A little over a month ago, a ban on the sale and import of high-wattage frosted incandescent bulbs in the European Union began. The ban was initiated by the E.U. with the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by the year 2020. The commonly-used clear 60-watt bulb will still be available until at least September 2011, and clear 40-watt bulbs until 2012. The promotion of energy-efficient lighting is just part of a wider strategy by the European Commission (EC) that includes more efficient appliances, consumer electronics and small engines.
Enforcement of these rules will be on the shoulders of individual EU national governments. So the Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer, for example, while initially announcing support for a phase-out of incandescent light bulbs (which I’ll call IBs) by 2011, then reversed her opinion. She now supports the manufacturers’ call for a longer phase-out to last until 2019. (Cramer is a former employee of Philips, the electronic giant that is on the vanguard of manufacturing OLEDs, which we blogged about last week.)
The United States is planning on phasing out IBs, but not until 2012, and is presumably looking at the EU as a testing ground. Switching to CFLs can save homeowners upwards of $50 over the life of the bulb and is usually expected to pay for itself in energy savings in less than 6 months, while the bulbs themselves last 10 times as long as IBs. And the benefits to the environment? One could say, with a rhetorical flourish, that they are “incalculable.” But they are indeed calculable: CFLs require 20% of the energy that IBs do.
At the same time, however, the EC is recommending that consumers use, in addition to CFLs, halogen bulbs, which are only slightly more efficient than IBs, since they are, after all, just another type of IB. And many people claim that governments are ignoring the glaring disadvantages of CFLs in their forced phase-out of IBs. The most common objection is that, since CFLs contain mercury, they endanger the health of individuals when they break in the home, and will endanger public health in the future as they arrive by the millions in landfills, as the technology for dealing with the mercury in spent CFLs is lagging behind their use.
Consumer objections also include: most CFLs do not work with dimmer switches; they are available in only a few sizes; some CFLs emit a bluish light; some complain of headaches while working or reading under them; and they cannot be used in recessed lighting or enclosed globes. And some object that the ban will hurt a huge part of the manufacturing and retail sector that depends on IBs, as well as creating a situation where government is unfairly influencing competition and the market.
Of course we at Elemental could suggest that you bypass the debate, and CFLs, entirely by switching to LED lights. They are non-toxic, they last 5 times as long as fluorescent lighting and are twice as energy-efficient. They are available in many colors, including different shades of white, and are more compact and fit into more places than either IBs or CFLs. Many of our LED fixtures are dimmable, several are made for recessed lighting, and several are even waterproof.
Although LEDs may currently be the best solution in a practical sense, we’d like to now what our customers and readers think about the incandescent ban as an idea. Is it fair to manipulate the market for the public good? Is lighting technology advanced enough to deal with this change? Does the current competition between IBs and CFLs resemble that of the Edison light bulb versus the gas lantern? How would you react if IBs were being banned in favor of LEDs, which have been used commercially and civically since the 1970s, but are still relatively new as household fixtures? We’d like to hear your thoughts; please leave a comment below!