The EU’s Silly Ban of the 100-Watt Bulb

by Ivan Osorio on September 2, 2009 · 1 comment

in Energy, International

Starting this week, it will be illegal to make or import 100-watt light bulbs in the European Union. And for what? New Scientist reporter Shanta Barley notes:

The ban could save the EU anywhere from 15 to 53 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, says Matt Prescott, founder of the Ban the Bulb campaign.
And the UK could save 2 to 5 million tonnes of the stuff, he says. Will it make a difference? You decide: the ban will cut Britain’s yearly emissions of CO2 by – oh, about 0.643737355 per cent.

Of course, Eurocrats will still tout this as momentous. The costs this imposes on consumers will likely be greter than the ban’s puny effect on emissions.

Tagged as: 100-watt bulb, european union

{ 1 comment }

peter in dublin September 8, 2009 at 9:32 am: banning bright cheap simple safe 100w bulbs in favour of
expensive complex mercury releasing dim bulbs:
not a very bright way to go…
More about the strange and unpublicised EU and industrial politics that have led to the European ban:
http://www.ceolas.net#li1ax
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 tubes 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.
Direct ways to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2):
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 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
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?