Canada Light Bulb Ban: A Summary of How it is Wrong

Update, additions Jan 1 2014

There are particular reasons to have focused on the Canada light bulb ban in the past several posts.
Firstly, because unlike USA or EU there is some sort of chance of avoiding or at least overturning it later, given a simpler lawmaking procedure in a smaller jurisdiction.
Secondly, because it is particularly odd to ban them in such a country.


Strange to ban a popular safe product:

It's not like banning lead paint, and some of the suggested replacements are arguably less safe to use.
CFLs have known light quality and safety issues, while expensive and subsidised LED clones for many rarely used bulbs in a 36 bulb Canada household hardly saves money and is hardly progress, LEDs use up many rare earth minerals and with several health and environmental issues themselves (eg ANSES France, UC Davis California investigations).



Incandescents have many specific advantages for Canadians:

Canadians live in relatively large homes where much time is spent with varied lighting conditions, and where incandescent light quality, reaction time, brightness, sensor/dimming and other versatility is welcome, along with bulb heat on most dark nights.
Incandescent advantages for Canadians are covered at length in section 3 of the analysis as listed below.
Also see "Why ban in Canada particularly wrong" (http://ceolas.net/#li11x)



Major manufacturers Philips, Osram and GE have oddly welcomed being told what they can or can't make:

They have lobbied in different countries including Canada for a ban on patent expired simple generic cheap and relatively unprofitable products - and the proposal makes repeated mention of justifying a ban on their behalf.
The invitation to sympathy for not having competition banned can be compared with real sympathy if what they were preparing to make had been banned!
There is nothing wrong in manufacturer lobbying for profits on behalf of shareholders - it is arguably wrong of them not to. However, that does not require Government acquiescence on behalf of the public.
Besides, the manufacturers could of course just stop making the bulbs themselves in the name of the "progress" that they like to talk about in all their PR handouts regurgitated by politicians and media. After all, the very same manufacturers stopped making much else in the name of "progress". This had a natural market flow, in that the public could see the advantages of the new products, with little demand for the old ones, although always with niche uses (vinyl records, audio tubes, etc).
Therefore the irony and the idiocy that apples here:
If incandescents were not so popular, there would be no "need" for Government to ban them.



Local Canadian industry and jobs:

Adoption of US law as planned for more products and services carries implications of Canadian industry satisfying any specific local demand.
Not least in terms of ordinary incandescent light bulbs. The loss of jobs in USA and Europe was admitted by policy makers (EU over 5000 in final stage, adding to the thousands in ban anticipation). Complex CFL/LED manufacture is largely outsourced to China.
Local outfits with small overheads could easily make the simple generic patent-free products without licensing obligations, giving local Canadian jobs and local sustainability from using few components with little transport and no recycling needed, and no competition from the USA and little from elsewhere.
Compare with being blown over by Chinese imports and major American distributors who - in addition - have already known about their own American standard for 7 years and implemented it for 2, while, if anything, smaller Canadian counterparts have been preparing for the wrong original MEPS 2008 Canadian standard.



The ban is justified as lowering electricity consumption:

As it is a proposed ban for electricity consumption reasons, not because of unsafe bulbs, logically one would first look at the overall question of electricity consumption, looking at if and when a lowering is needed, and in turn the effects of various measures in relation to the penalty caused in terms of product choice or otherwise.
Renewables wind wave hydro and nuclear (Canadian uranium) hardly have Canadian shortage issues albeit that new plants or extensions could be avoided - hardly an issue with light bulbs for reasons soon explained.
The main issue is usually fossil fuel, especially coal, and its greater emissions (not just CO2) than other sources.

Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas.
Power plants might - and might not.
If there's a problem - deal with the problem.
In Canada, hardly a problem, given Canada 86% emission-free electricity, and of course coal itself can be treated in various ways.

The usual "10% of domestic electricity is used for lighting" type statements,
ignore that around half of domestic lighting is not incandescent anyway, especially the mainly used kitchen lighting, also that replacements use electricity, also the heat replacement of incandescents and power factor (PF) issues of CFLs and LEDs (effectively energy use not recorded by the meters), also that domestic electricity is a small part of overall grid demand (industrial, commercial, municipal, transport - with hardly any incandescent use in any of those sectors).
On a general level, also the life cycle energy use of more complex replacement lighting, including transport in all stages from mineral mining to recycling (when not dumped, leeching mercury etc) and bunker oil powered shipping from China by major manufacturers, compared to easier local Canada manufacture by small/new manufacturers of patent-free simple incandescent bulbs.
Incandescent electricity use is just fractional amounts of mostly off-peak evening-night surplus electricity, as per usage and grid data references, effectively smaller still given the bulb heat supplied as per Ontario/BC institutional studies, and with the Canadian Center for Housing Technology also confirming that 83% to 100% of lighting energy contributes to heat demand reduction.

The total reduction [in energy use] would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%,
This figure is almost certainly an overestimate,
particularly as the inefficiency of conventional bulbs generates heat which supplements other forms of heating in winter.

Which begs the question: is it really worth it?
Politicians are forcing a change to a particular technology which is fine for some applications but not universally liked, and which has disadvantages.
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."

Using comparable European Commission VITO data to similarly cut down even greater "15% of domestic electricity use" type statements, this came from the Cambridge University Scientific Alliance, UK Government advisers from several institutions normally supportive of energy and emission measures, similarly with other referenced science institution communications from different countries.



Alternative policies:

Again, as it is a proposed ban for electricity consumption reasons, not because of unsafe bulbs,
then electricity consumption reduction policies should be looked at in an overall sense.
That means, if required, say coal tax or emission tax or regulations, or a general electricity tax with payback subsidies for house insulation etc - ideally conceived within an overall electricity distribution policy that increases supplier competition and ease of switching between those suppliers, itself made more easy with eventual smart metering systems. Smart meter systems will also shift people from peak time use to other times of electricity surplus availability, by time-basd pricing.
Compare with the pedantic bureaucratic exercise of telling Canadian folks what light bulbs they can or can't use in their bedrooms, and repeating the process for a plethora of other products.

Of course, if light bulbs really needed policy targeting, it could be done by information, taxation, or market stimulation measures, as also described, rather than clumsy once-off standards that permanently bans also any future invention that might have been made with its own specific advantages.



The "Hey don't worry everybody" message:

Instead, Canadians worried about future choice may soon hear the on-song message from Government spokespeople:
"Hey, don't worry everybody, similar Halogen incandescent light bulbs will still be allowed!".
Except that they won't.
Adoption of USA law is the main stated justification for the proposal, defended as standard harmonisation to facilitate future trade on the North American market, and planned for more products and services.
This of itself should worry those concerned about specific Canadian service for Canadians.
It also means abiding by future decisions in Washington.
As it happens, USA EISA 2007 law tier 2 2014-2017 regulation on light bulbs will ban all incandescents for general service, including Halogens, based on the 45 lumen per Watt final rule requirement that equates to fluorescent bulb standard.
Presumably the Ottawa Government know this:
"it is anticipated that the proposed standards would help to increase the level of acceptability for MEPS [minimum energy perfomance standards] for many Canadians, thus facilitating the adoption of further MEPS for these and other products in the future."
A little more upfront honesty would perhaps not go amiss...

One might in passing note that the Halogen type replacements anyway have some light qualitative differences, also being more complex and expensive with marginal savings and therefore less popular in a free choice either with consumers or politicians (no Halogen switchover programs!).



For details of why the regulations are wrong for Canada, see the introductory post
"Canada to adopt more US Laws beginning with Light Bulbs:
Losing Industry, Jobs and Choice, with Hardly any Savings"

Full version   As Doc    As PDF

Content List

1. Why Alignment to USA will also ban Halogens
The supposedly allowed Halogens banned on USA EISA tier 2 2014-2017 backstop final rule equating to CFL standard. Following Washington means following any other change they make. Proposal already envisages further restrictions.
2. What is good for Canadian Industry, Jobs and Consumers?
Light bulbs stated as the first of more US laws in manufacture and service to harmonise NAFTA standards. Allowing US based corporate access does not mean having to legislate against local production to local desire.
3. How Incandescents have particular Advantages for Canadians
Beyond heat, also brightness, and situational advantages in large homes where much time spent
4. Simple Incandescent Advantages versus Halogens
Halogens more complex and expensive for little savings advantage, hence unpopular in free choice either with consumers or politicians.
5. On Energy saving for the Nation
Fractional overall and on comparative policies, and a main off-peak time use avails of surplus production capacity anyway.
6. On Emission saving for the Planet
Ditto, with the addition that Canada has 86% emission-free electricity and that emissions may increase on heat replacement effect
7. On Money saving for the People
Ditto, with the addition that free choice is not always about money saving, that many bulbs are not often used, and that subsidies plus utility compensation may mean higher bulb and electricity payments anyway via tax or electricity bills.
8. Worldwide Policy and Major Manufacturers
Cooperation to enforce low lifespan on incandescent bulbs followed by cooperation to altogether ban such now patent-expired generic cheap competition. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
9. Alternative Policies targeting Light Bulbs
Information, taxation/subsidy and market competitive alternatives could and should be considered before bans.
10. Incandescents - the Real Green Bulbs?
Efficient, earth saving, long lasting and sustainable.
The simplest way to produce bright light from electricity banned for being too popular, by the stupidity that passes for global governance.




How Regulations are Wrongly Justified
14 points, referenced:
Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.
 

Canada Light Bulb Ban: A Summary of Why it is Wrong

This old post had problems in updating, just keeping this for any incoming links:
See new post

Canadian MP Cheryl Gallant's Campaign to Stop the Canada Light Bulb Ban

On the theme of the Canada ban covered in the last series of posts,
Canadian MP Cheryl Gallant (website, facebook page) has a campaign going against it.
Interestingly, she is a member of the Government Conservative Party launching the ban.
But rather than her being an odd one out, what is odder is surely that her Conservative Party which otherwise proudly proclaims a "free market" and "free choice" agenda, should back such a state totalitarian measure.
And, yes, it is a "ban", setting standards that don't allow them obviously "bans" them, and supposedly allowed "similar" incandescent (halogen type) alternatives will be banned too on adopting US law, EISA tier 2 2014-2017 final rule requirement of 45 lumens per Watt equating to fluorescent bulbs.

For more details of the Canada Government ban proposal, and a 10 section analysis of it, see the first post of the series.
As mentioned, direct appeal to Government itself is possible, they invite comments via their stated comment line (+1) 613-996-4359 or email equipment@nrcan.gc.ca
While formally finished 19th December that does not mean not being able to still "send a message".

The same applies of course to MP Cheryl's campaign.
Albeit launched just recently, there does not seem to have been any news or updates since then. But it's still ongoing, and an MP of the same party as the Government would presumably have "the ear" of those in charge more than an effort by other people, also in any future attempt at reversing a decision, and signing the petition and supporting the campaign in other ways also gives such a backing of course.

Campaign site: stopthelightbulbban.ca
Petition signing.


Campaign site message:

Safe and Affordable
The incandescent light bulb is safe and affordable.
Starting next January, 75- and 100-watt incandescent light bulbs will become black market items, and by the end of 2014 the same will happen to 40- and 60-watt versions.
Co-sign Cheryl Gallant’s letter to the Ministers of Natural Resources, Health and Environment, and tell the Government to stop the light bulb ban.
Most Canadians do not know light bulbs will be banned. Tell your friends and family at once. Encourage everyone you know to co-sign Cheryl’s letter before it is too late!

Unsafe Disposal
Unlike incandescent lights, which can be disposed of safely in the regular garbage, CFLs contain mercury, which can have significant impacts on both human health and the environment if not disposed of properly. Consequently, these lights are generally not accepted in the regular garbage stream and need to be disposed of using a hazardous waste program.
Proper Disposal 24% Tossed In Regular Garbage 55%

Letter circulated around 14th December

Dear friends,

The countdown is on. Starting January 1, 2014 our federal government will commence the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs. The overwhelming response to the constituency survey on whether or not a further delay in the ban is needed was that the ban should not go ahead at all.

The ban arose from the Kyoto Protocol as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that sets binding obligations on industrialized countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Although Canada did not ratify the agreement, the ban on incandescent light bulbs stayed on our books.

The main alternative to incandescent light bulbs is the compact fluorescent lamp (CFL). CFL bulbs cost roughly 8 times more than incandescent light bulbs. They contain levels of mercury much higher than that of incandescent light bulbs, and are potentially harmful to humans, animals, and our environment.

Mercury is a neurotoxin, and must be specially disposed of, as it can contaminate water supplies and soil if dumped into landfills. According to Environment Canada the mercury contained in a typical thermometer can contaminate five Olympic-size swimming pools to toxic levels. Less than 10 per cent of CFLs are recycled amongst the tens of millions that are sold each year in Canada.

In a recent stroke of irony Canada signed the UN’s Global Mercury Agreement, which imposes a legally binding pledge to cut atmospheric emissions and environmental releases of mercury, in an international effort to reduce global mercury pollution and protect the environment and human health.

We have 17 days to stop the ban. Will you help me?

Sincerely,

Cheryl

How Regulations are Wrongly Justified
14 points, referenced:
Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.
 

Incandescents: The Real Green Bulbs Also in Canada

As the Canadian comment process finishes, as an American incandescent ban largely finishes on January 1, and as the EU review process also seems to have concluded in its first phase, some concluding remarks to the last series of posts seems apt.

The ban, not just on light bulbs but on much else in society, is largely driven by 2 aspects, supposed savings and product progress. Both have been well covered, but product progress deserves extra mention in an overall conclusion.

Product progress?
Product progress arises from increased, not decreased, market competition.
Energy saving progress in particular has been continuous throughout history.
Fluorescents and LEDs? On the market, without bans.
Solid state transistors replacing incandescent tubes? On the market, without bans.

Light bulb manufacturers could themselves simply stop making the "terrible incandescents".
That's what the very same companies normally do in the name of progress, they already stopped making cassettes, video cartridges, 8-track systems and much else.
Certainly they got - and get - lots of taxpayer subsidy goodies to make alternative bulbs while still slapping their own patents on them for yet more profit, and certainly politicians feel obliged to further help out their subsidised buddies sell more bulbs (as the Canadian proposal says, in so many words, in justifying bans because of committed investments).

The supposed problem is therefore that idiot citizens choose not to replace all their existing bulbs with the pushed alternatives, disregarding that most citizens - as the ban brigade keep saying - indeed have bought some for the advantages that they of course also have.

Of course, politicians don't want to declare their voting citizens to be idiots in what they choose to buy. Not openly, anyway. So the roundabout talk is that
"Regulations force faster development of better new products":
"Better" always being energy saving in usage with disregard to all else, including overall savings.
Obviously by necessity this brings new alternatives, but it is development that aims to fill the gap of popular incandescents - look at all the LED incandescent bulb clones. Hardly true or exciting progress.
As said, intrinsic advantages are of incandescents as bulbs, fluorescents as tubes, and LEDs as sheets, and was the original development of the latter 2 products, before all the push to compromise them as bulbs (yes, still with advantages of their own technology, but hardly developed as such now in bulb format, eg the flexible color temperatures of RGB LEDs rather than White LED bulbs).

A further issue is that regulation cut off standards don't just ban what exists. It bans all that could have existed, and never will, despite possible advantages beyond consumption of energy in usage. This, as with all else, is the case not just with light bulbs in the worldwide totalitarian definition of progress.


Everyone can have different legitimate views of the necessity of targeting products to save energy.
But what is then surprising is the complete lack of analysis of alternative policies.
Politicans? Media? Total silence.

Alternative information, taxation, market policies as thoroughly covered in the last post.
As the most fervent political, media and lobby grouped ban supporters tend to have a green or left-wing persuasion, the avoidance of all consideration of taxation is particularly puzzling. Even a mid-size 35 million country like Canada has well over 100 million in relevant sales, while in pre-ban USA and EU it runs into 2 billion sales in each case, of a cheap easily taxable product with high turnover, that could help all the " public spend" measures these people want.
In the USA, the California government is bankrupt - yet, like Canadian British Columbia, they ban every product in sight, instead of taxing it, and could of course announce it as subsidising cheaper alternatives re any "we hate tax" issue.
The point is not that tax is good. The point is that it is arguably better than bans for those who favor bans, while the market stimulation alternative is still better on the argumentation given, if light bulb targeting is (dubiously) deemed necessary.



So, to turn it all around.
Green is a color with many hues!

The case for looking at incandescents as the true environmentally friendly bulbs has been made earlier here.

That can be expanded on, and also put into a Canadian context, given the last series of posts here. The following is based on section 10 of the reply to the Canadian proposal for January 1 regulations on light bulbs, but as seen, it is generally applicable everywhere...

M'Lords and Ladies, the case for the humble simple incandescent light bulb:


Efficient?
Certainly efficient, in making bright light using few components


Earth Saving?
Certainly sparing the earth much mining for minerals


Long Lasting?
Certainly they can last long, at least to 20,000 hours at low price, as shown by mentioned small manufacturers, when major manufacturers don't control the markets.


Sustainable?
Certainly sustainable, in being easily locally made generic patent-free bulbs,
without much transport of parts or product, and without needing recycling.


