European Union Begins Ban of Incandescent Light Bulbs

Unlike many people here in Europe against the ban,

I agree with the need to do something about emissions

(for all they contain, whatever about CO2)

But banning light bulbs is not the way forward,

and I think people who are less in agreement with

the background arguments will just be turned off from cooperating in more important environmental measures.

Let’s think a little about this!

Europeans (like Americans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (European Commission and light industry data 2007-8)

Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product!

If new LED lights – or improved CFLs etc – are good,

people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).

If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).

The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves/tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.

The need to save energy?

Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter…

people -not politicians – pay for energy and how they wish to use it.

There is no energy shortage – on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed –

and if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.

Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway, for many reasons:

http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x

onwards

about CFL brightness, lifespan, power factor, lifecycle, heat effect of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research

A few examples

Effect on Electricity Bills

If energy use does indeed fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans,

electricity companies make less money,

and they’ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate

(especially since power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition)

Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise…

– in which case money savings affected

Conversely:

Since energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,

people simply leave appliances on more than before

This has actually been shown by Scottish and Cambridge research, as linked on the website

(in the case of CFLs they’re supposed to be left on more anyway, to avoid cutting down on their lifespan)

– in which case energy savings affected

The only real “energy saving” going on is in the mental activity of politicians in Brussels.. London… Dublin…

Emissions?

Does a light bulb give out any gases?

Power stations might not either:

Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?

Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.

Direct ways to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2):

http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x

The Taxation alternative

A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.

We are not talking about banning lead paint here.

This is simply a ban to reduce electricity consumption.

Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce the consumption would be fairer and make more sense, also since governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.

A few euros/dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)

raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.

It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.

When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted

http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html

Taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply a better alternative for all concerned than bans.

Of course an EU ban is underway, but in phases, supposedly with reviews in a couple of years time…

Maybe the debate in USA and Canada will be affected by the issues being raised over here?

I’ve read that the ban was first instigated by a communist – no surprises there then. Once again we are being backed into a corner against our will without regard to the genuine concerns of thousands of people.

The CFL bulbs truely are terrible and to actually obtain one with a ‘real’ long life and decent colour temp – you have to pay a fortune.

Luckily, myself and a few others have been stockpiling incandescent Bulbs for the last couple of weeks and I know of a few online shops who are still selling (legally – contrary to media hype) the so-called banned incandescents, I managed to buy 40 GLS 100Watt pearls from http://www.enviro-lights.co.uk and im pretty sure there will be plenty more with stockpiles.

Great points, thanks for all of the comments! We can only hope that by watching what is happening in the UK will in fact help the US and Canada come up more efficient methods that will bring the cooperation of the general population!

I think that any steps to make people more eco-minded is working towards the goal, but in the end, all that really matters are the results anyways.

I hope that humanity breaks free from the mindset that the way to solve problems is to wield the violence of government to FORCE your neighbor to do what you want them to do.

There ARE other ways to solve problems. (It’s just that we don’t learn those ways in publ– err government schools.)

Want people to use less of some technology? Work on improving the alternative technology. Invest in it. Promote it. Buy it.

I think you’ll quickly find that the institution that resists the changes you want to bring, that puts up the most roadblocks, is the government itself.

Is it just coincidence that corporations (government creations) privately support and often even write legislation regulation their own industry? It prevents competition, upstarts, change. Government protects the rich interests, always has.

This lightbulb nonsense means big business for the corporations that make them.

Unlike many people here in Europe against the ban,

I agree with the need to do something about emissions

(for all they contain, whatever about CO2)

But banning light bulbs is not the way forward,

and I think people who are less in agreement with

the background arguments will just be turned off from cooperating in more important environmental measures.

Let’s think a little about this!

Europeans (like Americans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (European Commission and light industry data 2007-8)

Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product!

If new LED lights – or improved CFLs etc – are good,

people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).

If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).

The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves/tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.

The need to save energy?

Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter…

people -not politicians – pay for energy and how they wish to use it.

There is no energy shortage – on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed –

and if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.

Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway, for many reasons:

http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x

onwards

about CFL brightness, lifespan, power factor, lifecycle, heat effect of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research

A few examples

Effect on Electricity Bills

If energy use does indeed fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans,

electricity companies make less money,

and they’ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate

(especially since power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition)

Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise…

– in which case money savings affected

Conversely:

Since energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,

people simply leave appliances on more than before

This has actually been shown by Scottish and Cambridge research, as linked on the website

(in the case of CFLs they’re supposed to be left on more anyway, to avoid cutting down on their lifespan)

– in which case energy savings affected

The only real “energy saving” going on is in the mental activity of politicians in Brussels.. London… Dublin…

Emissions?

Does a light bulb give out any gases?

Power stations might not either:

Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?

Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.

Direct ways to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2):

http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x

The Taxation alternative

A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.

We are not talking about banning lead paint here.

This is simply a ban to reduce electricity consumption.

Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce the consumption would be fairer and make more sense, also since governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.

A few euros/dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)

raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.

It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.

When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted

http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html

Taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply a better alternative for all concerned than bans.

Of course an EU ban is underway, but in phases, supposedly with reviews in a couple of years time…

Maybe the debate in USA and Canada will be affected by the issues being raised over here?

It’s sad to see totalitarianism in any form.

50 years ago the world’s elite talked about using a global climate threat to impose their will and push for their wet dream, global government with a global fiat currency.

Today, the real environmental movement is dead, replaced with fear of CO2.

Right but power factor is another side of the coin – the CFL’s are not as friendly to the generator and they use more fuel, which cost of which is passed on to the consumer and more CO2 released than it would seem for the CFL watts.

CFL’s are not so good (shorter life) in applications where they are on for short durations – such in stairwells.

I believe that standard bulbs are still allowed for certain applications such as in fridges.