As you may know, with the powers of persuasion and regulation the Aussie Government have recently introduced a ban on incandescent light bulbs, persuading the public to switch to fluorescent bulbs which use less energy and omit less green house gases. In incandescent light bulbs, electricity flows through a filament to create light, but much of the energy is wasted in the form of heat.
Australian Prime Minister, John Howard’s approach is to unite Australia in this potentially huge global change to the environment, this seems like an obvious route to take, but its a first to create a ban on light bulbs, something seemingly so trivial.
Howard’s been quoted as saying “Here’s something practical that everybody will participate in”
This statement enforces a feeling of ‘follow the leader’.
When it comes to making a change in the environment, it has usually taken a minority of environmentalists to test the water to induce a change.
But it now seems a ‘trend’ for being eco-friendly has been born! No longer is it a stereotyped job for ‘hippies’ to fight for change on behalf of the environment, now the average Joe can join in, and be respected for his contributions too!
Many of us Brits have already jumped on the ‘eco- friendly’ band wagon, but the English “I don’t care, I won’t be around when that happens” approach still feels like we have too much choice, there should be more pressure from our government, to crack down on this climate problem.
And could we feel more climate-self-assured if Tony Blair followed in Howard’s footsteps? Blair has swapped his light bulb above No.10 to a florescent one! Surely he can promote the importance of changing to florescent bulbs nationally, by contributing to the incandescent bulb ban.
However, Australia still refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol; an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC)
The Kyoto Protocol covers more than 160 countries globally, including the UK.
Isn’t it rather embarrassing that a country as un-green as Australia is showing up Britain?
It is said that Australia’s switch to fluorescent bulbs could prevent 4 million tons of carbon emissions being pumped into the atmosphere, and would cut household power bills by 66%, by 2012.
If this turned into a global fashion 16 Billion tons of gases would also be prevented from harming our environment.
Cuba had launched the same scheme, two years ago, but more so to prevent electrical blackouts around the island. California is now considering a similar ban on the light bulbs, hopefully the remaining states of America could consider this too!
By changing this one simple element in the household has Australia created an international panic button?
And although florescent bulbs are slightly more expensive than standard bulbs, it seems a small price to pay on our part! Change your light bulb and help save the world!!
www.msnbc.msn.com
The Guardian
The Guardian
The Eco change ideal is now not only expected of all of us, it has become a multi-million pound business of its own. Millions of pounds are being poured into developing alternate sources of energy but, as Antonia Senior suggests, is this truly ethical?
ReplyDelete'Is it ethical to demand that the developing world stays poor so that we can clean up the environmental mess we have created? Solar and wind power will not bring electricity to the world’s poor; only carbon-spewing fossil fuels will do that. Is it ethical to make saving polar bears a priority when one third of the world’s population live without electricity?'
The F&C Stewardship Growth fund, for example, forbids investment in pharmaceutical companies because of animal testing. Amid this mishmash of funds catering for every ethical whim is the key to staving off ecological Armageddon — capitalism is our best hope. Forget tree huggers and ageing radicals looking for a new cause to get angry about, profits and private enterprise will save the world, or nothing will.