Canada rolls back the incandescent ban!

Posted May 25, 2011 // Tagged as Blog // 8 Comments ↓

In response to massive negative public response to legislation that mirrors the USA the ban has been put on hold until at least 2014. As pointed out elsewhere the colder the country and the more non fossil fuel electricity that exists the poorer the environmental argument is for swapping incandescent lamps for CFLi. With a particular concern for other environmental impacts, particularly mercury emissions and other waste, Canadian legislators have realised that the existing arguments are not appropriate for Canada. They also cite the speed of change has not allowed for full technological development of either higher efficiency incandescent lamps or other light sources.

There is an interesting parallel here with the situation in New Zealand where, at the last minute, they rejected playing follow my leader with the Australian ban and sought to make decisions appropriate to their situation. I hope that this move in Canada will allow other countries peripheral to Europe to make their own decisions and not capitulate to ill considered legislation dreamed up in the massive and often ill informed legislatures of the major world players.

Kevan Shaw 25 May 2011

8 Responses

  1. Larry French

    May 25th, 2011 at 17:45

    Hello Kevin!

    Are there news articles about this? Have you followed what Howard Brandston is doing? Hope all is well.

  2. peter

    May 26th, 2011 at 14:07

    Larry
    re more information
    you may find http://ceolas.net/#li01inx useful:
    US, California, Canada, B.Columbia (and EU, Australia) legislation
    CBC news article and official information link to Canada delay proposal
    updates on US House/Senate, S. Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Minnesota and Arizona repeal Bills

  3. peter

    May 26th, 2011 at 17:12

    Re “the ban has been put on hold until at least 2014″

    Unfortunately it’s only up for consultation as yet
    Some even say it was just an election gambit by the
    prime minister, who after all decided on the ban some years back

    I talked to John Cockburn
    (see http://savethebulb.org/the-american-debate )
    He is collecting submissions on the issue
    He will then put together a presentation to the government
    in July or so.
    I think they will likely decide in the autumn (the fall)

    Don’t want to sound too negative about it,
    the Canadian media seem to assume a delay,
    but given also the federal US pressure on individual states
    attempting a repeal of the ban,
    one can expect the same kind of US pressure on Canada during the summer
    (incidentally mirroring how the EU behaves towards
    Norway, Switzerland and Iceland)

    The political – industrial machine behind this ban
    is going to take some stopping, at least with the current US
    (and EU) political administrations in place
    Hopefully I am wrong….

  4. peter

    May 27th, 2011 at 10:28

    Canada Government Open Invitation to Comment on
    Canadian Ban Delay Proposal:
    Before June 30th 2011
    http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2011/2011-04-16/html/reg1-eng.html
    Comments to: John Cockburn equipment@nrcan.gc.ca
    Telephone: 613-996-4359
    .

  5. peter

    November 19th, 2011 at 18:29

    Delay is now official…
    some links and observations on it
    http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/11/canada-delay-to-2014-its-official.html

    In the wake of this decision,
    notice that in British Columbia (which have a ban),
    the Conservatives are now also promising to defer/cancel the ban if they gain power
    CBC article ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/16/bc-cummins-incandescent-ban-delay.html )
    Policy release ( http://bcconservative.ca/2011/11/cummins-reverse-the-ban-on-100-watt-and-75-watt-incandescent-light-bulbs/ )

    Re
    There is an interesting parallel here with the situation in New Zealand where, at the last minute, they rejected playing follow my leader with the Australian ban
    good point

    Re the colder the country and the more non fossil fuel electricity that exists, the poorer the environmental argument is for swapping incandescent lamps for CFLs
    good points too…
    there are indeed several reasons why bans in Canada (and other such regions) are wrong
    http://ceolas.net/#li11x
    .

  6. Ron Lentjes

    November 18th, 2012 at 14:41

    http://sites.law.lsu.edu/amicus-curiae/2012/09/18/eu-directive-bans-incandescent-light-bulbs/#comment-5523

    A course on the Art of Lighting – Human Factors

    Now that Australia has been rudely transformed into a scientifically sound Watts and Lumens place of Friday the 13th Lighting Expedition due to the PROFIT motives of PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NV NEDERLANDS, we need proper assessment of lighting needs. Namely the art of lighting, the human factors of lighting, and the FIGHT for APPROPRIATE lighting practices other than those of the CARTEL members of the PHILIPS GIANT.

    Q. Who started the BAN OF INCANDESCENTS?

    A. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NV NEDERLANDS.

    Q. What was the motive behind the ban?

    A. PHILIPS was pushing the SALE of it’s baby the CFL but was up against the constant client preference to INCANDESCENT lighting. Americans in a 2003 study kept going back to INCANDESCENT. Only 2.5% take up.

    Q. Why is Australia hushing up those apposed to the BAN?

    A. Unlike Canada and USA where this is not allowed, Australia have very bad policy of white-washing the just opinions of its citizens. This is due to the CRAFTY bribes of PHILIPS and members of persuasion (to put it mildly). Woolworths is part and parcel of this collusion.

    Q. Why such a push?

    A. Huge profits. The INCANDESCENT can only sell for $0.50 to $1.00. A poor profit item. CFL and LED can pull in approx $6 and $20 accordingly.

    Q. What is incandescence?

    A. It is light produced by the ‘black-body’ heating of an object.

    Q. Why is this preferred?

    A. Incandescence produces an INFINITE range of FREQUENCIES of smooth composition of light. This kind of light can take all the reflections and refractions and filtering after bouncing off all the objects in a room lit by this quality of light. It is also a favorable yellow-white warm light of INFINITE FREQUENCIES that maintains its quality under all the transformations of dimming and reflections and refractions and filtering that normally occurs in the process of ambient lighting conditions.