Incandescents don't burn coal and they don't give out CO2 or other emissions.
Power plants might - and might not.
If there is a Problem - deal with the Problem.

Electrical products are only indirectly coupled to any energy source use, and in turn, the main evening-night time use of incandescent bulbs really only consume small amounts of off-peak surplus capacity electricity anyway, as seen.

Power plant emissions are decreasing on present policies, both from alternative source use and in directly being reduced and treated in various ways. Small overall off-peak bulb use and coal power plant night cycle operational factors reduces if not eliminates supposed bulb ban emission savings, and in a country like Canada of 86% emission-free electricity a ban even increases emissions on the heat replacement effect.



Incandescent light bulbs:
A pointless very visual feel-good target for an agenda driven ban seeking to ensure that the world loses the simplest cheapest product it ever had to produce light from electricity,
an aesthetically pleasing versatile invention, whose doom would arise not from being unpopular, but from being popular, through the stupidity that passes for global governance.




How Regulations are Wrongly Justified
14 points, referenced:
Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.
 

Why Ban the Bulbs? Alternative Information, Taxation and Market Policies to Product Prohibition

Worldwide,
the game is on for ever more restrictive usage standards of allowable products in society, be that the energy use of buildings or cars, the water use of toilets or showers, or the electricity use of a host of other products.
Already questionable in terms of actual savings and in the compromised performance and usability of what is left for people to buy, the policy is even more questionable on electrical products.
This is not only because there is a whole range of energy alternatives to counter any shortage, but also because electrical product use is not coupled to energy use. Banning certain cars or toilets may at least theoretically reduce their oil and water consumption. Electrical products are not coupled to say coal use, coal and power plant policies can be directly implemented, and the necessary saving of long-lasting/renewables carries its own question mark - in particular as we look at incandescent bulb bans, since they largely use off-peak evening -night surplus capacity electricity and thereby could never save on the building or extension of any power plants even on accepted saving assumptions.


Fundamentally,
if a politician has something in his or her head that can be likened to a brain, he/she could of course first consider alternatives to banning what people want to buy (no "need" for a ban if they don't want to buy it).
Unfortunately, in today's world, first politicians find it necessary to continually subsidise corporate "green" products, and if this is "not enough", then the competition has to be banned too, with new standards that "happen" to allow the patented goodies of corporate buddies to pass through the needle's eye, with the backing of well-meaning but naive green people, all crying together in ecstasy over saving the planet and echoed by a pathetic media that regurgitates everything thrown at it. Yes folks, it's called progress.


But there is another way.
Actually, several ways, that at least should be considered and arguably implemented to see if effects are judged as sufficient, before arriving at the nuclear option of a ban.

To make clear: I don't consider the product targeting is necessary in the first place.
But the point here is that even going along with the supposed saving effect and justification of targeting products, jumping to bans is still wrong.
Information, building on past efforts, and taxation, with or without parallell subsidy policy, are two alternatives.
However, market competitive stimulation as finally considered is in my view best in any product targeting.



While the following is all applicable to the USA, the EU and anywhere else,
it is also part of a reply to the Canadian Natural Resources Government Ministry, Office of Energy Efficiency, concerning the Canada Gazette Vol. 147, No. 40 — October 5, 2013 published proposal on Light Bulb Regulations to be effective as from Jan 1 2014,
and the invitation to comment by December 19th.

See the introductory post in the series, also covering policy aspects of the Canada Government proposal to switch to USA standards (sections 1 and 2 below).
A main claim is that Halogens "similar to traditional bulbs" will still be allowed, but they will be banned under US law as referenced, and the Government proposal itself speaks of further standard restrictions being facilitated.
Also, Canadian media has missed that the light bulb rules are said to be just a beginning of a switch to USA laws, with implications not just for Canadian sovereignty, but also of local Canadian manufacture and service to specific Canadian needs.

A second post highlighted the particular advantages to Canadian citizens of incandescent bulbs, being a lot more than just incandescent heat, as reflected in time spent at home, home size, number of bulbs and the varied lighting conditions where incandescents are a more desirable choice (section 3 below).


This time, therefore, the highlighting that the knee-jerk banning of products as requested by greens and corporates in odd unison is not the only relevant policy to assure lower energy consumption (section 9 below).
Information, taxation/subsidy and market policies are ignored as alternatives. Why?

1. Why Alignment to USA will also ban Halogens
2. What is good for Canadian Industry, Jobs and Consumers?
3. How Incandescents have particular Advantages for Canadians
4. Simple Incandescent Advantages versus Halogens
5. On Energy saving for the Nation
6. On Emission saving for the Planet
7. On Money saving for the People
8. Worldwide Policy and Major Manufacturers
9. Alternative Policies targeting Light Bulbs
10.Incandescents - the Real Green Bulbs?

Full version:  As Doc    As PDF


As with all section extracts, the below may refer to other parts of the full document.
Certain revisions and update improvements have been added compared to the document version (until that in turn is updated).
This also expands on relevant parts of the 14 point "How Regulations are Wrongly Justified" general international summary.




9.  Alternative Policies targeting Light Bulbs    


Worldwide, remarkably little consideration is given to alternative policies, not just - as already seen - with respect to saving energy, but also with respect of saving energy when targeting light bulbs themselves.
Much the same goes for all other energy efficiency regulation.
Obviously the last section on lobbying and undue influence might - and should - raise questions as to why that may be so.

There are (at least) 3 alternative policy divisions.
In a sense "there is something for everyone", as it includes both traditional left-wing and right-wing policies.
Again, this makes the avoiding of any such policies all the more puzzling.

The consideration here will therefore be on information, taxation/subsidy and market stimulation policies.




Information Policies  


In the world of odd justification of banning light bulbs, we may as well throw in another one.
US and EU politicians keep talking about uninformed consumers making the "wrong choices".
The right choice is of course always what the politicians want.
Be that as it may, the idea of clear labelling of what people buy presumably helps.
So in the USA and EU, first the bulbs are banned on the basis of poor choices by uninformed consumers, then clearer labelling in terms of bulb brightness comparison and energy use is introduced.
Cart before the horse. Brilliant.

The converse of this is of course that politicians - and not without justification - can say that at least they have had a lot of energy saving and switchover campaigns to encourage switching bulbs (they are even called "energy saving" rather than fluorescent or LED bulbs, for heaven's sake) and store displays tend to do likewise.
On top of that, Canada delayed two years with a specific consumer information rationale and to ally fears about fluorescent bulbs.

One might say that if well-informed people still make the wrong choices, they are either incredibly stupid, or, dare one say it, the ban pushing politicians are.

We are back to the reasons why people choose bulbs, which is not just to save energy, but also not just because incandescents are cheap.
The main point - as highlighted in official and institutional studies (OEE, BC Hydro) is that the penetration of energy saving bulbs is actually pretty good, as in the USA and EU the overwhelming majority have at least one and usually more of them.
The purchase pattern simply suggests that they do not want all their bulbs to be the same kind.
To repeat, the campaigns to "switch all your bulbs and save money" is like saying "Eat only bananas and save money".

There is of course also the simple logic applying that any success in achieving switchover, that for example BC Hydro keeps mentioning albeit via subsidised replacements, or out of "energy saving" bulbs getting "ever cheaper and better", also means less and less savings from imposing a ban - which therefore in turn does not just hit "reluctant technology-fiend backwoodsmen" but also any "progressive" household who sees room and environment conditions where incandescent use is still advantageous (particularly rarely used lamps that don't warrant any unsubsidised costly LED clones either).

Again
New lighting is bought - why ban old lighting, no point
New lighting is not bought - why ban old lighting, no point

It remains strange that particularly in Canada, where a ban was delayed on informational grounds, a ban is deemed necessary for what is said to have been successfully informed consumers about their choices (even if taken as being information about "post-ban" choices, it is still consumer information about the alternatives to simple incandescents).
Assuming a nevertheless continued desire to target bulbs, we have the tax/subsidy and market stimulation alternatives.

In comparison with a regulatory ban, taxation (and/or subsidies) have several advantages apart from keeping choice.




Taxation-Subsidies  


Why are simple incandescent light bulbs being banned?
They are not being banned for being unsafe to use, like lead paint.
No, the reason for banning bulbs is simply to reduce the consumption of energy.

After all, as regulation proponents keep saying,
"We are not banning the bulbs, we are setting energy usage limitations on them!".
Similarly with the plethora of energy usage limitations on buildings (climatically sealed), cars (performance issues, and possible safety issues, in limiting heavier types), white goods, TV sets, computers and much else, and resulting in choice limitation on varied usability/performance characteristics as per references.

