Mercury Rising : Melbourne Indymedia

Until recently, the conservatives in power in Australia have been in complete environmental denial. Now with an election scheduled for November, and public opinion indicating that the state of the environment is of great concern climate change is now been declared scientific fact.

As little a few months ago the Liberal party, run by John Howard wouldn't even enter a debate about climate change, stating that there was no scientific evidence to support claims 'by alarmist left wing wacko greenies'.

Today the conservatives released plans to enter an emission trading scheme. This is not the first time the conservatives have used issues that is has no interest in as a thinly veiled attempt to placate voters in spite of being counter to current thinking.

Recently a new legislation was put into place outlawing regular incandescent light globes in favour of 'green' compact fluorescent lamps. Liberal party sites the savings in power consumption as as part of its new environmentally responsible image.

Yet the environmental impact of fluorescent lighting has been known for decades and during the planning of this policy the liberal party should have released details that addressed these well known concerns. The impact? Fluorescent lighting contains mercury an extremely toxic substance. A substance deemed so toxic that manufactures of disposable batteries containing trace amounts of mercury have been banned.

Safe disposal requires storing the bulbs unbroken until they can be processed. The disposal of phosphor and particularly the mercury in the tubes is an environmental issue. Recycling services are available in many nations. In some areas, recycling is also available to Industry. The need for a recycling infrastructure is an issue with instituting proposed bans of incandescent bulbs.

What is truly odd is the fact that in many of these forward thinking areas no one has gone so far as to ban standard light globes. In short, many countries and states acknowledge the draw backs of fluorescent lights and have implemented a disposal service so this mercury and other lethal compounds don't end up in landfill. Yet here in Australia the Liberal party has effectively outlawed incandescent lights in favour of fluoros and has not only failed to implement a plan to stop toxins entering the environment via disposal but has yet to even admit there is an issue with disposal of mercury into landfill.

To date Malcolm Turnbull, federal minister for the environment has declined to take opportunity to comment on these concerns, despite my writing a detailed letter outlining these concerns.

What of the future? Is the Liberal Party going to introduce a policy of banning the current range of fluorescent lights when radio fluorescent and cold cathode lights become viable (estimates for this stand at around 2010)?

It would appear that this is merely another example of conservative politics trying to win over voters by giving the impression that it takes the concerns and the intellect of voters seriously.