    Q. What is the common problem with CFL, Fluorescent, and white-LED?

    A. They all produce their light using a selection of approximately 5 different pigments excited by UV or BLUE LED light. The spectrum is like that of a dead forest of spiky trees with little fill in. Very poor rendition. Very sensitive to manufacturing and to other conditions. Resultant lighting becomes very distorted after only a few (if only one) reflection, refraction or filtering. Many view the light as ‘strange’ or ‘eerie’. Low quality. Most often rendered as COLD white light. Some ‘WARM’ pigment versions are still very strange and vary between BLUE-PURPLE-GREEN-VIOLET off white. Unstable rendition.

    Q. Has anyone taken into consideration the human factors of lighting?

    A. Not PHILIPS. Not those with VESTED INTERESTS in PROFITS. There is HUGE margin for profits. Human factors are an annoyance to PHILIPS and they rather use the MEDIA to propagate FALSE MISINFORMATION about the entire issue. False mentions that people will get used to this kind of light (absolutely not possible) and false uptake numbers.

    Q. Why the hush campaign?

    A. Many people DO NOT LIKE the new forms of lighting. It is a natural response. You don’t paint walls pure white. You don’t paint them blue-white. You paint off-white with warm colors for warm effect. No different than the choice of INCANDESCENT lighting. This includes the use of fire-place lighting, candle lighting, kerosene lighting and incandescent lighting.

    Q. Is it worth abandoning warm, calm, inviting INCANDESCENT lighting just for the sake of more energy efficient options of poorer forms of lighting such as CFL, Fluorescent and white-LED?

    A. If quality of light, quality of life, quality of health, quality of tourism, quality of relaxation are of concern, then the answer is simply no. Everything is to be taken in balance. The most efficient lighting is the most annoying kind of lighting. It is BLUE light and devoid of BODY (the billions of frequencies of INCANDESCENT lighting).

    Q. Why is it important to choose quality lighting?

    A. You spend all you life under lighting. Choose INCANDESCENCE (fire-place, candle, kerosene, INCANDESCENT) lighting and you will never suffer from the ills of bad lighting. You don’t have to limit your exposure, you don’t get headaches, you don’t have biological stresses from this kind of lighting. It is safe. You’re body knows it is safe. But choose poor lighting (CFL, Fluorescent, white-LED) and you suffer from any number of issue including BLUE light, UV, Flicker (even new CFL: one at 40,000 Hz and one at 39,990 results in 10Hz of annoying sickly feel), biological stress from the light and the EMF from unshielded clipping power supplies in the near radio frequency 40,000 Hz range, the strange incorrect reflections, refractions, filtering of 5 frequency spikes resulting in eerie and strange lighting effects. And the UVA, B, C, D, E so on that is NOT filtered from atmosphere, ionosphere, ozone layers that normally shield us the the Sun’s generation of these UV spectrum (the CFL/FLU is direct to you).

    Q. What does Canada say about CFL?

    A. Not to be exposed closer than 30cm for no longer than 3 hours per day (or 1 hour for larger units).

    Q. What does Australia say about CFL?

    A. (Hushed up).

    Q. What does USA say about breaking CFL?

    A. Proper guide to all clean up steps to be taken. Step one is to leave the area immediately, FIRST. Then follow all remaining steps (including NOT to vacuum or sweep with a broom).

    Q. What does Australia say about breaking CLF?

    A. (Hushed up).

    Q. Why is Australia not backing down?

    A. PROFIT.

    Q. What does artists and photographers think about this fiasco?

    A. Many simply change to in-house studio with their heavily guarded collection of INCANDESCENT bulbs. Some are upset they cannot take night photography anymore in Australia outdoors. Many artists have a similar issue with LED. Colored monochromatic lights for display (not ambient room lighting) is great, fantastic. When lighting white off-white and moody, use INCANDESCENT only. When general room lighting: Only INCANDESCENT for art. Fluorescent ok when using machinery to cut things but otherwise not. But white-LED is NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE what-so-ever. The only exception is non-art. Friday the 13th movies with eerie scenes: COLD CLF, COLD Fluorescent and EERIE white-LED is perfect for those ‘DEAD’ scenes.

    Q. What do interior decorators feel about CFL and white-LED?

    A. They are very angry. I know one in particular who now has a site about how they cannot properly design because an important tool has been taken away from them: THE INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULB.

    Q. Why does Australia gov’t not care?

    A. PROFIT.

    Q. Where are OHSA complaints about lighting directed?

    A. 1st attempt. Sorry, their is no department to handle such a complaint. 2nd attempt. You have to contact Australia Lighting (aka PHILIPS).

    Q. Why have they eliminated all avenues to oversee lighting in Australia?

    A. PHILIPS controls the lighting in Australia.

    Q. Why are there very few courses for human factors of lighting?

    A. PHILIPS educates kids in schools. They want total control of lighting and the resulting sales and PROFITS.

    Q. You’ve got to be kidding.

    A. Do your own research.

    STOP THE CRIMINAL $$PROFITEERING$$ BAN OF INCANDESCENTS.

    Cheers,
    Ron Lentjes
    For the calm, safe, comfortable INCANDESCENT lighting of the WORLD.
    Not for the $$PROFITS$$ of a few $$GREEDY$$ players.

    (Just visit Australia. What a total disaster!)

  7. Ron Lentjes

    November 18th, 2012 at 14:42

    oops, sorry for the link at the top, you can delete that.

  8. Maryjane Garica

    June 7th, 2013 at 23:35

    To be honest I prefer the CFL for work or normal use because I can see things clearer. I like it brighter. And I could use less lamps for bigger room. And when I sleep I do not use any lamps at all, because darkness make me have healthier sleep.

Leave a Reply