There is no need to save energy anyway. Heat energy from light bulbs is distributed into the building, not wasted.
The energy supply issue can be dealt with via nuclear generation.
It is an inconvenience for me because CFLs are not fit for the advertised purpose and I won't use them in the house.
If climate change is going to happen, it is going to happen as it has many times before. The solution is to deal with the consequences rather than playing King Knut.
Absolutely, because your premise is emotional bullshit.
The "new 20W T3 spiral Dimmable EnergySaver+ can be dimmed using a standard dimmer switch from 2% to 100% brightness ... during its 16000 hour lifetime"
I can't comment on how good it is, as I don't have one.
Well the Official Government Line is that we have to lead by example, as in how can the West pontificate about the need for the Far East to desist from belching carbon into the atmosphere if we aren't trying to do so ourselves. Like it'll make any difference.
Well, if the required outcome is to increase tax take, then they are very competent at achieving that objective. One can argue as to whether it's the most efficient way. OTOH, one can look for legitimate ways not to pay it.
How can we in the West (etc.) whilst we continue to buy all their cheap goods? But the Govt daren't whack on really hefty "environmental" import tariffs because that would send inflation skyrocketing.
George Orwell wrote about the effect of cheap food and clothing on the contentedness of society in the 1930s and how they stopped the peasants revolting. Not a lot has changed.
I'd like to see the figures - what savings from switching from incandescent lamps to CFLs are projected to be, together with the assumptions behind the figures. For comparison, I think the Chinese are building about two coal powered power stations per week ().
I suspect there are better ways of achieving more savings than replacing incandescent lamps. For example, I would have thought that improving the efficiency of electric hobs and heaters would save more energy overall. There's an awful lot of resistance coil electric hobs out there, and mandating the use of induction cookers would help on the energy efficiency front. There's also a rather large number of storage heaters - replacing them with air-source heat pumps (aka air conditioners) would be more efficient (but have the effect from moving the load from the night-time to the day, which might not be what is wanted).
Banning architectural lighting would help, as someone has pointed out, somewhat acerbically.
It's worth pointing out that switching electricity generation from fossil fuel based to non-fossil fuel will reduce carbon emissions - so powering incandescent lamps from renewables or nuclear is carbon neutral. Perhaps one could require those who wish to use incandescent lamps to use a 'green' electricity supplier. Norway generates more power per year by hydro than it uses, so CFLs are not especially popular there.
As someone else pointed out, if you really want to reduce consumption, reducing the population is a good bet. Don't have kids. A rerun of WW1 would help, and an economic depression will reduce demand as well. A rerun of the Black Death or the 1918 flu epidemic would also work wonders. Avian flu anyone? The D-I-Y approach would be to commit suicide - catchy tagline there - "Save the planet - kill yourself.", but would be difficult to market. Asking committed environmentalists to lead by example and drop dead might be taken the wrong way.
If the west were serious, how about them donating free of charge our clean coal technologies, and particulate scrubbers, and sequestration technologies?
Would be as useful as asking committed politicians to do the same. Both groups are committed followers of "do as I say not as I do".
No finer example can be found than the latest "expert" bit of greenery producing fatuous "quality of life" reports - Zac Goldsmith. His sole qualification seems to be that daddy bought him a magazine to play with. His family has the carbon hoofprint of a medium sized city. His report advocated carbon taxation and his brother owns a company selling "carbon credits" allowing more pollution to those that pay for it.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.