With that in mind, take a look at the front page of said paper.
Well. I love irony as much as the next man, but this is just comedy.
Seen it yet? Top right and bottom left.
I'm not saying the light bulb ban is a good thing, in fact it seems to be bordering on trivial, but you'd think they'd show a little more care than that!
9 comments:
The problem is that "journalism" seems to have morphed away from the idea that its service is the public interest, not helping a private party circumvent something that isn't in the public interest at all.
Michael, thanks for this sterling example of that generalization.
Unfortunately you're right...serving the public interest hasn't been at the heart of either journalism or politics for a long time. It's all about the bottom line...what sells papers? what drives ratings? what gets votes?
It's all about money. In the meantime we are destroying ourselves and the planet we should be preserving!
Michael...great blog and website. We need more people who will step up!
Well spotted!
Mind you, the ban on light bulbs is extraordinary and illogical in itself, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here
(and light bulbs don't give out CO2 gas - power stations do!)
Something simple, cheap and safe is dumped in favour of something complex, expensive and mercury releasing.
Europeans choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (EU Commission and lighting industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people WANT gives the supposed savings that's "good for them" - no point in banning an impopular product!
If new LED lights -or improved CFLs- 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 anyway, for many reasons:
See http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards
about brightness, lifespan, power factor, lifecycle, heat effect of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research
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.
The Taxation alternative
Since it's a product safe to use being banned purely for consumption reasons,
taxation to reduce consumption 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
such problems.
re journalism,
the strange and unpublicised politics behind the ban makes quite a good yarn too...
http://ceolas.net/#li1ax
.
"and light bulbs don't give out CO2 gas - power stations do!"
Hmm, quite. I think the light bulb ban reflects micromanagement on the part of the EU. Energy efficiency is a good thing, and trying to reduce consumption is probably wise, but focusing on something so trivial will only result in animosity on the part of the people who feel deprived.
Perhaps if they imposed more regulations on energy generation and transmission efficiency we might get somewhere!
Thanks for commenting :)
:-)
yes I think the greatest "energy saving" going on is in the mental activity of our dear leaders in Brussels... London.. Dublin..
agree re future animosity,
taxation (still in principle wrong) would have been a smarter move by pro-ban politicians
in the sense of raising governement income with the reduced sales,
and yet putting a spin of it of "wishing to show consideration" in still allowing people to buy the bulbs...
( http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html )
I find a lot of people are starting to use the pricing issue as a means to derail efficiency efforts like the phasing out of the incandescent bulb (scheduled for 2012 in America.) Renewable energy production, controlling carbon output, restricting coal mining and limiting offshore oil drilling all face the same opposition. It could make prices go up.
So maybe we have to pay more for a light bulb? It is nice to be able to show the examples were being efficient saves people money, but not every opportunity to make a change is cashflow positive. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, being efficient is more important than monetary gain (despite how people would like to ignore it.)
Why is it so surprising that being wasteful is cheap? If we dumped our trash into the ocean, it is cheaper than recycling it, or better yet upcycling it. In our great worlds of capitalism, searching for the lowest bottom line cost is par for the course, but that doesn't mean that low cost equals right solution.
Personally, I say do what we need to do to address the problem and if we pay more for gas, or plastic bags, or a light bulb (that we need to replace less often) then so be it. Maybe our society is in need of recalibration.
Thanks for commenting.
I do agree in principle, that searching for and implementing changes which improve efficiency and reduce energy intensity per unit of production is a sensible course of action.
My concern is regarding the focus of these changes. You mention opposition to renewable energy production and restriction of coal mining, but neither of these are comparable to light bulbs and plastic bags.
Yes, replacing incandescent >100W light bulbs with low energy ones can save an amount of energy, but all Joe Public sees is a forced increase in costs, government restrictions and all kinds of things about which to be outraged during a dinner party.
There is already enough opposition to those sensible plans, such as increasing renewable research and development, that measures such as the light bulb ban are only likely to make hostility worse, and for little real improvement.
In the UK, domestic energy use accounts for approximately 7% of total. Of that, light bulbs are but another small fraction of that. It seems the gains in energy efficiency do not warrant the strong opposition to the movement in general.
Michael,
The EPA estimates that 65% of our electricity use goes to buildings with 25-30% of that power going to lighting in commercial buildings (I don't have a figure for homes, but it has to be more than 10%). If the building is not new (and most of them aren't) the savings could be notable. How many lights are still using incandescent floods and wall washers? I think the amount is probably considerable.
The US has a lot more people than Britain. It is estimated that the phasing out of incandescent bulbs in America would account for the retirement of 90 average size power plants. Imagine if those are all coal plants? That is a meaningful difference. Even so, I would say Britain should do it anyway because, for consumers, it is mindless.
Some of the most meaningful steps towards sustainability will require major societal differences and lifestyle changes--how we plan our towns and cities to better utilize transportation and services, how we decrease the use of our cars on a daily basis, how we repackage products for less waste... These things (that have to be done) will cause major upsets to the way that we are used to living.
In comparison, bulbs are nothing. The change is effortless and after two months it will start the long journey into simply being the status quo until LEDs are affordable enough.
Post a Comment