A light bulb ban in the EU? Is that coming to the US as well?

Well I didn’t hear of this either until I read an article about consumers buying out retailers of their light bulbs in the EU. Apparently, there was a ban set to start on Sept 1, of all incandescent light bulbs in the EU. I guess that is one way to make people go green. Obviously, the next question that jumped into my head, will the US follow suit? And I wonder how much warning they gave before the Sept 1 ban? Anyone know where the majority of incandescent light bulbs are made? I am guessing China but I don’t have any boxes around to confirm that or not, but I assume incandescent makers make the CFL bulbs as well. I hope no one has stock in a incandescent light bulb company 🙂

There are more questions than answers in this post. If anyone can shed any light (ha,ha) on the subject, please do enlighten (ha, ha again) us. I am just full of them this AM. I just thought it was interesting that they actually banned them in the EU, I would think raising the price to be equal to CFL’s would have the same desired affect but that is just my opinion.

Advertisements

~ by debt2dreams on September 8, 2009.

One Response to “A light bulb ban in the EU? Is that coming to the US as well?”

  1. Incandescents tend to be made locally…
    local jobs with a low carbon footprint in terms of little energy used in manufacture and transport – compared to CFLs made in poorly controlled coal powerd China and transported in ships using bunker oil with associated CO2 and mercury emissions, with recycled parts likely shipped back again for use in new CFLs.

    Otherwise: About the strange and unpublicised industrial politics behind the ban:
    http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax

    Overall:

    Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (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:
    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.
    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 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://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.
    Even for those who remain pro-ban, a temporary taxation to reduce consumption for as long as necessary would 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 emission 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.
    When sufficient low emission energy is provided, taxation is lifted.
    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 indeed be affected by the issues raised by the ban?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: