. Exactly how much more Oil? An increase in production to replace incandescent bulbs will increase the effect on the enviroment. Where is the statistic on how energy demanding an Electrical Ballast is to make and the effects of its increased production? Where is the statistic on how much an increase in cryogenic fractional distillation of liquified air (and the liquifying of air) will affect energy consumption? How will an increase in phosphor production and the extraction of its host materials affect energy consumption? What about the casing?

Nothing is said of the waste aswell. They last longer but not indefinitely. How much Mercury is inside each lamp and how would an increase in the use of CFLs increase discharge and contamination of land, air and water by Mercury? If most of them aren't safe to be disposed in the regular gargabe (something highly likely to occur as people will simply carry over their habit of disposing the old bulbs) but must be properly recycled, how much energy does the entire cycle of reclycing demands? And can you break down the cycle giving me the statistic for consumption of each step (first transportation, selecting/processing, next possible transportation if not recycled at the factory, recycling proper, next transportation to market shelf and final transportation to user's home)?

Anyway, I didn't knew Australia started this trend, but it's true. Australia was the first government to take action but it was preceded by "non"-governamental organizations, though I can't back this claim, as these orgs might aswell have received money from governments:

1. In October 2005 the British Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology considered LEDs as a potential replacement for conventional light sources.

2. In Fall 2006 Project Porchlight distributed CFL bulbs in Canada.

3. In June 2006 American NGO Enviromental Defense launched the campaigning website Take the Pledge.

4. In September 2006 Wal-Mart announced that it would work to double the sale of CFLs, in partnership with GE.

5. In November 2006 the One Billion Bulbs campaigning website was launched in America.

6. In February 2007 the Australian government decided to phase out incandescent lightbulbs.

As a side note, I've found out that South African CFL manufacturer Eskom is replacing incandescent bulbs for CFLs: http://www.eskomdsm.co.za/pdfs/CFLdlnotification.pdf

Personally I've missed my opportunity to experiment and investigate the empirical data available to me at the moment I've switched some of my lamps for CFLs. I could've checked luminosity with a cheap tool and also easily observed any change on my energy bill. I've done neither so I must believe what the media, the companies and the governments say. I suggest that any of you who are getting CFLs right now to hold on before discarding you old bulbs. Buy a lumens measuring device and take note of the energy consumption of 3 previous months. Compare winter with winter, summer with summer, season with season. Cross-season comparisons are invalid. Also, account for extraordinary weather patterns or too great imbalances and find a properly comparable month (avoid a summer too warmer or colder than the other, same for winter). This also includes anything you've changed in your household (a new hungry refrigerator, a new powerfull PC, etc.).

With all this empirical data in your hands you have more than an opinion or a hope, you have facts.

I for one can say, I suffered headaches from flourecent lighting in two previours jobs.

And why do businesses need to leave there office block lit up at night? Just a waste of energy in my view.

Oh now that's over the top, travel, including air travel has given me opportunities and benefits. I believe cars do cause more pollution globally anyway. I can do without tomatoes in winter (well I can buy canned, or dried) but we always traded for things like tea, wine and even oil. We always used it in my household growing up in Canada.

I hope you're not accusing Neal of promoting global warming, or quit posting in the tanksim forum. :arrgh!: (Joke)

Actually out local supermarket does Phillip's bulbs by one get one free for 99p.

Darn cheap and usually about once every couple of months.

Yes. For compensation we could reduce the number of thge many brain-free days that we already have. :-j

Ehm, not really. :lol:

You see, here it already starts as I predicted! "Yes, save the world, but don't expect me to seriously change my living habits. I have plenty of good reasons, you see." Modern planes are okay beyond a certain distance, and if you have reasons to travel. Mass tourism is not. It even is no right.

Trading is okay in principle, nothing against that. I sell you what you don't have and can't produce yourself, and you sell me what I don't have and can't produce myself. That'S what trading originally has been about in past times. But why the hell must we sent container ships and cargo planes and trillions of trucks around with goods that the others at the target location alraedy have, and produce themselves??? Radios. refrigerators. Milk. butter. Eggs. Vegetables. Meat. TVs. Etc. Etc. Etc. Limit trading to those goods that are not available to the other. You have my vote. But today's practice is idiotic. Today, goods do not have so much a value in themselves, but by keeping them moving around. The longer they travel, the more precious they become. That is IDIOTIC. we are paying for the moving around, not for the item, the material it is made of, the work it took to build it. Ireland does not need milk from holland, germany does not need butter from Ireland, and Holland does not need grain from Germany. A goose must not be bred in Poland, must not be send to Holland for feeding, must not be send to spain for more feeding, must not be send back to Poland to be sold as Polish goose (it is an international coproduction by then anyway). It could be bred, raised, fed and sold on one and the same farm anyway. One could also mention airbus' crisis and it's Europe-wide spreading of production facilties to see that in such deeply sick structures also other problems are hidden.

