Once again illustrating the global warming crowd’s statist intentions, Ontario, Canada has joined Australia in the incandescent bulb ban fad. Ontario’s ban will take effect in 2012. Never mind the move’s empty moral symbolism. Replacement fluorescents haven’t exactly been getting rave reviews as their wider use has exposed inherent limitations. And there are other reasons why the ban’s target date is likely to fail. Here are two.
Kim Freeman, a spokeswoman for GE Consumer & Industrial, tells Hearst newspapers “there’s no need to ban a particular technology. We know we can use innovation to get energy-efficient incandescent lighting.” Hearst reports “GE expects by 2010 to roll out an incandescent light bulb that is twice as efficient as current incandescent bulbs, and by 2012 a bulb that is four times as efficient and comparable in use to CFL bulbs.”
Then there will be competing liberal agendas.
Problem: CFLs contain mercury. Freeman warns a national policy for disposing safely of these new-age bulbs is needed.
Problem #2: The poor. According to an excellent piece in American Thinker, CFLs are “five times more expensive than regular incandescents, which if replaced in their entirety would cost consumers an extra $4 to 5 billion at the cash register. This ban will be a tax on poor people and the silent majority-retirees on fixed incomes, single working parents, low wage earners working double shifts or two jobs along with the average Joes and Marys who live each week paycheck-to-paycheck.”
One can already see pitchforks at the green door.