Robert Sturdy expresses disappointment over EU’s lightbulb ban
Euro-MP Robert Sturdy has expressed huge disappointment following the ban of the traditional incandescent lightbulbs used by most householders which starts today and is being phased out under EU rules.
They are being replaced by energy saving lightbulbs which Mr Sturdy fears could pose a potential risk to human health, as well as the environment, because of its mercury content.
He raised these concerns as a written question in the European Parliament two years ago and now supports the latest objections being raised by fellow Conservative MEPs.
Mr Sturdy said:
“The concerns I raised two years ago are just as relevant today as I didn’t get the answers or reassurances I was seeking then, and only time will show the justification of this ban. It is true that at first glance the energy saving lightbulbs seem more environmentally friendly than incandescent bulbs.
“However, these lightbulbs contain mercury which was deemed to be unsafe for the future production of barometers and the EU banned them. They are also being disposed of at landfill, while at the same time being regarded by the EU as a hazardous substance. There is no joined-up thinking behind this logic.
“I totally support the latest objections Conservative MEPs have raised with the European Commission as the ban could spell misery for epilepsy and anxiety sufferers. The writing was on the wall two years ago when I first highlighted the concerns raised in reports which stated the full implications behind these energy saving bulbs and how they could cause symptoms similar to the onset of a seizure. We should allow people to choose for themselves and weigh up the risks in a rational way.
“Surely the Commission has had enough time over the last couple of years to consider these potential risks and talk with manufacturers about ways of solving these difficulties.”
Ends
I agree – but a ban is wrong for a lot more than health reasons,
the underlying energy and emissions arguments do not hold either…
See comment on Commissioner Piebalgs new entry about the ban, on his blog:
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/piebalgs/lighting-the-way-to-the-future/#comment-1667
About the strange EU Parliament and EU industrial political pathway behind this ban:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
Europeans choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – 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.
The particular error of banning 100W+ ordinary bulbs is that bright CFLs or LEDs are comparatively difficult and expensive to make,
and the high wattage heat effect is not necessarily wasted (see below).
Banning frosted lights smacks of particularly unwarranted EU pettiness, for any marginal savings involved.
Clear lights (including halogens) have a strong glare – hence the overwhelming popularity of frosted lights for ceiling use.
Another problem is that small bright CFLs and LEDs are difficult to make, so that candle/golfball lights are bulkier and may not fit some lamps.
Supposed savings don’t hold up for many reasons.
Just a few examples here:
CFL Lifespan is lab tested in 3 hour cycles. That does not correspond to real life usage and numerous tests have shown real life type on-off switching reducing lifespan. Leaving lights on of course also uses up energy, as does the switch-on power surge with CFLs
Also, CFLs get dimmer with age, effectively reducing lifespan
Power factor:
Few people know that CFLs typically have a power factor of 0.5 – that means that power stations use up twice as much power than what the CFL rating shows. This has to do with current and voltage phase differences set up when CFLs are used.
Although consumers do not see this on their meters, they will of course have to pay for it on their bills.
This is explained with official links including to US Dept of Energy here: http://ceolas.net/#li15eux
Heat benefit from using ordinary incandescent light bulbs:
http://ceolas.net/#li6x
Room heat substantially rises to the ceiling (convection) and spreads downwards from there. Another half of more of supposed switch savings are negated in temperate climates, as shown via the above link with several official research references.
Conversely,
if energy use does fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans and electricity companies make less money,
they will simply push up the electricity bills to compensate:
Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise.
CFL health problems: http://www.ceolas.net/#li18x
CFL (energy saving lights) mercury problem:
Maine state test reports have influenced US guidelines re what to do when bulbs break
More: http://www.ceolas.net/#li19x
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
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce consumption would make much more sense, since governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
A few euros (or equivalent) tax that reduces the current sales (EU 2 billion per annum, UK c. 250-300 million pa, Germany c 1/2 billion per annum), raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
However, taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply better than bans also for ban proponents, in overall emission lowering terms.
Of course a ban is underway, but in phases, with future reviews…
So why did you vote against the rejection amendment in the Environment Committee on the 17/02/2009? – which if passed would have led to a full vote on the plenary floor?
So you are one of the MEPs that denied the EU “Parliament” (for what thats worth) a full vote on the ban!
This regulation (Commission regulation 244/2009) was at no point voted on in any elected parliament at national level or at the EU Parliament! – and you voted against it ever coming to a full vote in the EU Parliament!
As usual Tories say one thing to the UK electorate, but do another in Brussels
The particular error of banning 100W+ ordinary bulbs is that bright CFLs or LEDs are comparatively difficult and expensive to make,
and the high wattage heat effect is not necessarily wasted (see below).
Banning frosted lights smacks of particularly unwarranted EU pettiness, for any marginal savings involved.
Clear lights (including halogens) have a strong glare – hence the overwhelming popularity of frosted lights for ceiling use.
Another problem is that small bright CFLs and LEDs are difficult to make, so that candle/golfball lights are bulkier and may not fit some lamps.
Supposed savings don’t hold up for many reasons.
Just a few examples here:
CFL Lifespan is lab tested in 3 hour cycles. That does not correspond to real life usage and numerous tests have shown real life type on-off switching reducing lifespan. Leaving lights on of course also uses up energy, as does the switch-on power surge with CFLs
Also, CFLs get dimmer with age, effectively reducing lifespan
Power factor:
Few people know that CFLs typically have a power factor of 0.5 – that means that power stations use up twice as much power than what the CFL rating shows. This has to do with current and voltage phase differences set up when CFLs are used.
Although consumers do not see this on their meters, they will of course have to pay for it on their bills.
This is explained with official links including to US Dept of Energy here: http://ceolas.net/#li15eux
Heat benefit from using ordinary incandescent light bulbs:
http://ceolas.net/#li6x
Room heat substantially rises to the ceiling (convection) and spreads downwards from there. Another half of more of supposed switch savings are negated in temperate climates, as shown via the above link with several official research references.
Conversely,
if energy use does fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans and electricity companies make less money,
they will simply push up the electricity bills to compensate:
Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise.