Banning inefficient bulbs really is a bright idea

That there would be negative comments is no surprise. We did write in to say we supported the idea, but people are generally more motivated to say why they are opposed to something than why they are for it.

And a lot of the concerns were valid. OK, so I’m not convinced that outlawing light bulbs that use four times as much power as they need to in order to do the job is a sign of creeping green fascism as one commentator suggested, but concerns about mercury, quality of light, and versatility all make a lot of sense.

And all of these concerns have solutions.

For example, there’s more mercury released into the environment by burning extra coal to power inefficient bulbs than would be if every compact fluorescent (the twisty bulbs) were thrown out – but we can and should have mandatory take-back programs so the mercury in those bulbs is captured and recycled.

Nor are compact fluorescent bulbs (whose quality of light has been getting better) the only option – by 2012 we will have lots of LED options that are even more energy efficient and have a nice, warm light. We may even have nifty silicon-based bulbs that save energy and have a great quality of light.

And all those clever capitalists will make bulbs that will fit every possible application, now that they know they will have a market for them.

By enacting this ban (along with lots of other governments), Canada will rapidly transform a technology that hasn’t really advanced since the days of Edison. So good on ‘em.

Now just don’t let me get started on the federal government’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions proposal.

by Keith Stewart