NationStates Jolt Archive

REMINDING; any given incandescent light bulb consumes approximately five times more energy than its fluorescent alternative of the same luminance;

ALSO REMINDING; any given incandescent light bulb has a lifetime barely equal to 1/10th of its fluorescent alternative;

NOTING that the replacement of Incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent alternative will reduce carbon dioxide emission by approximately 100 million tons per annum in global scale and help consumers save billions of dollars;

We, the free nations of World Assembly, declare a global ban of production, marketing and use of incandescent light bulbs, starting exactly 6 months after the approval of this bill.



We spend billions for using light bulbs in vain and dump over 100 million tons of carbon dioxide into atmosphere to push our beloved world into an environmental cataclysm. And we can do nothing about it as long as we use this ancient technology.

I think we need to get rid of light bulbs, which cost us dearly and see what can we do with newer technologies, such as fluorescent, halogen discharge lamps and LEDs.

Within this perspective, we invite you to support our proposal waiting before WA.

Respectfully,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Apostols.

I have an important question, when you submitted this, you did so under Environmental, Uranium Mining. My question is this, since when is uranium used in incandescent light bulbs?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Thanks for the question.

As a matter of fact, the proposed bill, though environment related, has no recognizable negative impact for industry except energy companies, which happily charge us and make billions since we insist using light bulbs, which lose ~98% of energy-input in the form of heat while utilizing barely 2% for illumination.

The current bill, reducing the energy need for illuminating our homes, offices and streets to 20% of previous level, will have a negative effect for energy companies, such as those producing it through nuclear power stations.

Since the uranium mining industry is the only option of impact for environmental bills proposed to WA, it was chosen so.

Respectfully,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Apostols.

In other words, you couldn't find an appropriate category for your proposal so you decided to shoehorn it into that one.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

So you are proposing that an extremely large industry be dismantled just to reduce carbon emissions? Surely you must know that compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) cost as much as 10 times that of their incandescent cousins. Also, by requiring all light bulbs to be CFLs, mercury deposits (all fluorescent lights contain a small amount of mercury) in landfills would increase to an alarming level. It seems to me that exchanging lower carbon emissions for air and water contamination is not a good deal. We would much rather continue to develop carbon trapping devices for power-plants and lower-emission vehicles, than to be forced to spend billions on getting mercury out of the air we breath and the water we drink.

As the representative from Glen-Rhodes has pointed out, CFLs aren't all they're cracked up to be (no pun intended).

In addition, we have a significant problem with this:

We, the free nations of World Assembly, declare a global ban of production, marketing and use of incandescent light bulbs, starting exactly 6 months after the approval of this bill.

A complete ban of incandescent light bulbs within six months of this being approved? How exactly are nations supposed to accomplish this kind of ban within such a short timeframe?

I'm afraid we just can't support this one.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Since the uranium mining industry is the only option of impact for environmental bills proposed to WA, it was chosen so.

Sorry, no. You can only work with what the game gives you, and this doesn't fit. It's a category violation.

The government of Cliptopia will never adopt such a frivolus waste of time that would do a massive amount of damage to our economy. The Mercury threat posed by the CFLs is unacceptable, and the mercury clean up for one bulb can cost in the range of 2000 american dollars, If every citizen of my nation has upwards of a dozen of these bulbs, breakage will do great damage to our free market system that relies so heavily on the spending power of our citizens. Here in Cliptopia, phsycotic environmental movements are frowned upon, this is unacceptable and will never recieve our support.


Clip_II - Ruler of Cliptopia

Thanks for the question.

As a matter of fact, the proposed bill, though environment related, has no recognizable negative impact for industry except energy companies, which happily charge us and make billions since we insist using light bulbs, which lose ~98% of energy-input in the form of heat while utilizing barely 2% for illumination.[QUJOTE]So we go cold, opps mean coal instead of these bulbs? What is the cost and effects of producing the other options to give us light. A candle used give heat you can cook marshmellows over it and it can be created to scent that also distracts instects within a certain area; yet many candle do more damage with the danger of starting fires and all than good.

[QUOTE]The current bill , reducing the energy need for illuminating our homes, offices and streets to 20% of previous level, will have a negative effect for energy companies, such as those producing it through nuclear power stations.You can not change the amount of time one calls day vrs night so I see no way going from bulbs to another media to give light at night will work to save anything. Our sun only shines for 12 hours while we have 18 of night... Also we see the term bill here and can only think it going to cost us more in long run to complu with this madness than not support it and work to find another solution to whatever problems we have inside out own borders rather than let the WA tell us we have a problem and they will help us solve it if we pay out the arse to impliment it. As making changes from noral light bulbs to another form of light producing device will take time and funds. That has to be found and come from some place else.

Since the uranium mining industry is the only option of impact for environmental bills proposed to WA, it was chosen so.We do not have this so call uranium yet are aware of other nations that do use it and have far to may problems with it to give us cause to move to using it.

Respectfully,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Apostols.Welcome to this world may the Fates be with you in your travels across the shadows.
Zarta Warden,
WA Ambassador Cavirra

I have nothing against this bill; the people of Cobdenia do not trust lightbulbs, and most of the country is without electricity. It would give us damn good reason not to electrify the rest of the country, and make use of tried and tested lighting methods, such as gas, parrafin and candles

Incandescent bulbs produce a particularly flattering type of light source that fluorescent bulbs do not. Film and video production companies go to great lengths to ensure their subjects look healthy and pink, rather than pale like a fish-belly.

There is a definite need in the film industry for access to these materials to produce their films. Banning incandescent bulbs is too harsh.

Also: people are finding that fluorescent bulbs aren't lasting as long as hoped. The packages list the "average" or "ideal" lifespan of a bulb, but many quality control tests happened in upright racks in well-ventilated labs. Many bulbs are screwed into lamps (not wracks) or non-well ventilated areas. This shortens the life of the bulbs, making them more expensive in the long run, offsetting the alleged energy savings.

And, switching on and off of the bulbs shortens their life significantly.

A ban is too much.

The President of the Freeland of Porridgstown notes that this resolution appears to be a well intentioned but, ultimately, ill thought out resolution. Resolutions intended to protect the environment should concentrate on achieving specific targets in lowering pollution and its effects. Resolutions that aim to ban specific practices or products are impracticable and distracting.

The Freeland of Porridgetown cannot support such a specific resolution but would support a resolution that required countries to limit levels of pollution and encourage environmentally responsible behavior.