The American Debate

Posted April 20, 2011 // Tagged as Blog // 5 Comments ↓

As the incandescent bad has begun to reach people’s consciousness there are some interesting articles appearing.

American Thinker masthead
In the American Thinker on 19 April 2011 Edmund Kontonski has written “The CFL Fraud” identifying a number of issues and includes links to a number of stories where CFLi have caused domestic fires. This is an ongoing proble in the USA as there is twice as much curent in lamps running at 120 V as opposed to 230V in Europe. There are a lot more recessed and enclosed fittings all of which create conditions for overheating. He goes on to address Mercury, slow start up, light loss over life, heat replacement factor, UV emissions, waste and recycling, incompatibility with dimmers, basically all the stuff we have been talking about for the last several years!

In the Wall Street Journal on January 19, 20ll Rebecca Smith has written “New Lightbulbs Lose a Little Shine” discussing the failure of the subsides for CFLi to met the requirements set out to deliver energy savings.

Both articles are worth reading as are some of the discussions attached to them

Kevan Shaw April 20, 2011

5 Responses

  1. peter

    May 6th, 2011 at 09:53

    Extending American debate to North American debate
    worth also mentioning Canada…

    Prime minister Stephen Harper’s government just before elections (that they won) promised to look into the ban on simple incandescent bulbs, with a 2 year delay proposal

    CBC article

    Official details

    NOTE that anyone can comment on the Canadian proposal
    not just Canadians, for 75 days following March 24 2011!
    (=to begining of June)

    See extract in the following comment

  2. peter

    May 6th, 2011 at 10:22

    RE Canada delay ban to 2014 proposal

    see previous comment

    that not only Canadians can comment
    – and if Canada changes, it clearly affects the USA
    and in turn stokes a debate elsewhere!


    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to section 26 of the Energy Efficiency Act (see footnote a), that the Governor in Council, pursuant to sections 20 (see footnote b) and 25 of that Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Energy Efficiency Regulations.

    Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 75 days after the date of publication of this notice.
    All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to

    John Cockburn, Director, Equipment Division, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources, 930 Carling Avenue (CEF, Building 1, Observatory Crescent), 2nd Floor, Room 25, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y3
    (*** tel.: 613-996-4359;
    email: *** )

    Ottawa, March 24, 2011

    Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

    All jurisdictions implementing minimum energy performance standards for light bulbs have experienced similar issues with respect to the suitability of alternatives to the conventional inefficient light bulb. Public and media commentary has been prevalent and all stakeholders are aware of the issues raised. This proposed amendment, once published for a 75-day comment period, will allow for both a focussed commentary on the issues raised and any negative effects on stakeholders of the proposed delay. It will also provide an opportunity to establish joint efforts with those concerned to deal with them.

    Implementation, enforcement and service standards
    Since the proposed amendment constitutes a relaxation of the current timetable, no additional enforcement efforts need be considered. Implementation of the delay will be accomplished through effective communication activities during the pre-publication and publication period.

    In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, a preliminary strategic environmental assessment will be completed for publication.

    Performance measurement and evaluation
    A performance measurement and evaluation plan, as specified under the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation specific to this amendment, is being developed for publication.

  3. peter

    May 6th, 2011 at 10:27

    For details on why a ban in Canada is particularly wrong:
    Smaller savings, no energy shortage, low emissions, cold conditions, more time indoors in varied surroundings etc

    Various Canadian studies as also quoted in
    show that CO2 emissions rise rather than fall from a ban, from heat replacement and other ban effects

  4. peter

    June 3rd, 2011 at 14:44

    As of 26th May
    The Texas Bill has now gone all the way to the Governor for signing (or not),
    the furthest current US protest Bill

  5. Allen West

    June 12th, 2011 at 04:21

    Leave it to the folks in the People’s Republic of California to take a bad idea and double down on it:

    This guy is trying to move the ban date up to 2012 in California. I’m living in Nevada right now, and I expect to see lots of folks driving over the border to shop for incandescents if this goes through. At least it will help the Nevada economy.

Leave a Reply