Will incandescent lightbulbs be left in the dark?

Energy Efficient Lightbulbs

The EU has taken steps which could see the incandescent light become extinct in Europe.

Last month, stores stopped purchasing new stocks of the 120-year-old invention as efforts increase to eliminate of what is, in truth, a horribly inefficient lighting device. With only 10 percent of its energy output being visible light, incandescent light bulbs are an environmentalists nightmare as the rest of the energy is lost as heat. The EU hopes that enforcing a switch to alternative bulbs by stemming the availability of traditional bulbs, technology such as compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) and light-emitting diodes (LEDs) will drive down energy consumption and help Europe meet its targets for reductions in CO2 emissions.

In 2012, we will be seeing a similar ban on traditional bulbs in the US. The ban was written into energy legislation a few years ago, but has significant improvements over the EU legislation.

In the US, Congress have set a minimum efficiency requirement for lighting, whereas the EU have banned a particular technology. Although the new US legislation will outlaw the incandescent bulb in its current form, as they do not meet the required energy standard, by 2012 industry experts believe there could be improved incandescents available on the market that will meet requirements.

However, it is questionable as to whether Congress should really be telling people what choices to make in terms of energy efficiency. Whereas there will be many people who welcome the change - those who take their green-responsibilities very seriously, who see the opportunity of merely changing a light bulb as a step towards drastically reducing their own personal carbon footprint - there will also be many people who will resent the ban.

LEDs, whilst capable of replacing traditional bulbs and actually last longer, have not reached market potential as costs are still too high. The same can be said for CFLs. The light produced is not as bright; they are slow to reach full brightness; the bulbs don't fit in many old lamps and their lifespan is greatly reduced if used for less than 15 minutes at a time. The manufacturers of CFLs have made improvements on some of these issues, but their reputation is as yet unproven.

One can't help but think that such small scale regulation is a way Congress can make it appear as if they are taking action against climate change, whilst governing standards are slow to materialize for major carbon emitters such as the coal industry. As WashingtonPost.com highlights, "the benefit of "reducing inefficiency" depends on where the energy is coming from." Simply improving efficiency in place of actually removing a harmful source only serves to free up energy that is then used elsewhere - this leads to no real reduction in energy use. Direct regulation on serious carbon emitting industries, such as the proposed cap-and-trade scheme, is far more likely to facilitate the effort towards meeting climate change targets. Whereas such regulation is expected to be in force by 2012, the conditions seem slightly vague and many analysts believe a universal cap-and-trade program is simply not viable.

Congress should concentrate on regulating the things which require the force of law, such as the construction of new coal-burning power plants. As technology develops and alternatives to traditional bulbs become cheaper, people will naturally migrate to the more energy efficient lights - small scale regulations should not be used as a distraction to the lack of more weightier, effective policies.

Like this article? Get the RSS feed: