Socialised medicine and light bulbs
It's the first of September. This morning I got a letter from the orthoapedic clinic at the university hospital. It said that I would be called in in a matter of three months - maybe! If the waiting goes over three months I will then be sent to some clinic otherwere (fairs and hotel room paid for by the taxpayers). So now I sit here -in limbo- with a shattered scapula and a broken collar bone with little or no use of my left arm. SIGH!
An alternative is to go abroad, to Germany or the Baltic states. There there are private clinics who can treat you emidiatley all paid for by the Swedish taxpayers!
That's socialised medicare for you!
At this day the old lightbulb is forbidden. the funny (not really) thing is that EU has imposed high import taxes of low- energy lamps to protect the domestic makers like Osram. So the low- energy lamps have been to expensive to buy and people have chosen the warm glare of the old lightbulbs instead.
"But they are not energy effective"- says the defenders of the "flickers". Well that depends on how you look at it really. Shure, only 30% of the energy emitts light. But you have to ask yourself, "Where does the other 70% go?"
The answer is simple- HEAT! So when you use the old lightbulbs you don't need to heat up your house by the same amount of energy! There you go...
An other funny thing is that the protection tax laws for companies like Osram and Philips actually does not protect these companies at all. Because all their manufacturing are made in China... All it means is that is going to be much more expensive for the consumer
And then there is the problem with the mercury. You are not allowed to toss worn out low energy lamps with the household trash. You have to go to a special waist station. The nerest one I got here is 7 Km away. And I don't own a car. Because echonomlicly it would be idioticy where I live right now, and remember- energy=money and money/energy= pollution.
posted by pela68 at 11:59
3 Comments:
hej gummihund :-)
skriver fraan irland paa engelska!
Yes the ban is wrong for many reasons...
Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings - no point in banning an impopular product!
If new LED lights - or improved CFLs etc - are good,
people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves were banned… they were bought less anyway.
The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter...
people -not politicians – pay for energy and how they wish to use it.
There is no energy shortage - on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed -
and if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.
Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway, for many reasons:
( http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x
onwards
about brightness, lifespan, power factor, lifecycle, heat effect of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research)
Effect on Electricity Bills
If energy use does indeed fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans,
electricity companies make less money,
and they’ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate
(especially since power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition)
Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise...
Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.
A direct way to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2):
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
The Taxation Alternative
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
Even for those who remain pro-ban, a temporary taxation to reduce consumption for as long as necessary would make more sense, also since governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes emission problems.
A few pounds/euros/dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
When sufficient low emission energy is provided, taxation is lifted.
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
Taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply a better alternative for all concerned than bans.
Of course an EU ban is underway, but in phases, supposedly with reviews in a couple of years time...
maybe the debate in USA and Canada will indeed be affected by the issues raised by the ban?
Wednesday, 9 September 2009 at 00:53:00 CEST
Believe it or not, ban responsible Commissioner Piebalgs now defends the ban on his blog saying it "increases choice"
See his blog entry
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/piebalgs/lighting-the-way-to-the-future
- and the comments...
why not add one?
Wednesday, 9 September 2009 at 00:54:00 CEST
Interesting blog you got here. It would be great to read more concerning that matter. Thnx for giving this information.
Sexy Lady
English escort
Thursday, 10 December 2009 at 17:23:00 CET
Post a Comment
<< Home