UK Parliament Debate on Light Bulbs

 
Post revised and updated May 24


Thank you to Dr. Robert Hanson for this information

Private Members Debate
Yesterday 22nd May in Westminster Hall,
a chamber of the UK parliament,
on future implications of the EU light bulb regulations:
video archive direct link


The issue, raised by Edinburgh MP Sheila Gilmore, covered the health issue arising out of banning incandescent bulbs, in particular problems with fluorescent bulb usage such as UV light and other electromagnetic radiation.

The All Party Committee on lighting referred to, embedded document (original source):




Regarding Edinburgh MP Gilmore, fellow Edinburghian... Edinburgher... (there is a whole debate online about what people from Edinburgh are called) Kevan has covered something similar before, on Savethebulb.org in June 2011

UK Parliament Early Day Motion on Incandescent Lamps
MP Sheila Gilmore has proposed Early Day Motion 1878 asking MPs to address the issue of continued availability of incandescent lamps for people suffering from diseases aggravated by the spectral and other properties of CFLi energy saving lamps.

During the consultation process the issue of medically significant sensitivity was discussed at length and assurance was given that there was no intention that people who would suffer as the result of using CFLi would be prevented from getting incandescent lamps. It was, however, left to the individual member states to arrange their legislation to allow for this. Needless to say most have not. As you can see from the post elsewhere about ‘Heatballs’ some countries, Germany in this case, are being quite draconian, preventing the import and sale of incandescent lamps.

This motion will hopefully address the issue of availability of incandescent lamps however does nothing to ensure the long term availability as there has to be a sufficient volume of sales to support the manufacture of them.

Readers from the UK are urged to write to or email their MP asking them to sign the early day motion to get some Parliamentary action on this issue. You can find out who your MP is on this website:

http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/

Thanks

Kevan Shaw

Comment

While understanding those with medical difficulties,
it is a little unfortunate that it is the only objection raised, and that in the process (perhaps to help curry favor) spokespeople generally give in about how "great it otherwise is to have the legislation to save the planet", unnecessarily playing into the hands of the legislators given the lack of overall energy savings as referenced.

In a typical ensuing exchange of pleasantries, the government representatives (in this case Environment Minister Richard Benyon) predictably counter how some alternative incandescent halogens supposedly are allowed, or how appropriate LEDs are coming, and the like.

As it happens, future halogen-type incandescent availability for ordinary use is in doubt looking at both EU and US legislation, but even if the alternatives were there, there are extensive arguments as to why the regulations in themselves are unnecessary and wrong, as covered in the Deception rundown.

This includes the typical "19% of electricity is used for lighting"
raised by the Minister in the above video debate:
The 19% figure includes much lighting irrelevant to incandescent replacement (also remembering that replacement lights use electricity too) such that only around 1% of grid electricity is saved, without going into additional lifecycle (manufacture, transport, recycling) energy use, as referenced in the link.

Given all the other reasons against regulations listed and referenced,
the health side-effects of incandescent replacements should not be the only issue raised:
Arguably it would strengthen - not weaken - their case if the health campaigners did not give in so easily on the other aspects...


Update 24 May:
As pointed out in the comments (thank you Steven),
looking more overall at saving energy and emissions,
then even if a light bulb policy was held as necessary,
stimulated market competition as best option, or as a second option taxation that can help pay for price lowering subsidies on alternatives, are both better than regulations:
Not just to keep choice, and not just to lower energy use and emissions, but to do so at the lowest possible cost to government and consumers - and regardless of whether you are a right wing (market) or left wing (tax) politician.
A more comprehensive look at alternative light bulb taxation and market policies with examples, Ceolas.net#li23x.