FEB 23

In a dramatic move on the 22nd of February, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard moved to ban incandescant light bulbs by the year 2010. This makes Australia the first country to take nationwide action to ban inefficent incandescant light bulbs. The Australian government believes that the ban will slash carbon emissions Down Under by over a million tons by 2012.

Howard's decision is a bit of a surprise, as for the past decade his refusal to sign up to the Kyoto protocol has ostracised Howard from the hub of the growing movement against global warming.

Bill Turnbull, Environmental Minister is said: "It's a little thing but it's a massive change. If the whole world switches to these bulbs today we would reduce our consumption of electricity by an amount equal to five times Australia's annual consumption of electricity."

By contrast, bold action in the other great nations of the world is somewhat lacking. We heard on EcoGeek earlier this month that legislators in the state of California and New England are looking to ban incandescant bulbs, whilst in Britain, Tony Blair changed the light outside his house from a incandescant bulb to a energy-saving bulb, in a bold move to provide weak symbolic support to the cause.

Despite this move, Australia will still produce 561 million tonnes of CO2, if this plan makes the 4 million ton savings in CO2 which are hoped for.

Comments (7)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

No need to "kill the bulb"
written by Jason, February 24, 2007

Dude, they'll save enough if they use fluorescent bulbs. They don't need to "kill the bulb" and live like cavemen again.

Also, look at the stats on the savings of the CO2 when the procedure is complete.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

% reduction is -
written by Vincenze, February 25, 2007

I've roughly calculated that Australia will be 108.6% 1990 level emissions in 2010 because of this legislation. As opposed to 109% had it not came about. Impressive, our target was 108%.

more at http://vincenze.com/?p=348.

v.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Why wait?
written by gdftgre, February 25, 2007

YOU can change today, why wait on the government to force you to change?

Don't you want cheaper electricity bills? Obviously not.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

First step
written by Grant, February 26, 2007

I agree, it's not a lot - about a 4% of household emisisons by my calculations:
http://synapsechronicles.com/2...cent-ban/

But it is a step, by a government who is reticent to do anything for reducing emissions. That is a good thing - but much more needed.

P.S. It's Malcolm Turnbull, not Bill.

G

• 
• +0
• 
• 

problems
written by David, March 01, 2007

There are three problems with this concept.

Firstly, my touch lamp wont accept energy savers. it just wont turn on.

secondly, i have put in energysavers, and in my old home, the light fixtures are falling out of the roof due to the excess weight.

Thirdly and asthetic issue. I am a photographer, and incandesent bulbs provide a lovely warm glow. fluoros are a nasty green glow.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Bulbs
written by Ree, March 02, 2007

Phillips make fluorescent bulbs that have a "yellow" light the same as incandescent bulbs. I have them in my house and its hard to tell the difference.
Ree

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Michael, March 04, 2007

I was going through Ikea and they have 3 packs of fluros so I changed the entire house on friday. Down here (Australia) we are still using mostly the age old Lightbulb so I'm fully behind this move.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment