Why not ban them (with certain exceptions like car and bicycle lights). The first practical incandescent light bulb was made in 1879 and people are still using them in vast quantities! Why, when there are more modern alternatives. The record player was in common use from the 1870s till the 1980s. How many people use them today? The walkman dates from 1979 using a cassette tape. Quite new compared to the incandescent light. Who uses that now? Even I have switched to an mp3 player. So I guess since people are making the progressive switch in technologies as they do with other things then a ban is the only way left.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

Drum roll please

eject eject eject, missile up the tail pipe

another Government feel good idea is myth busted. No saving the earth with this silly idea.

Warning to the sailors of the world: don’t pass out drunk in the back seat of winter’s hummer.

Obligatory music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwFk2VaDXok

Antti rn:
There is mercury involved in Gallium extraction, but I understand it’s a closed-cycle process in this respect.

“Closed-cycle” is relative. In places without hippie treehugging laws, the process might be considered closed-cycle if you choose the Earth as your system.

No. It’s not.

I realize that in Australia many people have air conditioning. If Australians used incandescent light bulbs which emit a lot of excess heat, the AC would need to deal with the heat from the light bulbs too, instead of just the “ambient” heat… So obviously using fluorescent tubes will reduce energy consumption and my point stays valid.

Using gas instead of electricity for heating will reduce electricity use like you said. But that isn’t the same thing as reducing _energy_ consumption. I’m not enough of an expert to say which is more energy efficient, gas or electric heating.