Taking a "liberal" left-wing stance, how do governments usually reduce consumption?
Of safe products like luxury goods, or even unsafe ones, like tobacco and alcohol?
That's right - taxation.

Note the Government income from taxation to appropriately reduce energy consumption anywhere along the usage chain, say on coal, electricity from coal, any electricity, or on individual products without replacement worries, compared to a pedantic multitude of carefully crafted legislation on what consumers can or can't buy and use - and without any direct government income from it.

Taxation is of course also of popularity concern to politicians, particularly in the USA.
But this can be countered with how the money is spent - at least among poorer voters - such that for example electricity price rises may be countered by home insulation schemes.
Moreover, taxing say coal (or CO2 emissions) makes renewables and other sources more attractive, and with proper grid competition the switching of suppliers is easier.
As for product taxation, taxation can help subsidise the lower price of alternatives.
A quadruple whammy, in reducing consumption, equilibrating the market, keeping choice and maybe leaving some government income for other uses.
So much for "the market has failed - we must ban these products".

That's not all:
Because in facing the inevitable grumble about the "higher price" for a targeted product, politicians can therefore counter that they are lowering the price on other products, or similarly on lowering the price of alternative electricity provision, where subsidising renewables may be helped out of coal tax receipts.

It gets even better, in the sense that with say light bulbs, there'd be knowledge that a ban would have been the alternative - and the government can of course remind people of that too.

For a government so inclined it gets still better with the simple incandescent light bulbs, compared to other products.
They are cheap and can proportionate to price absorb a fair bit of tax, and they have a relatively fast turnover as commonly produced in short (1000 hr) lifespans.
I could not locate Canada relevant annual light bulb sales, but a rough estimate based on 13 million households and average 36 lighting points and somewhat less than half relevantly incandescent and comparable pre-ban Scandinavian turnover rate would be well over 100 million annual incandescent sales.
Whatever, a neat little earner, even if taxing obviously reduces sales (conversely a very pro-ban government can of course equate with a ban by a large tax, but then the ban route becomes more logical except for determined buyers of the bulbs).
Bans as said give no government income (at least not directly - strictly, supposed household money savings from a ban can be used for other taxable consumption, but the money savings argumentation is itself dubious for reasons given, and savings are of course more indirect anyway, also in assuming people will relevantly spend the money in equal or greater taxable ways).

That is not all.
It is much easier to implement and to alter taxation, and easier to flexibly apply it to new products that change the market situation, than clumsy one-set-standard regulations that need to have complex bureaucratic worked-out replacements - as seen from current elaborately defined regulations.
It is also easier to remove taxation when deemed no longer to be needed (eg when sufficient low emission energy is available), without having to restart the abandoned manufacture of products, as with regulation.


Still, I am against taxation as the best alternative choice, as it assumes there is a reason to target the bulbs, and affects local industry and jobs advantages and much else for much the same reasons as bans.

There is a still better alternative...




Stimulation of Free Market Competition  


If light bulbs need to be targeted in the first place (doubtful, for all other reasons given), then market stimulation, or more exactly market competitive stimulation, is in my view the best option also to lower energy consumption all the way along the energy usage chain:

Firstly, because producers of electricity, just like manufacturers, are then more keen to keep down their own energy usage and cost.
Secondly, because manufacturers are also pushed to deliver energy and cost saving products that the public actually want (and have always wanted, and do buy, even when costing more, and can imaginately be marketed for their savings in usage - rather than to lobby regulators for easier profits through bans on cheap competition).

"Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run"?
Clothes, battery, or washing up liquid manufacturers don't look for bans on cheap alternatives.
They properly and imaginatively advertise their wares.

New inventions, new products, energy saving or with other advantages - can always be helped to the market, though not continually supported.
Contrary to common political propaganda, innovation does not necessitate banning what has gone before.
On the contrary, product innovation - whether with buildings, cars, washing machines or light bulbs - is proven as desirable, in direct comparison and direct competition on the market place.
A progress seen throughout history, also of new energy saving alternatives, like the invention of fluorescent and LED lighting - without regulations being present.

The proposal specifically states a reason for delaying the ban was "for further advances in lighting technology to develop".
Presumably waiting longer allows still further development, and still less reason to ban alternatives.

The retort may be that "banning forces speedier development of new products":
Obviously by necessity it brings new alternatives, but it is development that aims to fill the gap of popular incandescents - look at all the LED incandescent bulb clones.
Hardly true or exciting progress, now is it, hand on your hearts, Canadian politicians?
As said, intrinsic advantages are of incandescents as bulbs, fluorescents as tubes, and LEDs as sheets, and was the original development of the latter 2 products, before all the push to compromise them as bulbs (yes, still with advantages of their own technology, but hardly developed as such now in bulb format, eg the flexible color temperatures of RGB LEDs rather than White LED bulbs).


A further issue is that regulation cut off standards don't just ban what exists. It bans all that could have existed, and never will, despite possible advantages beyond consumption of energy in usage.
For example in new bio-luminescence research, if assisted power consumption went beyond a certain level it would never be allowed, given new technology-neutral energy consumption standards.
Of course incandescent technology development itself is doomed for lack of research funding commitment on what would likely anyway be banned.

The point is not that energy saving is not good. Of course it is.
But product bans that are arguably overall and comparatively pointless in saving energy become a form of totalitarian policy to favour some whisper-in-the-ear multinational corporations to force people to buy products they presumably would not otherwise buy (or the bans would not be "necessary"), products which might indeed improve in internal competition of restricted choice but hardly as much as on an open free market against a multitude of products and manufacturers, and without the quality-for-price pressure that the continued existence of cheap alternatives would give.

Canadians like people elsewhere spend much of their lives under artificial lighting.
There is hardly any regulation that has such an effect on so many for so much of the time.


How many politicians should it take to change a light bulb?
None.

How many citizens should be allowed to choose?
Everyone.



How Regulations are Wrongly Justified
14 points, referenced:
Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.
 

Canada and Nordic Countries: Incandescent Light Bulb Usage Advantages

... it's about a lot more than the heat of incandescent bulbs!

Update info: Campaign against the ban by Ontario MP Cheryl Gallant:
stop the ban page (with petition), facebook page

See the last post.
It focuses on policy aspects of the Canada Government proposal to switch to USA standards.
A main claim is that Halogens "similar to traditional bulbs" will still be allowed, but they will be banned under US law as referenced, and the Government proposal itself speaks of further standard restrictions being facilitated.
While section 3 will remain there, having already linked to it in correspondence etc, it and some other sections have a general informative aspect so may be further highlighted separately.

To recap:
This is part of a reply to the Canadian Natural Resources Government Ministry, Office of Energy Efficiency, concerning the Canada Gazette Vol. 147, No. 40 — October 5, 2013 published proposal on Light Bulb Regulations to be effective as from Jan 1 2014,
and the invitation to comment by December 19th.


Below is seen section 3 of the following:

1. Why Alignment to USA will also ban Halogens
2. What is good for Canadian Industry, Jobs and Consumers?
3. How Incandescents have particular Advantages for Canadians
4. Simple Incandescent Advantages versus Halogens
5. On Energy saving for the Nation
6. On Emission saving for the Planet
7. On Money saving for the People
8. Worldwide Policy and Major Manufacturers
9. Alternative Policies targeting Light Bulbs
10.Incandescents - the Real Green Bulbs?

Full version:  As Doc    As PDF



3. How Incandescents have particular advantages for Canadians

First, a summary of general advantages of Incandescents, then particular advantages to Canadians.


General incandescent advantages

A high quality 100% CRI (color rendering index) light with a warm characteristic: Incandescent lights have a smooth broad light spectrum, which in ordinary light bulbs rises more towards the red end, giving the characteristic warm glow, increased on dimming (fluorescent and LED lights give out different types of light...LEDs also in car headlamps, bicycle lights, flashlights/torches, sees an often bluey omnidirectionally weaker but point source glare type of lighting taking over in society).

The light bulbs have for many a pleasing simple appearance, and the transparency sparkle effect makes their use in some lamps, lanterns, and chandeliers attractive.
They are versatile with dimmers and sensors, advantageous where vibration or rough use is expected, and in very hot or cold conditions when they are also quick to come on. Moreover, the heat of the light bulbs (of itself often useful) finds direct applications in space heating applications, greenhouses, hatcheries, pet keeping etc.
Converse arguments note the situational disadvantages in particular of CFLs, for example in recessed and enclosed fixtures or humid (bathroom) situations



The brightness issue

Small and standard size incandescent lights are particularly useful, since CFL or LED equivalents usually can't be made as bright, and when they can they are even more expensive than usual.

