I'm a bit concerned about the apparent need to regulate everything we do.  Why not simply allow market forces to operate by graduating charges for electricity.  Where the first 100 kWh costs less than the second 100 kWh which in turn costs less than the third, and so on.  The incentive to reduce hits the pocket book immediately and the transition will take place in due time.

-doug 

Found it interesting that there does not seem to be the necessary infrastructure in place in Ireland for the safe disposal of the compact fluros (which contain mercury) - please correct me if I am wrong. While it might be a step forward, the full picture should be considered. Please aslo see: http://wattwatt.com/pulses/9/the-impact-of-compact-fluros/. Cheers, Jonathan

I really get a bit fed up with this short-sighted approach to "saving the planet". You solve one problem and create another which is several orders of magnitude worse. Of course politicians being what they are, they can only deal with one problem at a time, so the energy gurus will be satisfied with this solution, whilst the mercury can be dealt with by someone else (the RoHS brigade for example, in my opinion another bunch of politicians who don't understand much about chemistry, but that's another story and off topic for wattwatt).

Seriously, it just illustrates the need to take a holistic view to saving the planet, looking at the overall problem.

With respect to Doug's proposal, it sounds good except it penalizes those who need energy. Just look at petrol prices and SUVs. The latter are largely owned by people who couldn't care less about the price of petrol. High petrol prices hit those with small economical cars. I fear other energy incentives could end up the same way.