Update: How Bans are Wrongly Justified

The introduction of point 6, "We save a lot of energy and CO2/mercury emissions with this ban!",
of the "How Bans are Wrongly Justified" rundown has had the following added.

6. "We save a lot of energy and CO2/mercury emissions with this ban!"

"The total reduction in EU energy use would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%
This figure is almost certainly an overestimate...
...Which begs the question: is it really worth it?

The problem is that legislators are unable to tackle the big issues of energy use effectively, so go for the soft target of a high profile domestic use of energy...
...This is gesture politics."

No, not the quote from some "energy company sponsor".
From Cambridge University Network under Sir Alec Broers, Chairman of the UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, and several other independent members, Scientific Alliance newsletter, reflecting the views before and since of physics professors and other scientists from several institutions (more).

Sure - regulation proponents will provide their own scientific data. However, the way that is typically drawn up is shown in further points. In any case, the neutral observer should at the least question the savings basis for the ban, not just from the figures bandied about, but from the logic of the arguments supporting them.

[continues]