Germans horde non-energy-saving lightbulbs
German’s are normally known for their green credentials however ahead of next week’s EU ban on traditional lightbulbs, it appears that many Germans are buying up huge numbers of the old lightbulbs to stockpile them.
Sales of the traditional incandescent lightbulb are said to be up by 34 percent in the first six months of 2009, compared to a drop in the numbers being bought in most other European countries.
The EU is banning all pearl or frosted traditional bulbs and clear 100 watt lightbulbs as part of a CO2-emissions reduction drive. Stocks of the incandescent lightbulbs are expected to run out next month in most stores, with homeowners then forced to buy the new energy-saving bulbs instead.
Energy-saving lightbulbs are not liked by everyone. Some people have claimed to have had skin problems and migraines from the lightbulbs, whilst others are concerned about the health and environment risks posed when the lightbulbs reach the end of their lives.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Shop Lowe's for Lighting
Philips Replacement Bulbs
Long Life Energy Saving Light Bulbs
Energy Saving Light Bulbs
Bulbs - Large Selection
peterdub | Sep 6, 2009 | Reply
Unlike many people against all these bans,
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 about this:
Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (EU 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 were banned… they were bought less anyway.
Supposed savings don’t hold up for many reasons:
( http://www.ceolas.net#li13x onwards
about brightness, lifespan, power factor, lifecycle, heat effect of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research)
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…
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,
and if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products anyway – no need to legislate for it.
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.
A direct way to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2):
http://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.
Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce consumption would make much more sense, 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 pounds/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.
ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
However, 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 protests.
Bob65 | Oct 23, 2009 | Reply
While we have all heard stories that the United States has 200 years worth of coal in reserves, some recent analyses suggest that this estimate is very much overstated, and that coal production may also decline in a few years. ,