TH Reader Proposes "Tax the Bulb"
by Jeff McIntire-Strasburg, St. Louis, MO on 11.22.06
Treehugger reader Francis Irving pointed us to a cool new feature at the British Prime Minister's web site: citizens can create e-petitions, collect signatures, and then send them directly to Downing Street. Francis himself has already used the system to create a petition calling for a new tax on inefficient light bulbs. The text of the petition reads:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to levy a tax on energy inefficient light bulbs so that their long term financial and environmental cost is visible in their retail price.In his comments, Francis compares the environmental costs of traditional incandescent bulbs, and the benefits of compact fluorescents (a subject with which we're familiar). We say if you can't ban them outright, a tax sounds like the next best step to push British consumers towards more efficient lighting (and it fits nicely with "Chelsea Tractor" and "pay as you throw" proposals). We don't know, though, if the Prime Minister can do this himself, or if it takes an act of Parliament. ::"Tax the Bulb" at E-Petitions
Image by PiccoloNamek at Wikipedia
FACT SHEET: Mercury in Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs):
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf
Maybe there should be a deposit on CFL's like certain states have on bottles. Then they can be properly disposed of.
and your point, kent? you think that people on TH aren't hip to recycling?
_______________________________________________
Writer's note: Let's all please watch our tone. There's no need to get into an argument about who knows what....
thanks for the tip-off. signed and emailed to a dozen others ;)
Tax, tax, tax, tax, tax!
Is just the governments way of getting money for doing nothing.
How do you expect people to do the positive thing like changing over to CFL or LED lighting, when you offer them a negative incentive like another tax if they don't ? Think again!
I am sure I am going to get flamed for this, but I really don't see the reason to buy one of these "energy saving" bulbs. And here's why:
They are way more complex than a good old bulb, they require more energy and chemicals to actually make them work and there is (to my knowledge) no easy way to actually recycle them in a meaningful way once they are done.
The amount of toxins IN such a bulb are a lot higher too than in a "traditional" bulb.
Having said that: There are easy ways to save energy: Turn the light OFF when you're not in a room. Not really all that hard and so far most of my "classic" bulbs have lasted longer than the new fangled energy savers (I had three die on me, probably the electronics in the bulb).
Michael ...
Definitely won't be me flaming you! :-) I think you make a very good point.
Beyond the mercury aspect Kent mentioned (something I learned about only recently!), the cradle-to-cradle factors of CFL & LED lighting have not been identified for consumers, so we're purchasing 'in the dark' as we try to do our bit.
Cheers
J
hmm... why tax it... why not do it like the Australians want to do it, just ban it! Besides, yes, fluorescents were a stop-gap measure, harder, dirtier to manufacture than incandescents... but that ain't the case with LEDs... LEDs are a bloody miracle... We knew we could make'em eons ago, but it took indie-flashlight designers to finally break the blue meanie log jam! Now we got'em... lets run with them... LEDs are good. LEDs are strong... LEDs lets you grow pot without infra-red heat signature... LEDs will shut down nuclear power!
Ikea (USA) has a drop box at their front door for recycling of CFL light bulbs. At least that's what they're claiming to do with them.