The early ban on small/standard 100 Watt bulbs is therefore particularly ironic, added to by any future absence of halogens.
Such bulbs have especially good and cheap brightness as well as heat benefit, with 100W bulbs being at the same low price as other bulbs (and yes, that is also a reason they "must" be banned quickly based on what people might otherwise want to buy, such that big "savings" can be announced instead).

Fluorescent and LED lights, often dim to start with, also dim more with age, shortening lab quoted lifespans.
Fluorescent encapsulation (with pear shaped outer envelope, recommended for close use) further reduces brightness, similarly the phosphorescent covering of LEDs to spread the point-source lighting reduces brightness in any direction.
Cheap Chinese imports, directly or for assembly and rebranding, also mean that brightness retention, lifespan and other issues remain with these lights.
Any older reader might like (or not like) to note that not only do older eyes need brighter light, but ageing also means yellowing eye lenses so that they absorb the greater blue light component of fluorescents and LEDs, making them appear still dimmer.
Je vous souhaite la retraite agréable.



Safety issues

Normally products are banned for being unsafe to use.
The irony here is that old and thereby well known bulbs in their safety are forcibly, albeit gradually, replaced by CFL and LED bulbs with several health, safety, and environmental concerns.
There is little point in going through the concerns here which can easily be found in online discussion and documentation -
especially regarding fluorescent lighting mercury and radiation concerns, which after all also influenced the 2 year regulatory delay in Canada. Those issues have of course not simply gone away, including accidental breakage of CFLs and their recycling as alternative to being dumped (and with some calls for LED recycling too, see below).
A point of irony is the light bulb heat issue.
Irony, because politicians and journalists and indeed the info sheets from the OEE (Canada Gov office of energy efficiency) love to say how incandescents "waste 90-95% of their energy as heat", never a word that CFLs also waste 70-80% and current LEDs 50-70% of their energy this way.
Irony, because while much incandescent heat is radiated externally to potential use, CFL and LED is internalized, with unpredictable fire risk, especially of CFLs (incandescent heat being more noticeable in burning lampshades and the like, to warn users).

Not only do incandescents often usefully release around 95% of their energy as heat:
Proponents conveniently "forget" to add that CFLs and LEDs really waste energy as heat, CFLs 80% and LEDs 70%.
That is because the CFL/LED heat is internalized, to give a greater, unseen, unpredictable fire risk, particularly with CFLs (incandescent heat being more noticeable, to warn users).

A brief further word on LEDs, as the touted catch-all replacement product.
Just to mention 2 aspects and 2 institutional references.
The official French health agency ANSES in a 2010 multi-disciplinary study highlighted point source glare and blue light radiation issues and various side-effects, echoed by several other studies, and unusually in a repeat call 2013 complained to the Commission that nothing was being done.
Similarly the Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of California, USA has been involved in several multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional and international (Korea) studies concerning the toxicity and environmental effects of LEDs, including depletetion of rare earth minerals, and calling for recycling as with CFLs.



Certainly, new technology should be welcomed for its advantages.
But it does not necessitate banning the old - it seems remarkably hard for politicians to understand that manufacturers themselves can and do move on the new products, without the necessity of bans, and that there are many other ways both of reducing energy consumption in general and of enhancing energy saving product purchase in particular.

Progress is welcomed - not feared.
True progressive politics brings more choice and more advantages, a progress helped - not hindered - by allowing competition against that which already exists.

Politicians love to keep saying how "energy saving products are getting better and cheaper all the time".
Good.
Then presumably people might actually buy them - voluntarily - while still allowing niche special use of "old" varieties.
We've witnessed an incandescent to solid state switchover before - and with the same GE, Philips etc companies.
The audio version. Incandescent audio tubes to solid state (LED-like) transistors.
Now then: If that had been today, then worldwide the call would have been to ban the "energy guzzling" audio tubes.
Which in turn would have prevented rock era tube amps and other niche audio processing developments.
Politicians set energy cut-off standards thinking they just ban existing products. But they also ban what might have existed, and never will.

Ergo:
New lighting is better - why ban old lighting, no point
New lighting is not better - why ban old lighting, no point




Incandescent advantages for Canadians

(i) Canadian homes tend to be big in international comparison, with more light bulbs:

Canadian around 35 light points per home, EU average 20-25 (less in Southern Europe), USA 40-45

Thereby:
• Increased variety of conditions where different lights are useful, so a ban on any lighting type is felt more.
• More individual rooms and lamps with lights that are not often used - reducing supposed running cost savings after buying expensive "energy saving" lighting



(ii) Canadians have a higher need and usage of lighting itself:

• Increased time indoors, including at home, because the homes are bigger, better and more comfortable, related both to the cooler climate and to a greater household wealth, compared with most other countries.
• Increased time indoors, including at home or other situations where the lighting can be chosen, because of colder climate and also because the dark winter season is only partially offset by summer brightness for working Canadians outside vacation times, when some rooms will likely still need to be lit up fairly early



(iii) Canadians more often have cold conditions that can affect the lighting used:

• Incandescent lights come on quickly in the cold. While nowadays CFLs have little delay in ordinary conditions, that does not apply in cold conditions.
LEDs also are more sensitive to ambient temperatures (both hot and cold performance deterioration).
• Cool or cold conditions can combine with other usage factors unsuitable to other lighting, like incompatibility with sensor systems and/or frequent on-off switching, as with hallway and passage areas, bathrooms, outdoor porch and garage lights.
On a more curious note, replacing incandescents with other lighting has reportedly seen Canadian traffic lights being obscured by snow in wintertime, whereas beforehand the incandescent heat would keep the lights clear.



(iv) Canadians particularly benefit from the light bulb heat effect:

• The heat effect, of which more later, gives an overall reduction of energy use to maintain room temperature.
That is not just from being used more than air-conditioning cooling through the year. Even in the summer, when it is dark, it may be cold enough to turn on room heating. Besides incandescents can be changed as desired if conflicting with air conditioning - and may of course be preferred anyway for their other advantages.
• The house insulation factor: Well built Canadian houses that are well insulated, giving a greater light bulb heat benefit compared to more poorly insulated ones elsewhere, as in the UK. The heat from bulbs stays in the room, not escaping through the ceiling.
A point of irony is therefore how governments are increasing home insulation schemes to save on heating, while banning bulbs which, proportionate to small energy use of course, would thereby contribute more to such heating.



(v) Canadians are more likely to enjoy the psychologically warm effect:

Incandescents tend towards the red end of the spectrum, while unmodified fluorescents and LED lighting have more blue light, cooler in effect.
Also, when dimmed, the warm effect of incandescents increases: and people in northern countries like Canada or Nordic Europe are more likely to entertain others in their homes for say dinner parties, possibly also for cultural reasons.
Compare with warmer regions where people go out more to socialize, have no control over such lighting used, and barely use their own home lighting that they can control.



(vi) Canadians are more likely to enjoy bright light:

Having longer darker winters, and generally with less bright conditions than more tropical locations.
100W+ bright equivalent lighting is less easy to make in fluorescent or LED bulb form, is not often available for general household use, and is particularly expensive when it is (and is still not widely possible omnidirectionally with LED bulbs).
The importance is also seen from the existence of SAD, Seasonal Affective Disorder in Northern countries generally, where the lack of light during winter months plays a role as seen from the bright light phototherapy treatment that is involved.

[ Sections 4 to 10 can be seen via doc or pdf download, see top of this page]



How Regulations are Wrongly Justified
14 points, referenced:
Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.
 

Canada to adopt more US Laws beginning with Light Bulbs: Losing Industry, Jobs and Choice, with Hardly any Savings

Last updated December 23
Update info: Campaign against the ban by Federal MP (Government Conservative party) Cheryl Gallant of Ontario, blog post about it (December 23).
Also Section 1 of the Document revised, consequent (P7 version) updates also done to Doc and PDF links below.


The below constitutes a reply to the Canadian Natural Resources Government Ministry, Office of Energy Efficiency, concerning the Canada Gazette Vol. 147, No. 40 — October 5, 2013 published proposal on Light Bulb Regulations to be effective as from Jan 1 2014,
and the invitation to comment

Email: equipment@nrcan.gc.ca Telephone: 613-996-4359
John Cockburn, Director Equipment Division Office of Energy Efficiency Natural Resources Canada CEF, Building 3, Observatory Crescent, 1st Floor
Ottawa, Ontario Fax: 613-947-5286
But best to also contact local media etc. Media very quiet on this.


What Canadians are not being told about January 1 2014 Light Bulb Regulations

Enforcing US Law:
Losing Independence, Industry, Jobs and Choice,
with Hardly any Savings and Hardly any Halogens.