First everybody consumes his own resosurces. and THEN deficits get taken care of by buying the according items and using what one has too much of one's own goods. That is what I consider to be clever trading. But admitted, it maybe is less profitable, so... But if somebody thinks he must have his Irish butter in Germany and therefore all the energy and effort during the logistical efforts must be maintained in the name of "free trade" and "democracy", because it is so much more tasty (probably only in his imagination anyway), then I could not care less for that man. He better should change his taste, basta.

Hello All,

I'll have to admit, I agree with Skybird on many points.

For the 1st time in my life, I will disagree with Ben Franklin. If he actually said "A Watt saved is a Watt earned". Why, because a Watt you saved is a Watt used by someone else. Watts are not stored like money in a coffee jar. They are used the moment they are created since they are energy, unlike water which can be stored & saved. Now, the saying "A Dollar saved IS a Dollar earned", I agree with.

I see this whole lightbulb push, as a means to push people towards a new technology, not necessarily a better one. Certainly does not appear to be a cheaper one dispite some claims without facts.

When I just looked in the Walgreens ad in the Sunday paper, and I saw 60w - 100w ECObulbs on sale but here's the catch. 1 is $5.99 (any watt) and get 1 free. I would rather buy 1 at $3.00 then have to buy 2 for the discount.

In the Target ad, I see 4 pk 60w GE Reveal for $2.34 (about 59¢ each).

Now it may take me about 2-3 years to use up all 4 60w bulbs, so maybe it would save me about 50¢ in the long run (only if I bought 2 ECObulbs but used 1 to be fare to the comparison) after 3+ years using just 1 socket for the test, but I can save the 50¢ now by taking 5 sec to cut out a coupon to save 50¢ on Toaster Strudels and have something to eat next to the lamp.

But compared to items not on sale, the reg lightbulb still looks like a better deal since 4 bulbs come in 1 pack for $2.34 and only 1 bulb comes in ECOBulb and normally sells for $5.99 and last maybe 5 years.

I still do not believe that by the time I use up all 4 Lightbulbs, I would have spent more on them and the utility bill then I would spend on the ECObulb minus the savings on the bill.

Now when it comes to social engineering, I remember back in Jr High, we had a vending machine that sold apples for $1 and next to it, a chocolate bar for 50¢. Guess which sold and which I bought:roll:

My point is this, I will switch to the so called "better" item when the prices are comparable. I do not care what packaging they put with it whether it be fancy wrapping, a guilt trip for buying what I want or anything else. Price is the deciding factor for me, not a brand name, slogan or some vague cause. I have no intent of going out to destroy this planet any more then I plan to put a lot of hard working people out of work just to make environmentalist happy.

New technology almost always cost more to make which means the production of the ECO friendly device will more then likely negate the benefits of buying the device anyway.

Just my 2¢

Australia Has decide to ditch the old and bring in the new. It has been anounced that they will stop selling the old incandesent bulbs in the near future.

I know some people will complain about the cost of the new v old, but the price has come down and after the first year you are saving money. Win-Win.:up:

You forget - if that bulb costs you 5 times the cost of the old normal bulb, did it use 5x the energy that is could possibly save to just produce it? In all reality, it could actually harm the environment more to produce the cheaper wattage bulb! We need to see a study on this I think.

-S

PS. Besides, Flourecent bulbs cause eye strain, and ultimately it is glasses for you! Another win for the optics companies too! Win win for all! Bulb companies get more $$$ for the new bulb, it possibly could cost more energy in production than it might save (To be debated), consumer gets forced to pay more profits to the bulb companies (win for the bulb company), screws up your eyes with it 60Hz or so illumination cycle (win for the optics companies!!!). - I guess it is a win for someone, but I don't think a $25 bulb is going to save me $20 over its total life ever to cover its $5 old counterpart!!! I expect it to save me $5 in total out of pocklet energy for a total loss to me of $15 over its older counterpart!

PPS. I can totally see how this is easy to sell to the public when we as the public are lacking the full picture!

I agree,

When all is said and done, I don't see the new bulbs as being cheaper, only a gimmick that environmentalist like because either they don't know or don't care about the truth.

I think they just bought onto to this whole "Low Energy" and "Good for the Environment" thing with no regard to how they are made or their cost. And like many environmentalist I hear about, probably don't care about the people, only the effect.