3 Responses to “Change The World Wednesday” peterdub says: July 3, 2009 at 11:44 am it’s certainly good to think of the environment. I think emission reduction is good fro all else they contain -whatever about CO2! But should people be forced to use certain lights? I think the energy and emission problems shopuld be handled directly instead. Unfortunately, most people who are anti-ban are anti-green too This is not necessary! ————————————————————– What Americans Want Americans, like other citizens, choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10. Banning what Americans want gives the supposed savings – there is no point in banning an impopular product! Why They Want It The ordinary simple light bulb has for many people a pleasing appearance, it responds quickly with bright broad spectrum light, is easy to use with dimmers and other equipment, can come in small sizes, and has safely been used for over 100 years. “No, They just buy Light Bulbs because they are Cheap!” Nothing wrong with being cheap as well. But you don’t keep buying a cheap-but-poor product. Nor do people avoid products only because they are expensive – or no other expensive products would be sold. If other lights were better, people would buy more of them instead. There are – for example- well known batteries and washing up liquids that are expensive but sell well because they last longer as they repeatedly show in their advertising. Fluorescent light manufacturers and distributors are very happy to let governments promote their case, and happy that they ban the lights that people are buying, so the fluorescent (and/or LED) light manufacturers can win market share - why should they bother making better products and advertise them? They can clean up the market and charge what they like when those cheap competing rivals keeping down prices are gone. New LED lamps are on the way. If they 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 had to be banned… they were bought less anyway. ———————————- “Look at all the energy we save”, says President Obama. Since when does America need to save on electricity? There is no energy shortage, there are plenty of local energy sources, Middle East oil is not used for electricity generation. Consumers pay for any power stations, just as they do for factories and shops generally. Certainly it is good to let people know how they can save energy and money – but why force them to do it? As it happens, not only can the savings -and desirability- be questioned for households to switch all lights (different light types suit different locations, and not all lights are often used), but there are also questions around having efficiency regulation on household products in the first place. Scottish research announced spring 2009 shows that since energy efficiency effectively means cheaper energy, people just use more energy, not worrying about wasting it! “Look at all the emission savings”, says President Obama. Dear Mr President: Does your light bulb give out any gases? Power stations might not either: In Washington state practically all electricity is emission-free, while around half of it is in states like New York and California. Why should emission-free Seattle, New York and Los Angeles households there be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use? Low emission households will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology or energy substitution. Again, the savings – and their value – can be questioned. Global warming is a global problem, whatever about carbon dioxide reduction effects on it. Thereby the irony of abandoning American jobs in the low energy consuming low emission making of simple safe cheap light bulbs in local factories, in favor of the high energy consuming high emission making of mercury containing expensive fluorescent lights in unregulated coal-powered China, with intercontinental transport emissions and recycling emissions added on top. It’s called “environmental progress”. Without recycling, fluorescent lights leak mercury on dump sites, hard to deal with (and their locations unknown). Coal power emissions also contain mercury, but they can nowadays be dealt with as recent Government EPA data shows (and chimney locations are known). If there was really a need to lower light bulb use (there clearly isn’t), then taxation would be preferable for all concerned anyway, as well as for the environment. A product is normally banned for being unsafe to use, like lead paint or fireworks, and that is not the case here. People don’t like taxes, but prefer it to a ban on what they want to buy. and by generally spreading taxes across different lights according to efficiency, some could be cheaper than today. Taxes can flexibly be altered according to tax intake and sales reduction requirements, can be adapted to new market entrants, and can be lifted when no longer necessary. Taxes, unlike bans, give federal/state government income that can be used to lower energy use and emissions (renewable energy projects, home insulation schemes etc) more than remaining light bulb use causes them. Current 2 billion anual US lightbulb sales gives a hight intake potential. Efficiency taxation could be applied generally to products instead of efficiency regulation. However, such taxation is still in principle wrong, affecting the natural business-consumer demand and supply relationship which includes the efficiency feature anyway, and taxation is also wrong in still affecting emission-free households: Taxation is simply a better alternative than bans if Government insists on targeting electrical products, or indeed cars and buildings. Understanding why a ban on light bulbs is unnecessary and wrong: http://ceolas.net/#li1x onwards Understanding why all efficiency regulation is unnecessary and wrong: http://ceolas.net/#cc2x onwards Final note: The only reason for pushing all the regulation on consumers is a cop out of actually lowering emissions, as shown by the offsets and free allowances of Cap and Trade. Assuming a benefit in dealing with emissions (for all else they contain, whatever about CO2) then direct action on transport and electricity alone (80% of emissions) is enough, as explained on the above website. Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost. The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and predictability surrounding the funding. Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared expense and disruption. This is even more obvious from having no energy efficiency regulation either, as said. Small Footprints says: July 7, 2009 at 2:26 pm Wonderful article … and thank you, so much, for joining the challenge and spreading the word. I’ve been thinking about what the previous commenter had to say and while I don’t like the idea of anyone being forced to do anything, I believe we have gotten to a point where if drastic action isn’t taken, the earth, and everyone on it, will suffer dramatically. In many parts of the U.S. energy is generated through coal. It is dirty (as in toxic) and not a renewable resource (well … unless we want to wait a bazillion years for it). Other sources of energy include water (hydroelectricity) … and that is also becoming a precious commodity … not to mention that dams are extremely damaging to river systems, fish and surrounding lands. It isn’t simply a matter of having enough energy … it’s a matter of not having enough safe and clean energy. Consumers are paying a higher price for energy than they might ever imagine (paying with their health and the health of the planet). It is unfortunate that the masses haven’t, all on their own, conserved and cared about sustainability and green living. But the truth is that over-consumption and disregard for the consequences has forced us into a position where it has become mandated to live greener. When one looks at the bigger picture … it doesn’t seem so offensive to switch to a CFL or LED. Thanks for letting me “sound off”! Small Footprints Eco-Activities To Do With Your Children | Earth Promise says: September 24, 2009 at 10:27 am [...] World Wednesday  challenges.  I’ve blogged about this fabulous site, Reduce Footprints back in July.  Not only does Reduce Footprints have pertinent bits of environmental-changing info, but it [...] Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply. Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website