In a seemingly hastily written October proposal, just in time to invite standard 75 day comment by December 19
(leaving little time for any subsequent serious analysis, should perchance the Cabinet be interested in doing so),
Canadians are told that by aligning to USA standards Halogen bulbs, similar to regular incandescent bulbs, will not be banned.

They will.
And that's just the start.


1. Why Alignment to USA will also ban Halogens
The supposedly allowed Halogens banned on USA EISA tier 2 2014-2017 backstop final rule equating to CFL standard. Following Washington means following any other change they make. Proposal already envisages further restrictions.
2. What is good for Canadian Industry, Jobs and Consumers?
Light bulbs stated as the first of more US laws in manufacture and service to harmonise NAFTA standards. Allowing US based corporate access does not mean having to legislate against local production to local desire.
3. How Incandescents have particular Advantages for Canadians
Beyond heat, also brightness, and situational advantages in large homes where much time spent
4. Simple Incandescent Advantages versus Halogens
Halogens more complex and expensive for little savings advantage, hence unpopular in free choice either with consumers or politicians.
5. On Energy saving for the Nation
Fractional overall and on comparative policies, and a main off-peak time use avails of surplus production capacity anyway.
6. On Emission saving for the Planet
Ditto, with the addition that Canada has 86% emission-free electricity and that emissions may increase on heat replacement effect
7. On Money saving for the People
Ditto, with the addition that free choice is not always about money saving, that many bulbs are not often used, and that subsidies plus utility compensation may mean higher bulb and electricity payments anyway via tax or electricity bills.
8. Worldwide Policy and Major Manufacturers
Cooperation to enforce low lifespan on incandescent bulbs followed by cooperation to altogether ban such now patent-expired generic cheap competition. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
9. Alternative Policies targeting Light Bulbs
Information, taxation/subsidy and market competitive alternatives could and should be considered before bans.
10. Incandescents - the Real Green Bulbs?
Efficient, earth saving, long lasting and sustainable.
The simplest way to produce bright light from electricity banned for being too popular, by the stupidity that passes for global governance.

Full version:  As Doc    As PDF
Parts 1-3 reproduced below



1. Why Alignment to USA will also ban Halogens

USA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007/Title III/Subtitle B/Section 321

"The Secretary of Energy shall report to Congress on the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology"

A backstop final rule relates to a cycle of rulemaking that will start in 2014.

" BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT— if the final rule [not later than January 1, 2017] does not produce savings that are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt, effective beginning January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt"

As the Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy puts it, the second tier of energy efficiency improvements “at the latest becomes effective by 2020, essentially requiring general service bulbs to be as efficient as today's CFLs"


The stated main purpose of the current light bulb proposal is to align with US legislation.
Comparatively, the original MEPS legislation can be seen at SOR/94-651 part 1 Items 136-139 with luminous flux based definitions (unfortunately not shown or linked in the proposal). The US wattage based regulations were previously deliberately avoided, citing several disadvantages with the US system including less bright bulbs being allowed in place of brighter ones, usage of higher wattage class defeating the purpose etc. This is not mentioned now in changing standards.

The proposed adoption of USA law is justified as facilitating company product development and distribution to a bigger market, now and in the future, and is to be followed by similar adoption of US law for other products for the same reasons.
With light bulbs a further highlighted beneficial effect is said to be that American standards will allow incandescents in the form of Halogens, albeit still with differences to simple incandescents and a lot more expensive.
However, not only would some higher energy efficiency halogen types not have been banned anyway under the originally proposed legislation, but as seen current USA legislation bans all incandescent technology including touted halogen replacements for general service lighting, EISA tier 2 2014-2017 45 lumen per Watt final rule which equates to fluorescent bulb standard. Replacement Halogens at 18 lumen per Watt, 20-22 at best, are way below that.
The notion that manufacturers would improve halogens falls on commercial consideration (as they at length explained in the November 25 EU meeting and documentation), and for example Philips already quietly dropped promised EcoVantage development once the 2009 EU ban had been achieved.

Aligning with US legislation of course means that guarantees about what will or won't be allowed can no longer be given.

To reply that
"Canada will just adopt the first (USA Tier 1) levels and won't ban Halogens even if the USA does",
is not in keeping with proposal's purpose and argumentation of aligning with USA standards in the first place, including the specifically stated supposed advantages of suppliers not having to deal with two standards for products.

Notice also that 45 lumen per watt is a minimum standard and is set to be followed by others (USA background documentation talks of Tier 3 in 2020).
Notice also that these are and would be technology-neutral standards.
So the splitting up of different products for distribution becomes more difficult anyway, and of course all the more so should further USA rules not be to Canadian taste.

45 lumen per watt is as said based on fluorescent lamps that are going out of political favour, and the hitherto mercury-exception of fluorescent lamps may come to be abolished, if they don't disappear from markets beforehand given recent decreases of allowable mercury levels in some jurisdictions like the EU, which make them less commercially viable to sell.
Of course those who criticise bans on incandescent bulbs might be pleased, should the CFL (fluorescent, "energy saving") bulbs disappear. But that would be on top of banning incandescents, and would hardly happen until other replacements have found political (if not popular) replacement favor.

The big noise in the world of lighting regulation is "Ledification", Japan aiming for a total switch by 2020 and the European Commission in current talks with manufacturer representatives in dealing with the timing of banning halogens and pushing a LED switchover.
[LEDs certainly have energy efficiency advantages, but are also very difficult to make as bright omnidirectional incandescent bulb replacements at low prices, along with having a number of health and environmental concerns of their own as covered later. The simple fact is that all lighting types have advantages and disadvantages, and bans of any should surely be approached with caution. The main distinctive technology advantages are of incandescents as bulbs, fluorescents as long tubes and LEDs as sheets - which is also how the latter 2 were first developed]

Notice how all this is applicable to any aligning to allow Washington to dictate what Canadians can or can't buy, and which may or may not be to Canadian taste, not just with light bulbs, and not just with energy efficiency regulations, given the stated ambition to expand such regulatory alignment and favour multinationals in their North American product development and future distribution of products (see section 2 on industry policy below).

Alternatively, the Canada Government knows about and plans a future ban on halogens.
It is after all true to say that "halogens will still be allowed" - for now.
They would also be doing exactly what USA, EU, and Australia ruling officials did before them:
Wave funny bulbs around to visibly show they were "doing something" about global warming, while "assuring" everybody that "lookalike halogens" to traditional bulbs would still be allowed
It would also seem strange if Canadian lawmakers did not know US law before shifting to it.


The proposal finishes, perhaps with admirable openness:

"...over time, it is anticipated that the proposed standards would help to increase the level of acceptability for MEPS [Minimum Energy Performance Standards] for many Canadians, thus facilitating the adoption of further MEPS for these and other products in the future."

Put the frog into boiling water - it jumps out.
Put the frog into cold water and keep heating it - the frog is cooked
"How to Cook our Canadians"

So, Canadian Cabinet...how about the Canadian public not being duped about "what is allowed"?


In this regard, one should also be aware of how regulations are coordinated and arranged to achieve a desired purpose (read, ban completion).
Jurisdictions like Canada, EU, USA and Australia are in close contact as seen from background documentation to legislation and international meetings between energy agency officials and major manufacturer representatives.

Regulations are therefore divided into Tier 1 and Tier 2 processes.
The original 2012 Canada plans also had a Tier 2 2015 phase-out intention.
Staggered implementation is of course understandable in cushioning the effect both for manufacturers and consumers as new technology is introduced.
However that also allows - or should allow - unbiased monitoring of the effects on consumers of lighting availability and quality, and that supposed energy saving actually takes place.
But follow-ups are no fun for politicians - promises are. The typically and suitably long-term savings projections also apply for Canada (2025, see the proposal annex) allowing catchy quotable big savings figures, and then to say "Well, buddy, we'll check on that in 2025"! Brilliant - the decision makers long since having retired.
Suggested evaluation based on just measuring assumed savings from how products have been adopted (handy for the backing companies, who don't have to pay for that research themselves!) is hardly the same - and misses the overall consumer impact.
In BureaucratSpeak, "stakeholders" aren't any guys and gals strolling around Queen Street in Toronto.

Both the EU and the USA have 2014 review processes:
These should therefore have meant a neutral assessment of Tier 1.But as the continued bans are already written into legislation, the reviews are mainly about alternative lamps and possible change in the timing of Tier 2 implementation. Talk about a 1-way street.

As for the USA, it's not just that halogens are legislated to disappear sometime before 2020. The Obama administration in cooperation with the Democrat controlled Senate Energy Committee already tried to tighten lamp and other energy efficiency regulations in 2011. But as with many bills, it did not make it through Congress. Lowering the standards requires Congress passage, and the President's signature. Hardly anytime soon.

