Full feedWhy outlawing wasteful lightbulbs matters
So yesterday the EU pulled the plug on inefficient household lighting. The phase-out will be complete by 2012, when only energy saving lightbulbs will be made or imported into Europe for household use.
Almost anyone can tell you why switching to energy saving lightbulbs is a good idea -- even companies lobbying against efficiency standards advocate "making the switch" to save consumers money and greenhouse gas emissions.
So why should radical activists spend precious time campaigning on such seemingly uncontroversial low hanging fruit? Shouldn't Greenpeace leave this sort of thing to, say, progressive politicians and mayors, and concentrate on stuff like quitting coal and stopping nukes?
Well first, we are still campaigning on coal and nukes and all that other rotten stuff. Half of the Energy Revolution is getting of the dirty stuff and using green energy instead.
The other half of the Energy Revolution (the what now?) is about saving energy if we really need to use it at all. So that's energy efficiency basically. And that's what the lightbulbs campaign was for.
With the French and Irish lightbulb campaigns we also demonstrated that EU member states can lead Europe by proposing their own mandatory efficiency standards. They don't need to wait around to see what Brussels comes up with. And even if Brussels does finally come around to something that's different--something that will cut greenhouse gas emissions faster--that's okay too.
The lightbulb campaign wasn't uncontroversial. Hardly any states have a working system for getting electrical and electronic waste (like used CFL lightbulbs) to proper handling and recycling facilities. So they need to get their waste management in order.
If it hadn't been for activists in Europe and around the world supporting the campaign, the lightbulb manufacturers would have won their demands for delays and loopholes in the standards. The next energy efficiency campaigns will require even more public support, and I'm afraid they'll become increasingly complex (what's easier than switching a lightbulb, seriously?).
Comments
The Light bulb campaign manufacturers have one their demands- greenpeace sold out by demanding the use of fluorescent lighting-siding with "big business"-CFLS are not only worse for the environment and humans-but releases cancer causing electromagnetic fields, furthermore-there is no safe "green" way to dispose of this lighting-that makes children sick, increases headaches...etc. You have traded a lesser evil for a greater evil-what good has this accomplished?
Posted by: Dr. Aurore Adamkiewicz | September 3, 2009 12:52 PM
I disagree. Greenpeace didn't advocate for CFLs, LEDs or any other particular kind of energy saving lightbulb technology. What's more, EU regulations haven't banned one technology and authorised another, as you seem to be suggesting ("demanding the use of fluorescent lighting").
What we demanded were mandatory efficiency standards, that's all.
I think ideally somebody would find a way to make really efficient incandescent lightbulbs. GE say that they have.
Depending on the way energy is produced in your country, its likely that more mercury will be released from power stations to keep your old lightbulbs alight, than if you switched to CFL bulbs and disposed of them carelessly. See http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_mercury
Posted by: Eoin Dubsky | September 3, 2009 1:38 PM
@Aurore Adamkiewicz: It's good to be sceptical, but your statement about electromagnetic radiation is simply not the truth (any more, if it ever was). Modern CFLs sold in Europe have to follow the Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Directive (89/336/EEC & updates). This rather excellent piece of legislation has a huge safety margin build in for consumer products.
If a modern CFL bothers you a home stereo system or a traditional TV/monitor most certainly will do as well. Same for a lot of power supplies that come with random appliances. Don’t even think of entering the production ground of a factory.
This directive applies to most other electrical and electronic equipment. For example the wiring in your own house and, more importantly, in the factories producing most of the stuff you buy. Do you get headaches while travelling in trains powered by electricity?
Similar regulation exists all over the world btw.
Regarding safe environmental disposal: here the same applies as to all other waste; Q: do you throw your broken anti-stick pan, deceased pets or traditional light-bulbs in the trash? A: No (I hope..), you make sure to dispose of them separately with the local waste authority. The exact same applies to CFLs.
Posted by: PepijnK | September 3, 2009 7:33 PM
This is great news! Hopefully the USA will follow and others. It shows the Green movement moving forward and its another step toward a healthier and smarter environment.
Posted by: patti | September 4, 2009 2:20 AM
@Aurore Adamkiewicz: It's good to be sceptical, but your statement about electromagnetic radiation is simply not the truth (any more, if it ever was). Modern CFLs sold in Europe have to follow the Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Directive (89/336/EEC & updates). This rather excellent piece of legislation has a huge safety margin build in for consumer products.
If a modern CFL bothers you a home stereo system or a traditional TV/monitor most certainly will do as well. Same for a lot of power supplies that come with random appliances. Don’t even think of entering the production ground of a factory.
This directive applies to most other electrical and electronic equipment. For example the wiring in your own house and, more importantly, in the factories producing most of the stuff you buy. Do you get headaches while travelling in trains powered by electricity?
Similar regulation exists all over the world btw.
Regarding safe environmental disposal: here the same applies as to all other waste; Q: do you throw your broken anti-stick pan, deceased pets or traditional light-bulbs in the trash? A: No (I hope..), you make sure to dispose of them separately with the local waste authority. The exact same applies to CFLs.
Posted by: PepijnK | September 4, 2009 1:20 PM
I'm from São Paulo, one of the biggest cities in the world, and people around here choose the more efficient fluorescent lighting over the regular ones.
Firstly, because when you read the labels there's information on the economical benefits, fluorescent lighting solutions last longer and spend less, therefore it saves you money.
Secondly many of my friends, as well as myself find fluorescent lighting more comfortable and efficient for its purpose.
I've seen no campaigns on this matter in my coutry, yet. However I don't see why anyone would advocate against saving energy and money.
Posted by: Rafael Marques | September 13, 2009 12:02 AM
Thank you for that PepinjnK. You're right on. These zealots need to get their facts straight before they spout off misinformation, especially while claiming to be a "Dr."
Posted by: PhD guy | September 22, 2009 9:22 PM