3 thoughts from lightbulb campaigning
The European Union has finally outlawed 100W incandescent lightbulbs -- the pear-shaped bulbs invented by Edison you'd use as the main light in a room. Other inefficient household lighting will follow between now and 2012, as the supply of modern bulbs (efficient halogens, CFL and LED) increases.
It's frustrating to see how slowly the authorities and lightbulb companies are moving. But today's milestone provides a good opportunity to think back over the lightbulb campaign (2007-2008 mostly), and what lessons it might hold for other climate campaigns.
Three things I learned from Greenpeace's lightbulbs campaign:
1. (With apologies to Ghandi) First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they co-opt what you're saying, then they fight you, then you win. The websites of lightbulb makers like Philips and GE were awash with eco-friendly messages in 2007. Meanwhile their EU lobby group was pushing for delays and loopholes in European efficiency regulations.
2. Asking activists to propose solutions -- not only protest what's wrong in an industry -- is one thing, but companies need to figure out for themselves how to run their firms in an eco-friendly way that's also profitable enough for their liking. I think that's their job, not ours.
Geenpeace and others stuck to the objective -- get regulation against inefficient products to save energy -- and resisted the call from some journalists and industry to engage in pro-bono management consulting for the lightbulb industry, or wait for states to manage electronic and electrical properly before moving forward.
3. The lightbulb companies held together firmly about EU legislation, but we had more luck in the UK where supermarkets were targeted for stocking inefficient lightbulbs. Curry's agreed to stock only energy savers after 2007. The EU regulations we got in the end will make up for all the others, as it improves upon the lightbulb ban which the Irish government agreed to enact.
Follow Greenpeace »
Comments
Certainly emissions can and should be dealt with (for all else they contain, whatever about CO2):
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
But banning light bulbs is hardly the way, and just alienates people,
stopping them from what they
obviously (given the sales) want to use.
Also the eventual energy savings, once all is considered, hardly justifies the ban: http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards, with official research references.
The real motive can be seen by the unpublicised EU and industrial politics behind the ban: http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
Posted by: ceolas | September 8, 2009 11:42 PM
Re Light Bulb Ban
Funny how you say your blog is lightly moderated,
yet are scared to publish anything that challenges your views!
Are you not confident in being right about the light bulb ban?
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x
Posted by: peter in dublin | September 9, 2009 11:49 PM
@Peter in Dublin: Your comment landed in the "probably spam" folder because it contains a few hyperlinks. There it is now.
The lightbulb campaign was hugely popular, so whereas I agree that people like doing what they are used to doing, there's also a public appetite for (a) higher standards and modern technology, and (b) climate action.
Posted by: Eoin | September 14, 2009 11:22 AM
Fair enough Eoin, thanks...
As I say,
I agree about dealing with emissions,
but I think
the light bulb ban, with marginal savings once all factors are considered,
and the CO2 trading schemes, with so many loopholes and escape clauses,
ironically lets politicians off the hook:
They can say they are doing something,
but aren't really.
Light bulbs don't give out CO2:
power stations might, but not always.
Transport and electricity are typically 4/5 of CO2 -and other- emissions in industrialized countries, and direct action is possible in the several ways described in the previous link.
Taxation:
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
This is not a ban because a product is unsafe to use, it is simply a ban to reduce electricity consumption.
If it's felt necessary to target light bulbs, taxation is therefore a better instrument for all sides:
Governments gain income on the reduced sales, which can be used to lower energy use and emissions (home energy schemes, renewable energy projects etc) more than any remaining light bulb use causes them - after all cars etc are taxed on emissions (which, unlike bulbs, they directly produce).
Taxation is not an EU decision of course, but governments might consider it in the planned reviews during the phase out process, similarly say USA/Canada before implementin a ban.
Anyway, I must congratulate you and Greenpeace for the success of your campaign, I do hope you don't lose sight of highlighting more directly the various emissions of power stations, like you used to do before!
Posted by: peter in dublin | September 14, 2009 12:43 PM