A further possible reason why the officials writing the laws want Tier 2 bans already legislated in place, is the difficulty and nuisance of having to revisit the issue in public or parliamentary debate.
US law is of course already difficult to alter as just noted, and this applies also in the 28 nation and multi-institutional EU.

Canada is different, and could be different, in openly considering what is right or wrong, and not just for multinational corporations.


The proposal here does commendably invite public comment....
but why is it kept away from Canadian Parliament for debate, all the more so since proposal comment finishes Dec 19, with MPs already being off looking for turkeys and tourtières on the 13th and not back until Jan 27?
The government cabinet rubberstamping American legislation into place over the holiday period surely sets a bad precedent if it hasn't done so already, given the mentioned ramifications.


The bigger picture about the light bulb regulations is not any guarantee about halogens.
The bigger picture is about why light bulb ban regulation is necessary in the first place - and particularly in Canada.

Canada has no obligation to ban either halogens or simple incandescents.
This was shown in already delaying ban implementation.
Canada is - still - an independent country.
If it is not in the interest of Canada, Canadian business, Canadian jobs, or Canadian consumers to ban lighting products on other than safety grounds, then it should not be done.

And it isn't...




2. What is good for Canadian Industry, Jobs and Consumers?

"This proposed amendment would support the Government’s regulatory policy of aligning with American standards, where feasible"
"it is anticipated that the proposed standards would help to increase the level of acceptability for MEPS for many Canadians, thus facilitating the adoption of further MEPS for these and other products in the future."
"compliance risks are much less than they would be if Canada had unique standards. Canada would benefit from the compliance regime that is in place to support U.S. standards."

Adoption of US standards for many more products - not just concerning energy efficiency - is set to continue.
The US dominance on the North American market hardly means Washington adopting Ottawa standards.

This does not just sideline Canadian autonomy for its own sake.
It means no longer making products to specific Canadian demands, should they conflict with American desire.

So, should the border just be shut, to only have "Canadian products for Canadians"?
No, the point is not the protectionism angle.
The point is that allowing American standard products in Canada, does not mean having to ban products made to specific Canadian demand and desire.
Manufacturers can still make American standard products both for internal market or export, as they wish.

Presumably if the American standard is so attractive for the major multinationals for market reasons, then they'll make to that standard, and leave the smaller specific Canada demand to Canadian suppliers.
They don't "have to suffer regulatory burden by making products to 2 standards", as the proposal basically puts it.


This is therefore about a lot more than light bulbs, it is about any product that because of climate, geography, culture, or other reason might be of value to Canadian consumers.

Legally, in a case of regulatory conflict between the Canada and USA standards,
if a Canadian requirement is deemed less stringent, that is obviously not a problem - the point here.
If a Canadian requirement is more stringent, perhaps on environmental or safety grounds, that is still justified on Canadian rights as a sovereign country.

The Government proposal at hand is overly focused on helping major manufacturers sell in both countries, repeatedly stating so.
Maybe some more widespread consideration is justified.

Yet even on such narrowly defined market-minded economic justification for bowing to Washington, the question is if it's a good policy.

To keep adopting US standards will likely cost Canadian supply and distribution jobs,
especially of already existing standards as supply and distribution to those standards is already well established on the bigger US market, but also of simultaneously applied standards, as larger US based suppliers simply extend the reach for their products.

Conversely, while still allowing such free trade movement of goods,
the freedom of manufacture to local needs gives local jobs and locally satisfied consumers.
Also if Americans are not making or distributing such products then clearly all the better for Canadian jobs.


Turning now specifically to energy efficiency regulations, such as on light bulbs,
the relevance of what has been said is even greater, on several counts.

Firstly, by adopting US legislation, USA based control becomes even more likely - after all, their manufacturers and distributors have had regulatory knowledge and established implementation for several years on any such regulatory shift. With the light bulbs, that's 7 years knowledge and 2 years implementation for the US rivals.
After all, the proposal makes much of how manufacturers prepare for standards in advance (and, conversely, if anything, Canadian suppliers prepared for the wrong MEPS standard).

Secondly, how big is current and assumed future Canadian light bulb production anyway?
While I have been unable to find figures (and, again, the proposal could have supplied them!) it presumably mirrors the USA and EU in dominant Chinese CFL/LED imports and dwindling local incandescent/halogen manufacture.
Maybe it's great to help the Chinese (as also outsourced by Philips. GE or Osram-Sylvania) but surely not of utmost importance, and on the distribution side that again comes down to likely American control on a unified market for reasons given.

Thirdly, with energy efficiency regulations it need not be USA versus Canada standards.
Not having energy efficiency regulations in the first place opens up to true manufacturer freedom without the "regulatory burden" that the proposal worries so much about.
That obviously need defending of itself, and will be done for light bulbs, but one should also be well aware of what it would mean for industrial policy and jobs, given the industry focus in the proposal.

The tone of the proposal is of abandoning regulations with threatened chaos.
But it is just to continue without implementation, and with manufacturer and consumer freedom.
A freedom that allows the start up of making popular bulbs, that hasn't hitherto happened given threatened regulation.


The popularity of bulbs to be banned (phased out, regulated..) is hardly in doubt.
If they were not popular, there would be no "need" to ban them and celebrate the supposed savings.
There are in fact many reasons why it is both easy and attractive to set up local small/new Canadian manufacture and sale with associated jobs of traditional light bulbs.
Firstly in being popular, as mentioned.
Secondly in being simple and easy to make.
Thirdly in being generic patent-free bulbs without licensing requirement from major manufacturers (now guess why GE/Philips/Osram-Sylvania want those bulbs banned).
Finally, in being without competition from America, and with likely little competition from anywhere else - while always allowing alternative "energy saving" bulb manufacture and sale as desired on the market.
Canada could have a considerable domestic light bulb industry of incandescent lighting.
Can the same be said about CFLs or LEDs?



Responding to the idea that regulations might actually not be imposed, the proposal suggests:

"Canada could become susceptible to product dumping from manufacturers from other countries seeking to sell traditional incandescent light bulbs no longer permitted in their own country."

This repeats what they said 2008 in defending the first MEPS regulations.
But bans have now already been legislated in many other jurisdictions (rationale later) and the proposal itself emphasizes how manufacturers prepare for them.
So the notion that those guys have been stockpiling incandescents on-the-side, just to dump on Canada in case Canada does not implement a ban, hardly holds.
Besides, Canadians would get more choice, and would have to want to buy them in the first place - "terrible" if they can buy what they want?
Finally, any dumping problem can always be met by import controls - it does not necessitate, nor does it justify, banning what people want to buy.


Two further justifications are given for not abandoning regulations:

"Suppliers to the Canadian light bulb market have already made considerable investments in research, development and retooling to meet the MEPS as written in 2008.
Canadian retailers have begun selling, promoting, and educating consumers about more efficient bulbs."

As for Canadian retailers,
I am sure they would be delighted to sell whatever Canadians want to buy.
Educating about "efficient bulbs" - that presumably means bulbs efficient in producing bright light using few components?
No? Well, that just shows how politically correct language is defined - handily substituting "efficient" for "energy efficient"
(as with calling fluorescent bulbs "energy saving" bulbs:
Hello Mr Retailer, can I have one of those Energy Wasting bulbs please? Ah, gosh, thanks very much!)

As for suppliers to the market,
the odd notion is this invitation to cry for them when they now instead have full freedom to make and supply what they want - including the bulbs they prepared for.
Compare with if they had been busy preparing to sell a bulb that was then made illegal!

The manufacturers were perfectly free themselves to stop selling incandescents if "they are so bad for the planet", as their press releases keep saying, and the media keeps swallowing. After all - the same GE/Philips and other companies stopped making record players, cassettes, 8-tracks and much else in the name of "progress".
But "unfortunately", others would make the popular bulbs if they stopped!
No manufacturer/distributor should rely on bans on competition to shift product they presumably have some sort of confidence and ability to sell.
Besides, the big American market would still have the limited competition they want.

Moreover, if the suppliers were preparing for the Canadian standard, "MEPS as written in 2008" and it "is a burden to make and distribute to both American and Canadian standard", well, then the suppliers have been preparing for the wrong standard, with Canada Gov now pulling the rug from under their feet!
Also, the fact that simple traditional light bulbs are easy to make means those guys can easily "retool" and make them too, and have the limited competition from USA on that score as already described.
Don't cry for me, Argentina.


For deeper discussion of industrial policy and manufacturers, see section 8

Meanwhile, do these bulbs really have any value for Canadians?.....



3. How Incandescents have particular advantages for Canadians

First, a summary of general advantages of Incandescents, then particular advantages to Canadians, and afterwards, a look at simple incandescent advantages vis-à-vis Halogens.

