Will energy-saving light bulbs to fight global warming

The European Union is imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs, replacing light bulbs. This prohibition fully into force within two years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the Member States EU to move beyond the current conventional lights they now have.

However, some problems have arisen this plan given that energy bulbs efficient means must be all the time, they're made from banned toxins and they will not work in half your household fittings. However, Europe (and Gordon Brown) says 'green' bulbs should replace all our old. They are also 20 times more expensive than conventional bulbs. They also emit a harsher light and do not produce a flux constant light, but rather just flicker 50 times per second.

These special "efficient" light bulbs also need more ventilation than conventional bulbs, which means it can not be in a closed apparatus. I'm sure this will not inconvenience any of the 490 million people are forced to change. In Canada, talk is taking place to have a ban on conventional light bulbs are included in the Clean Air Act Tawdrey Ross. This discussion has been presented recently on the act of Australia taking steps to ban conventional light bulbs by 2010.

Moreover, a California lawmaker has introduced a bill to ban the sale of conventional bulbs by 2012, with a similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips Electronics, one of the leading companies in producing light fixtures announced it would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will result in a huge cost to the consumer, who is losing his freedom of choice where to spend their money and how they choose to help the environment.

Hoping to succeed without having to buy new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. In a recent report states in the United Kingdom, the government is very upset plans for the United Kingdom the first green global economy. Part of this plan is that all households in the United Kingdom should be 'carbon neutral' within 10 years making every house updated to "green" standards. The government said it would provide the renovators, who has led many to fear that is a method of spying to homeowners to make sure to go green.

John Sinclair, a member of the Alliance for Taxpayer and critic of the plan pointed out, is bad enough that politicians want to take much of our money in taxes. For them also to intrude into our homes in order to be able to punish us even more, is simply unacceptable.

I'm not saying it is not a good idea to take measures to help the environment, but please consider the following: if the majority scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop? How do we drive cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton?

Can Al Gore please fill me in this? If CO2 increases as a result of temperature increase, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That's like saying we to prevent the aging process of human beings to die his gray hairs. Not the gray hair makes people old, aging causes gray hair. And nothing that can do for your hair will have no effect on how long you live. Especially since aging is a natural process that can not be stopped and has always happened and will happen forever. As climate change.

It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming global in order to make us fear and guilt. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it is inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.

If the problems are based on lies, then how do we expect to find a real solution to help the environment? A global tax Failure to clean the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting Alaskan waters almost 18 years after the spill occurred. A global tax will not stop Shell in the Niger Delta to Delta's most endangered worldwide. No, first we must be realistic, mature, and have a discussion on the problems we are facing, and then and only then, can we even hope to achieve some kind of solution.

About the Author

James Nash is a climate scientist with Greatest Planet (www.greatestplanet.org). Greatest Planet is a non-profit environmental organization specialising in carbon offset investments.

James Nash is solely responsible for the contents of this article.