Kevan Shaw Report: November 25 EU Consultation Forum

Regarding the EU Consultation Forum on domestic lighting November 25 meeting in Brussels
A report was posted here November 26.

Reproduced here:

Concerning the EU (European Commission) Light Bulb Review and their proposal to alter the regulations as laid out in detail previously:

Yesterday saw the previously mentioned meeting in Brussels of the Consultation Forum involving the Commission, national energy representatives and a few lighting "stakeholder" delegates.
I will expand on anything arising out of this: Suffice to say that while LightingEurope (representing Philips, Osram, GE and other major manufacturers, pre-meeting official statement of their position) and a few other lighting representatives were for the continuation of halogens without time limit, most of the energy agency type people predictably wanted to keep the 2016 ban, with some national representatives (eg Germany, Austria and Italy) wanting at least a delay, in that sense siding with the Commission 2 year delay proposal.
As this was just a consultation, decisions will take some time yet. Final decision on all aspects of the regulation review will be made by April 2014.

The most surprising aspect of the meeting was the focus on clamping down on "rough service" type industrial bulb sales to ordinary consumers - EU light bulb sales inspectors will likely be authorised to patrol the sale outlets of member nations, as already demanded by Energy Commissioner Oettinger for his native Germany. The idea therefore already has strong backing from the boss - and this time nearly all are for it, including the major manufacturers, as a lot of those bulbs are cheap Chinese imports. Thereby also "useful EU job creation" achieved. General applause.
What, the consumer? When were consumers ever important?!


#   #   #


Award winning (Lux UK Designer of the Year) Kevan Shaw of SavetheBulb.org has published a fuller analysis of the meeting and future prospects... The Latest from Europe

Extracts, my highlighting:

The Latest from Europe

Review of Ecodesign regulation 244/2009 stage 6

The Consultation meeting that took place in Brussels on 25 November revealed clearly that the EcoDesign process, particularly for lighting products is now only a political action.

In the meeting the majority of the national representatives spoke against delay or removal of the ban, not for substantial reasons of energy savings but because it might be seen as a precedent for delays or revisions for other products in the EcoDesign system.
There was also considerable support not to look at this issue in isolation but conflate it with the omnibus review of the regulation next year to save these civil servants from having to attend any more meetings where they are clearly completely out of their depth on fundamentals of the technologies being discussed.

The gloves are also off the conceit that these regulations are “Technology Neutral”.
Clear statements were made that funding would be provided for SSL but not other research.
[this was also seen in the circulated Commission proposal leading up to the meeting]

The UK representative claimed that the statements in lighting industry press clearly showed that SSL was the "only future for lighting". This obvious gullibility to marketing messages is truly scary in the context of pan European regulations that will, in effect kill off the only remaining bulk lamp manufacturing in Europe, which is tungsten halogen.

There is also seemingly no need to prove that the existing regulation has been effective in its core purpose of saving energy. The argument here is that energy use may have gone up despite the regulations but if the regulations had not been in place the increase would have been far worse!.....It was pointed out that the regulation has been very effective in bringing to the public’s attention that "something was being done" about energy use in Europe.

As for any negative impact on consumers, these are brushed under the carpet of savings on energy bills.
The unrealistic life in service expectations of extortionately priced SSL lamps, again largely statistical rather than actual, feed this argument.
Health concerns? Not the concern of this process SCENHIR deals with that.
Product safety? Again not a concern of this process. In the last year there have been 6 recalls of LED replacement lamps that I am aware of. These have been for life safety issues, touchable parts of the lamps becoming live to mains electricity. Throughout my long career in lighting I can only remember one recall of an incandescent lamp and that was because some shattered when they failed at end of a full service life.

There was some indication of the expectations of the omnibus review.
Spearheaded by Sweden and vociferously supported by CLASP the umbrella research organisation funded by the green pressure groups including WWF, Greenpeace etc, the proposal is that only A class lamps should be available in the market by 2020 if not sooner! ....Even SSL will not be able to deliver the warm colour appearance good colour rendering light that we are used to at the levels of “efficiency” demanded.
The near future looks like becoming cold and dead looking place.

Comment

Excellent if a little depressing!

The declared position of the main lighting manufacturers is as seen against the energy agency type people, but clearly
their worry of losing profit is not the same as when cheap simple incandescents were legal.
It would rather seem to be a marketing exercise for manufacturers to support the more expensive halogens, also presumably having more of an "ear to the ground" of what consumers want - compared to the civil servants and ideological fanatics as per the above. But manufacturers also know full well that they can simply point a finger at the Commission for any unpopular decision made (and in addition can then claim to have "tried on behalf of consumers to save the halogens"). Maybe that's their game all along - they know full well the position of agencies and Commission, and at the end of the day can simply count the profit - and reap all the subsidies - pertaining to LED manufacture and sales.
That leaves naive people like me thinking that manufacturers, for once, might have been concerned about people's choices without wholly regard to profit.
But, to repeat, manufacturers can and arguably should lobby for profitable decisions on behalf of their shareholders.
The problem, as always, is the extent that the Commission only listens to them, or indeed the national agency types or environmental pressure groups - which brings us back to the democratic acceptance of other views, and the various comments by other groups and individuals as highlighted here in recent days.