General incandescent advantages

A high quality 100% CRI (color rendering index) light with a warm characteristic: Incandescent lights have a smooth broad light spectrum, which in ordinary light bulbs rises more towards the red end, giving the characteristic warm glow, increased on dimming (fluorescent and LED lights give out different types of light...LEDs also in car headlamps, bicycle lights, flashlights/torches, sees an often bluey omnidirectionally weaker but point source glare type of lighting taking over in society).

The light bulbs have for many a pleasing simple appearance, and the transparency sparkle effect makes their use in some lamps, lanterns, and chandeliers attractive.
They are versatile with dimmers and sensors, advantageous where vibration or rough use is expected, and in very hot or cold conditions when they are also quick to come on. Moreover, the heat of the light bulbs (of itself often useful) finds direct applications in space heating applications, greenhouses, hatcheries, pet keeping etc.
Converse arguments note the situational disadvantages in particular of CFLs, for example in recessed and enclosed fixtures or humid (bathroom) situations



The brightness issue

Small and standard size incandescent lights are particularly useful, since CFL or LED equivalents usually can't be made as bright, and when they can they are even more expensive than usual.

The early ban on small/standard 100 Watt bulbs is therefore particularly ironic, added to by any future absence of halogens.
Such bulbs have especially good and cheap brightness as well as heat benefit, with 100W bulbs being at the same low price as other bulbs (and yes, that is also a reason they "must" be banned quickly based on what people might otherwise want to buy, such that big "savings" can be announced instead).

Fluorescent and LED lights, often dim to start with, also dim more with age, shortening lab quoted lifespans.
Fluorescent encapsulation (with pear shaped outer envelope, recommended for close use) further reduces brightness, similarly the phosphorescent covering of LEDs to spread the point-source lighting reduces brightness in any direction.
Cheap Chinese imports, directly or for assembly and rebranding, also mean that brightness retention, lifespan and other issues remain with these lights.
Any older reader might like (or not like) to note that not only do older eyes need brighter light, but ageing also means yellowing eye lenses so that they absorb the greater blue light component of fluorescents and LEDs, making them appear still dimmer.
Je vous souhaite la retraite agréable.



Safety issues

Normally products are banned for being unsafe to use.
The irony here is that old and thereby well known bulbs in their safety are forcibly, albeit gradually, replaced by CFL and LED bulbs with several health, safety, and environmental concerns.
There is little point in going through the concerns here which can easily be found in online discussion and documentation -
especially regarding fluorescent lighting mercury and radiation concerns, which after all also influenced the 2 year regulatory delay in Canada. Those issues have of course not simply gone away, including accidental breakage of CFLs and their recycling as alternative to being dumped (and with some calls for LED recycling too, see below).
A point of irony is the light bulb heat issue.
Irony, because politicians and journalists and indeed the info sheets from the OEE (Canada Gov office of energy efficiency) love to say how incandescents "waste 90-95% of their energy as heat", never a word that CFLs also waste 70-80% and current LEDs 50-70% of their energy this way.
Irony, because while much incandescent heat is radiated externally to potential use, CFL and LED is internalized, with unpredictable fire risk, especially of CFLs (incandescent heat being more noticeable in burning lampshades and the like, to warn users).

Not only do incandescents often usefully release around 95% of their energy as heat:
Proponents conveniently "forget" to add that CFLs and LEDs really waste energy as heat, CFLs 80% and LEDs 70%.
That is because the CFL/LED heat is internalized, to give a greater, unseen, unpredictable fire risk, particularly with CFLs (incandescent heat being more noticeable, to warn users).

A brief further word on LEDs, as the touted catch-all replacement product.
Just to mention 2 aspects and 2 institutional references.
The official French health agency ANSES in a 2010 multi-disciplinary study highlighted point source glare and blue light radiation issues and various side-effects, echoed by several other studies, and unusually in a repeat call 2013 complained to the Commission that nothing was being done.
Similarly the Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of California, USA has been involved in several multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional and international (Korea) studies concerning the toxicity and environmental effects of LEDs, including depletetion of rare earth minerals, and calling for recycling as with CFLs.



Certainly, new technology should be welcomed for its advantages.
But it does not necessitate banning the old - it seems remarkably hard for politicians to understand that manufacturers themselves can and do move on the new products, without the necessity of bans, and that there are many other ways both of reducing energy consumption in general and of enhancing energy saving product purchase in particular.

Progress is welcomed - not feared.
True progressive politics brings more choice and more advantages, a progress helped - not hindered - by allowing competition against that which already exists.

Politicians love to keep saying how "energy saving products are getting better and cheaper all the time".
Good.
Then presumably people might actually buy them - voluntarily - while still allowing niche special use of "old" varieties.
We've witnessed an incandescent to solid state switchover before - and with the same GE, Philips etc companies.
The audio version. Incandescent audio tubes to solid state (LED-like) transistors.
Now then: If that had been today, then worldwide the call would have been to ban the "energy guzzling" audio tubes.
Which in turn would have prevented rock era tube amps and other niche audio processing developments.
Politicians set energy cut-off standards thinking they just ban existing products. But they also ban what might have existed, and never will.

Ergo:
New lighting is better - why ban old lighting, no point
New lighting is not better - why ban old lighting, no point




Incandescent advantages for Canadians

(i) Canadian homes tend to be big in international comparison, with more light bulbs:

Canadian around 35 light points per home, EU average 20-25 (less in Southern Europe), USA 40-45

Thereby:
• Increased variety of conditions where different lights are useful, so a ban on any lighting type is felt more.
• More individual rooms and lamps with lights that are not often used - reducing supposed running cost savings after buying expensive "energy saving" lighting



(ii) Canadians have a higher need and usage of lighting itself:

• Increased time indoors, including at home, because the homes are bigger, better and more comfortable, related both to the cooler climate and to a greater household wealth, compared with most other countries.
• Increased time indoors, including at home or other situations where the lighting can be chosen, because of colder climate and also because the dark winter season is only partially offset by summer brightness for working Canadians outside vacation times, when some rooms will likely still need to be lit up fairly early



(iii) Canadians more often have cold conditions that can affect the lighting used:

• Incandescent lights come on quickly in the cold. While nowadays CFLs have little delay in ordinary conditions, that does not apply in cold conditions.
LEDs also are more sensitive to ambient temperatures (both hot and cold performance deterioration).
• Cool or cold conditions can combine with other usage factors unsuitable to other lighting, like incompatibility with sensor systems and/or frequent on-off switching, as with hallway and passage areas, bathrooms, outdoor porch and garage lights.
On a more curious note, replacing incandescents with other lighting has reportedly seen Canadian traffic lights being obscured by snow in wintertime, whereas beforehand the incandescent heat would keep the lights clear.



(iv) Canadians particularly benefit from the light bulb heat effect:

• The heat effect, of which more later, gives an overall reduction of energy use to maintain room temperature.
That is not just from being used more than air-conditioning cooling through the year. Even in the summer, when it is dark, it may be cold enough to turn on room heating. Besides incandescents can be changed as desired if conflicting with air conditioning - and may of course be preferred anyway for their other advantages.
• The house insulation factor: Well built Canadian houses that are well insulated, giving a greater light bulb heat benefit compared to more poorly insulated ones elsewhere, as in the UK. The heat from bulbs stays in the room, not escaping through the ceiling.
A point of irony is therefore how governments are increasing home insulation schemes to save on heating, while banning bulbs which, proportionate to small energy use of course, would thereby contribute more to such heating.



(v) Canadians are more likely to enjoy the psychologically warm effect:

Incandescents tend towards the red end of the spectrum, while unmodified fluorescents and LED lighting have more blue light, cooler in effect.
Also, when dimmed, the warm effect of incandescents increases: and people in northern countries like Canada or Nordic Europe are more likely to entertain others in their homes for say dinner parties, possibly also for cultural reasons.
Compare with warmer regions where people go out more to socialize, have no control over such lighting used, and barely use their own home lighting that they can control.



(vi) Canadians are more likely to enjoy bright light:

Having longer darker winters, and generally with less bright conditions than more tropical locations.
100W+ bright equivalent lighting is less easy to make in fluorescent or LED bulb form, is not often available for general household use, and is particularly expensive when it is (and is still not widely possible omnidirectionally with LED bulbs).
The importance is also seen from the existence of SAD, Seasonal Affective Disorder in Northern countries generally, where the lack of light during winter months plays a role as seen from the bright light phototherapy treatment that is involved.

[ Sections 4 to 10 can be seen via doc or pdf download, see top of this page]



How Regulations are Wrongly Justified
14 points, referenced:
Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.