Lightbulbs And Labour Lunacy

Having spent most of last week enjoying the sights of Taipei - a city of 2.6 million where I was impressed by both the locals' energy and helpfulness - my equilibrium was shaken when, returning to New Zealand, I learned that the Government has plans that can only be described as 'lunacy'.

Firstly, Labour intends to ban the use of all lighting, other than compact fluorescent light bulbs - 'ecologically friendly' or 'eco' lights - from the end of next year.

This minor act of economic vandalism is wrong for a number of reasons, the most important being that it is based on the notion that the Government knows best - and that ain't necessarily so.

Labour's reasoning for this move is that eco lights have a longer life and use less power. Traditional bulbs convert only five percent of the energy they use into light, with the rest lost as heat. While this can be an advantage - like when using a heat lamp in a bathroom –it is mostly waste energy.

The obvious disadvantage to eco lights is that they cost more - incandescent (normal) light bulbs cost around 70 cents each, while eco bulbs cost around $6. For families already struggling with rising fuel and food costs, the choice is simply made based on how to balance the household budget no matter how much longer the 'eco' bulbs last. The real costs are not easily comparable because the Electricity Commission subsidises 'eco' bulbs.

There are other reasons people dislike 'eco' light bulbs: they tend to flicker, can cause migraines in those who are pre-disposed, and contain a small amount of toxic mercury - meaning they require special disposal and are a problem to deal with if they break.

Another problem is light fittings: while there is a huge array of fittings available for conventional bulbs, there are only eco equivalents for a few of them. A quick glance in any lighting store will reveal lights for outside use, oven lights, refrigerator lights and a range of industrial lights that I am only dimly (excuse the pun) aware of.

The result will be a raft of exemptions that will be painfully derived through a slow process of bureaucracy. While the bulbs may be more efficient, the overall process will be the exact opposite as forests are felled to create enough paper for the necessary forms. This can be added to the waste of human capital: capable people waste time making applications, and others then have to process them.

The present Government seems intent on regulating us to within a whisker of our lives. It might surprise the Labour Party to learn that people are capable of choosing the light bulbs that best suit them. A quick survey in my office revealed that in low use areas of the home most preferred cheaper incandescent lights. Eco bulbs were harder to read by, but many already used these in parts of their homes. The message was clear - let us choose for ourselves and stop treating us like idiots.

My husband, who hates the bluish tinge of eco lights, threatened to stock up on ordinary bulbs while overseas in a 'free country' - a threat that won't be carried out now that I've warned him he could face a $10,000 fine.

The second horror I found on my return is the Government's intention to require hairdressers to furnish a health and safety report to the Director General of the Health Ministry every year. Apparently the dyes and other chemicals used in salons can endanger the health and safety of both the hairdresser and their client.

My first question in response to this is: who's going to read all these reports, which hairdressers must now painstakingly compile? And second: if Labour is so concerned about the effect of hair dyes on hairdressers, shouldn't the Government require the Health Ministry to write a report and send it to hairdressers telling them of the dangers?

This is part of the new Public Health Bill currently before Parliament, which also seeks to regulate what parents put in their children's school lunches and what products supermarkets can stock as well as where they can display certain items.

What isn't clear is whether people dying their hair at home will be required to submit a report on the health and safety of their bathroom to the Health Ministry, or will supermarkets be banned from selling hair dye?

Lest We Forget
While the debate over light bulbs occupies the minds of our politicians, it's interesting to note that the world's longest-lasting light bulb recently turned the ripe old age of 107.

Hand-blown with a common carbon-filament, the bulb is housed by California's Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department. Having been switched off only a handful of times since its manufacture, the bulb has burned continuously since being connected to its own dedicated power source in 1976. The 'Centennial Bulb' is certainly value for money, and serves to show us that perhaps we don't all need to invest in expensive eco-bulbs.