There is a further aspect to the review democracy, as highlighted by these type of meetings:
Not just who is allowed to attend, and not just that others are not heard (file your opinion in the waste paper bin/trash can), but of knowing who was there in the first place.

Who sits on the "Commission Ecodesign Committee", that pours out legislative initiatives on everything from light bulbs to vacuum cleaners to TV sets, which will apply to the EU?
Nobody knows - Nobody is allowed to know.
By research reports and other roundabout ways (eg who sits on the DG Energy C3 Committee on Energy Efficient Products) one gets to know some likely names on the Commission side - but that's it.
They don't even seem to have a secretariat. At most they have an email address type "tren-ecodesign@ec.europa.eu" but they never reply.
You might as well be dealing with the Cosa Nostra.

Much the same with these Consultation Forums.
Again, by various reports one finds out some likely representatives.
The Commission can rightly say that it's up to National Governments, Trade Organisations and Energy Saving Associations to decide who they want to send to represent them.
But that does not excuse saying afterwards who attended - after all, they have a monitored, named guest list of all who attended.
It's not as if it was the Ku Klux Klan attendance list. Presumably there is no shame/reluctance in name revelation.

The point is this: The Commission has sole rights to initiate legislation in the EU - presumably those selectively invited are invited to give valued input into this, and presumably they would not attend otherwise.
They should therefore stand by what they say - openly.
It's not good enough to say "by contacting the organisations concerned, they may say who was sent".
No real minutes are revealed (see the summary type below), no real information about what was discussed or who said what.

That's not all.
In any voting procedure, only the overall result is given. Not even the names of countries/organisations (as applicable) voting for/against, let alone reprentatives themselves.

Compare with equivalent launching of consultative forums or hearings in say the USA, or in individual European countries at least of the Western democratic tradition.
I have covered US Senate Hearings, similar to the EU Consultation Forum in having invited representative participation - that's even televised (C-Span) or retrievable by video. Video!!!
If any EU Commission hearing even had summary minutes released by someone, he or she would probably be crucified within minutes up on the Berlaymont.


The following shows replies I recently received looking for information.

They suggest looking at vacuum cleaner legislation as an example (this was before the light bulb review).
Vacuum cleaners of course will also soon be limited in energy use, so expect to spend twice as long cleaning up and use the same energy anyway.

Members of the Regulatory Committee are representatives of Member
States of the European Union (EU). A list of the persons who
participated in a particular meeting is not published on the EU’s
‘EUROPA’ web portal.

You may want to contact directly the Permanent Representations of the
Member States to enquire about whether the names of delegates in a
particular meeting are available. You can find the relevant contact
details on the EU’s ‘whoiswho’ portal at the following URL:
http://europa.eu/whoiswho/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=idea.hierarchy&nodeID=3780&lang=en

Furthermore, you might be interested to know that by consulting a
Summary Record of one of the Ecodesign regulatory Committee, you can
find at the end of the document the Ministry/Department/Agency which
represented the Member State in that particular Committee meeting
[Ecodesign Committee has the reference: C07900]. An example is the
meeting of 27/02/2013 on vacuum cleaners:
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&F8O7DquaYsFIjeSNfyvxNCwAqN39eC+0fCcDkqDDB/sxdbQ+AI/X9VTTMRqv00VG

We hope you find this information useful. Please contact us again if
you have other questions.

PDF documents below, in case not seen:
Document 1
A typical Ecodesign meeting's summary report and (as here) a brief voting record

Document 2
A list of typical national ministries and agencies represented (anonymously)











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 the light bulb ban in so many countries, if it's such a bad idea?"

Updated 1 October, original post 29 September

Those who have read the "How regulations are wrongly justified" point by point argumentation
will see how this could have come about.
Nevertheless, the "many countries" response is an understandable first reaction and keeps coming up, so is worth answering separately with summarized arguments, maybe added as a point to the above section.

Environmentally, standard incandescent light bulbs have been a simple visible target
also for mainstream politicians wishing to be seen to be "doing something" and be "acting resolutely" to save the planet, in the wake of the global warming debate/hysteria of the early 2000's.

