The European Union has jumped on a dimly lit bandwagon by proposing the phasing out of traditional incandescent light bulbs, as part of its energy efficiency measures to combat Climate Change. They will be displaced by long-life low-energy bulbs (compact flourescent (CFL) bulbs). The measures are claimed to save fifteen million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually and should reduce electricity bills. Surprisingly, it is claimed that nineteen percent of all electricity consumed world-wide is used to provide lighting, so the potential for helping to combat climate change seems significant.
For people with health risks, such as epilepsy, halogen bulbs will still be available. The new long-life bulbs contain mercury, so they will have to be recycled properly, (such as by returning the bulbs to suppliers). Nevertheless, the measure will, say the Commission, reduce the amount of mercury going into the environment - because less coal will be mined (which process involves the release of mercury.) Incidentally, one low energy lightbulb contains about 1/3000th of the amount of mercury in a thermometer. No less than twenty-four similar regulations are also on the way, to cover such things as water heaters and air-conditioners.
Forgive me if I lack enthusiasm for the lighting related parts of the regulations. I want to do my bit to combat climate change, but I would like to choose how I do it. The quality of light from CFL's is debatable and I would rather turn down the heating another notch, or walk rather than drive, than creep around in the yellowing gloom. As a matter of principle I do not believe in trying to force people to do things that are considered good by experts. Force diminishes liberty and often does not work. We see this in the increasing number of measles cases due to parents avoiding the Measles / Mumps / Rubella jab, having been denied the opportunity of separate injections for their offspring. Making the latter available, along with persuasion rather than compulsion, would in my view have worked better. Fluoridation of the water supply is another example of force by authorities and I will make a separate posting on that issue.
The authorities have again attempted force in terms of lightbulbs. What we have seen so far is ‘advisory’ but European legislators are poised, at the time of writing, to harden this into law. Supermarkets agreed to start phasing them out earlier than the August 31st deadline. We have an increasing older population who need good general illumination in their homes as well as focused light for reading. There will be resistance to the measures as well as temporary avoidance through consumers stocking up.
Some specialist lighting suppliers have been prudent enough to lay in good stocks themselves and have supplies of 150 and 200 Watt bulbs as well as the standard 100 Watt incandescent bulb (one source near to Birmingham is www.gbslighting.com ). There will also be considerable resentment and discomfiture in what is a neglected section of the community in policy terms (for example, not just pensions not increasing with the relevant inflation rate, but the failure to protect the savings income of pensioners.) However, in the longer term there is the possibility of the best of both worlds with truly low energy bulbs based on developing technology for dispays on electronic equipment that produce great light and use almost no energy. In fact these bulbs, in the same shape as incandescent bulbs, are available from specialist suppliers in the United States - but are a bit pricey at the current cost of $120 per bulb!
There is also the question of Summer (Daylight Saving) Time. The clocks go forward each year at the end of March. In my opinion we should have the clocks set two (rather than one hour) hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time in the summer and one hour ahead of GMT in the winter. It is an established fact that this would save lives in traffic accidents. This arrangement would also be better for evening sport and outdoor activity in general. It would also reduce the effect of Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) as people, on the whole, would get more daylight. And, as is also well known, it would save energy too. In the United States they have brought forward the date of summer time to early March for the same reason.
But why isn’t this apparently good idea brought in? It is reported that some people in very high places don’t like getting up in the dark, but I find it hard to take this seriously. Our farmers may grumble (and indeed they’ve much to complain about as undervalued contributors to the productive economy) but I imagine that livestock go by other perceptions of time rather than how we choose to set the nominal dials on our timepieces. I believe that most people in England support such a measure - and have done so for a long time. If Scotland wanted to keep the present system then they should be allowed to go their own way in this as in other matters.
All in all we need more illumination at home - not to mention in our national affairs (I suspect few would disagree with that!) Let’s hope that the Government sees the light sometime soon!
For people with health risks, such as epilepsy, halogen bulbs will still be available. The new long-life bulbs contain mercury, so they will have to be recycled properly, (such as by returning the bulbs to suppliers). Nevertheless, the measure will, say the Commission, reduce the amount of mercury going into the environment - because less coal will be mined (which process involves the release of mercury.) Incidentally, one low energy lightbulb contains about 1/3000th of the amount of mercury in a thermometer. No less than twenty-four similar regulations are also on the way, to cover such things as water heaters and air-conditioners.
Forgive me if I lack enthusiasm for the lighting related parts of the regulations. I want to do my bit to combat climate change, but I would like to choose how I do it. The quality of light from CFL's is debatable and I would rather turn down the heating another notch, or walk rather than drive, than creep around in the yellowing gloom. As a matter of principle I do not believe in trying to force people to do things that are considered good by experts. Force diminishes liberty and often does not work. We see this in the increasing number of measles cases due to parents avoiding the Measles / Mumps / Rubella jab, having been denied the opportunity of separate injections for their offspring. Making the latter available, along with persuasion rather than compulsion, would in my view have worked better. Fluoridation of the water supply is another example of force by authorities and I will make a separate posting on that issue.
The authorities have again attempted force in terms of lightbulbs. What we have seen so far is ‘advisory’ but European legislators are poised, at the time of writing, to harden this into law. Supermarkets agreed to start phasing them out earlier than the August 31st deadline. We have an increasing older population who need good general illumination in their homes as well as focused light for reading. There will be resistance to the measures as well as temporary avoidance through consumers stocking up.
Some specialist lighting suppliers have been prudent enough to lay in good stocks themselves and have supplies of 150 and 200 Watt bulbs as well as the standard 100 Watt incandescent bulb (one source near to Birmingham is www.gbslighting.com ). There will also be considerable resentment and discomfiture in what is a neglected section of the community in policy terms (for example, not just pensions not increasing with the relevant inflation rate, but the failure to protect the savings income of pensioners.) However, in the longer term there is the possibility of the best of both worlds with truly low energy bulbs based on developing technology for dispays on electronic equipment that produce great light and use almost no energy. In fact these bulbs, in the same shape as incandescent bulbs, are available from specialist suppliers in the United States - but are a bit pricey at the current cost of $120 per bulb!There is also the question of Summer (Daylight Saving) Time. The clocks go forward each year at the end of March. In my opinion we should have the clocks set two (rather than one hour) hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time in the summer and one hour ahead of GMT in the winter. It is an established fact that this would save lives in traffic accidents. This arrangement would also be better for evening sport and outdoor activity in general. It would also reduce the effect of Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) as people, on the whole, would get more daylight. And, as is also well known, it would save energy too. In the United States they have brought forward the date of summer time to early March for the same reason.
But why isn’t this apparently good idea brought in? It is reported that some people in very high places don’t like getting up in the dark, but I find it hard to take this seriously. Our farmers may grumble (and indeed they’ve much to complain about as undervalued contributors to the productive economy) but I imagine that livestock go by other perceptions of time rather than how we choose to set the nominal dials on our timepieces. I believe that most people in England support such a measure - and have done so for a long time. If Scotland wanted to keep the present system then they should be allowed to go their own way in this as in other matters.All in all we need more illumination at home - not to mention in our national affairs (I suspect few would disagree with that!) Let’s hope that the Government sees the light sometime soon!
No comments:
Post a Comment