<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Philippines Plans to Save Big Using Energy Efficient Lights</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.greenpacks.org/2009/02/02/philippines-plans-to-save-big-using-energy-efficient-lights/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.greenpacks.org/2009/02/02/philippines-plans-to-save-big-using-energy-efficient-lights/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:39:21 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Robin Green</title>
		<link>http://www.greenpacks.org/2009/02/02/philippines-plans-to-save-big-using-energy-efficient-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-3878</link>
		<dc:creator>Robin Green</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:48:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenpacks.org/?p=3801#comment-3878</guid>
		<description>This sounds like a good idea in theory. In practice it hasn&#039;t worked that well in some other developing countries where it was tried. For example I believe in South Africa there was a big distribution of CFLs as part of a carbon offsetting program (first world people paying for the CFLs to offset their driving gas-guzzling SUVs). It turned out that most of the CFLs were rarely or never used or were thrown out (complete with their toxic mercury) because people didn&#039;t like the color of the light.

The best way to drive adoption of energy saving technology is to accurately reflect the full costs of energy, including environmental and societal costs, in the actual energy cost. That way people will switch to CFLs and other energy efficient products without anyone having to give them away.

People tend not to value what is given to them as much as what they paid for with their own money.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This sounds like a good idea in theory. In practice it hasn&#8217;t worked that well in some other developing countries where it was tried. For example I believe in South Africa there was a big distribution of CFLs as part of a carbon offsetting program (first world people paying for the CFLs to offset their driving gas-guzzling SUVs). It turned out that most of the CFLs were rarely or never used or were thrown out (complete with their toxic mercury) because people didn&#8217;t like the color of the light.</p>
<p>The best way to drive adoption of energy saving technology is to accurately reflect the full costs of energy, including environmental and societal costs, in the actual energy cost. That way people will switch to CFLs and other energy efficient products without anyone having to give them away.</p>
<p>People tend not to value what is given to them as much as what they paid for with their own money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
