"...a poll of 2851 New Zealanders that will be presented to the Emissions Trading Scheme select committee today found the mandatory phase-out was supported by 45 per cent while 27 per cent than opposed it."That's a sizeable sample. Good on the Herald for carrying the story, but the report doesn't actually say who commissioned the poll. What I thought funny was the statement:
"National used the light bulb issue during the election campaign as an example of Labour's "nanny state" mentality."Forgive me for laughing, but it was actually the New Zealand Herald itself that used the light bulb issue in THEIR campaign to support National by portraying the light bulb issue as Labour's "nanny state" mentality, rushing (erroneously) to the defence of dimmer switches and chandeliers in Remuera and St Helliers.
Such dissembling by the Herald about who campaigned against what, and why, makes it difficult to take the New Zealand Herald seriously as a reliable and trustworthy source of political news. No wonder newspaper sales are dropping. More and more people like me see no point in paying good money to be mislead.
The Herald also reports:
"the poll found the most popular strategies for reducing New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions were: More incentives for households to improve their energy efficiency (87 per cent support); incentives for businesses to develop renewable energy projects (82 per cent); lower vehicle registration fees for fuel efficient and low-emission vehicles (80 per cent); a cash incentive to encourage replacement of energy inefficient home appliances (78 per cent)."Of course. It's only common sense. What a shame that such obvious common sense was derided so strongly by the NZ Herald before the election last year...in their overt campaign to support a National victory.
This may seem like sour grapes, but it isn't. It's acknowledging the fact the Herald was prepared to distort the news for political purposes in order to manipulate the election result last year.
On the bright side, maybe someone at the Herald doesn't much like Energy and Resources Minister, Gerry Brownlee. Just after they note most people supported the ban, they immediately noted who deserves all the credit for ignoring the majority view:
"Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee scrapped the Labour government's plan to phase out less efficient traditional light bulbs late last year."
"..."National used the light bulb issue..."
ReplyDeleteIt would make sense if you supposed that the National Party and the NZ Herald are interchangeable names for the same entity.
Tom: Agreed.
ReplyDeleteIt would be surprising if people would support a ban in NZ and not anywhere else...given the recent Rasmussen poll result in USA,
ReplyDeleteand given that
Europeans and Americans choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (European Commission and lighting 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- 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 (tubes) had to be banned... they were bought less anyway.
All lights have their advantages
The ordinary simple light bulb has for many people a pleasing appearance, it responds quickly with bright broad spectrum light, is easy to use with dimmers and other equipment, can come in small sizes, and has safely been used for over 100 years.
100 W+ equivalent brightness is a particular issue - difficult and expensive with both fluorescents and LEDS - yet such incandescent bulbs are first in line for banning in both America and the EU
Energy?
Since when do developed countries need to save on electricity?
There is no energy shortage, there are plenty of local energy sources, Middle East oil is not used for electricity generation.
Consumers - not politicians - pay for the energy used.
Certainly it is good to let people know how they can save energy and money - but why force them to do it?
Emissions?
OK: Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
In Sweden and France, as in Washington state practically all electricity is emission-free, while around half of it is in many European countries and in states like New York and California.
Why should emission-free households, wherever they are, be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology or energy substitution.
Also, the savings amounts can be questioned for many reasons:
For a referenced list of reasons against light bulb bans, see
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x onwards
Even if a reduction in use was needed, then taxation to reduce consumption would make more sense since government can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
People can still buy what they want, unlike with bans.
However taxation on electrical appliances is in principle wrong for similar reasons to bans (for example, emission-free households are hit too).