GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]


[GreenYes] Re: More on the future of lighting


Doug,

The revisit of this thread is quite timely. Moment's ago I got out of
Wal-Mart's quarterly Business Sustainability Milestone Meeting. During
the series of presentations by senior management Lee Scott (CEO) asked
one of his senior managers what the corporation could do to mitigate the
CFL disposal problem!

If the assignment wasn't on the board for this exec before this morning,
it sure was this morning...in full view of the 500 or so in attendance.

Best Regards,
Stephan Pollard



Doug Koplow wrote:

> A few weeks back, this list had a discussion on compact fluorescent
> lighting and ways to deal with disposal. Related to the general issue
> of the future of lighting, there is a good article from yesterday's NYT:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/business/14light.html
>
> Items I found of interest in the article included the focus on
> lighting options well beyond CFLs (supporting the idea that we
> shouldn't differentially subsidize managing the Hg problems with this
> technology) and the idea that even incandescents can (supposedly) be
> made much more efficient then they are now.
>
> A number of people on the original thread advocated levying a tax on
> incandescent bulbs to underwrite the proper disposal of CFLs. I've
> been swayed that perhaps some form of tax on incandescent bulbs might
> be appropriate. However, rather than a flat product tax, I'd
> structure them more along the lines of a "feebate" approach that the
> Rocky Mountain Institute advocated a few decades ago.
>
> A feebate would set a tax on all bulbs based on the kWh per lumen of
> light output. Thus, fees would be higher on less efficient lighting.
> The funds would be pooled not to finance CFL disposal (the CFL
> industry itself should pay for this), but to provide unit-sale rebates
> on the purchase of the more efficient (but also more expensive)
> lighting option.
>
> This approach would retain not underwrite the problems of any one
> lighting technology, rather maintaining competition amongst all of
> them based on efficiency. Importantly, however, feebates would
> accelerate the development and market uptake of more efficient
> lighting technologies.
>
> -Doug Koplow
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Doug Koplow
> Earth Track, Inc.
> 2067 Massachusetts Avenue - 4th Floor
> Cambridge, MA 02140
> www.earthtrack.net
> Tel: 617/661-4700
> Fax: 617/354-0463
>
> CONFIDENTIAL
> This message, and all attachments thereto, is for the designated recipient
> only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private
> information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
> immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you
> is prohibited.
> >

--
Stephan Pollard, Ph.D.-Environmental Dynamics
555 W. Maple St., Apt. C
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 444-7445
(479) 799-9190 cell



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To post to this group, send email to GreenYes@no.address
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GreenYes-unsubscribe@no.address
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---



[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]