As covered more in detail via references in the argumentation rundown, light bulb manufacturers GE, Philips Osram/Sylvania happily joined in the ban chorus to limit choice of the for them less profitable incandescents just as they did with their Phoebus cartel limiting incandescent lifespan choice (hence standard 1000hrs), with political acquiescence also at that time, in blocking USA and Europe market access for any competitor with other ideas.
More on this: http://ceolas net/#phoebuspol

Meanwhile, regarding developing countries worldwide, the United Nations via the UNEP en.lighten program with Philips and Osram are coaxing the implementation of incandescent bans and via the World Bank funding a switch to their "energy saving" bulbs which they presumably would not otherwise sell.
How Philips, Osram, the UN and the World Bank en.lighten the World
Any journalist can check up these matters, the point being that while manufacturers will always seek profitable advantages, they should not be offered undue help, the real blame being with politicians and public officials.

Some tropical countries have been urged to ban incandescents on the grounds of their heat release, in also working against air conditioning cooling, also seen in US Energy Dept building codes. As it happens, in parallell argumentation incandescent heat release is said to be irrelevant in proportionally replacing some heat from other room sources :-)
Of course, incandescents can always voluntarily be substituted in warm countries or seasonal conditions, or chosen anyway for light quality and other described advantages.

The announced ban in China relates more to helping their large profitable CFL/LED industry (with outsourced manufacture by the mentioned manufacturers), rather than any EU type "earth saving" salvation.


Overall, this is also about governments banning rather than countries banning:
new governments don't necessarily agree with implemented bans.
US Republicans are now against the ban, a new Canada government has delayed the ban,
Australia's new conservative government is reportedly against it like other "climate change" inspired taxes and bans, while the incoming New Zealand government scrapped the ban decision by the outgoing government.


Still, any lack of political opposition and will to overturn bans also reflects apparent public indifference. Given the popularity of standard bulbs when consumers have free choice, this might seem surprising.
But firstly - if aware of the ban - there is a natural assumption that it relates to a safety issue with the bulbs. After all, that is (or was) the normal reason to ban products, like lead paint.
And no-one campaigns to bring back lead paint!

But most people, in North America and Europe and likely elsewhere, seem unaware of the ban.
One reason is the gradual phase-out in most countries.
Another reason is that industrial (eg mining etc) incandescent bulbs are now finding their way into American and European stores and shops to meet demand.
There is a double irony here:
Firstly, such bulbs tend to use "even" more energy for the same brightness than standard incandescents (annoying the politicians!)
Secondly, at a still relatively low cost (eg 1 or 2$ or euros) they can last much longer, up to 20 000 hours, which is why as said they were successfully kept away from ordinary consumers until the post-ban demand arose (annoying the major manufacturers!). Ah yes.

So, for example, German shops are increasingly offering such incandescent light bulbs, but (as from the Tagesspiegel 2012) the European Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger said checks should be made to ensure these were not being sold for domestic use...

The commission has called on German authorities to carry out in-shop inspections to police the ban.
Germany's state market surveillance authorities, who would be responsible for these inspections, offered a mixed response to the EU's request. Berlin and Brandenburg's authorities said they would need extra employees, while the North Rhine-Westphalia office said they had not planned any measures to police the light bulb ban so far."

Rather more colourfully put by Der Standard newspaper, about the Commissioner's supposed heated reaction (put in Google translate etc at your leisure)...

EU-Energiekommissar Günther Oettinger soll dies so echauffiert
haben, dass er ein Verbot der stoßfesten Spezialglühbirne anregte und
nationale Marktüberwachungsbehörden dazu aufrief, sie sollten
überprüfen, dass nur ja nicht stoßfeste neben nichtstoßfesten
Glühbirnen angeboten werden.
So würden EU-Vorgaben unterlaufen, sagte
eine seiner Sprecherinnen in deutschen Medien.

Yes, how terrible if people can buy what light bulbs they want!
 

Banning Light Bulbs an Irrelevant Climate Change Measure: German Parliament Report

Energiesparlampen stoppen nicht den Klimawandel
(Energy saving light bulbs can not stop climate change)

From the German Die Welt newspaper
22 September 2012



Introduction:

Der Kampf gegen Klimaerwärmung und Umweltverschmutzung lässt sich allein durch effizientere Technologie nicht gewinnen. Das ist, vereinfacht gesagt, das Ergebnis des Berichts, den die Arbeitsgruppe drei der Bundestags-Enquetekommission Wachstum, Wohlstand, Lebensqualität am Montag vorstellt und der der "Welt" vorliegt.

Auf mehr als 200 Seiten erklären die Autoren, warum Wirtschaftswachstum und Umweltverbrauch derzeit eben nicht voneinander entkoppelt sind. Diese Erkenntnis ist politisch durchaus brisant: Grüner Konsum – ob durch Energiesparlampen, Hybridautos oder die Energiewende – löst unsere Probleme nicht.

Google translated article, the introduction, clarified translation:

The fight against global warming and environmental pollution can not be won by more efficient technology alone. This is, to put it simply, the result of the report that working group three of the parliamentary commission on economic growth, prosperity, and quality of life presented on Monday also to Die Welt.

Over more than 200 pages, the authors explain why current economic growth and environmental consumption are not just unrelated, but how. The findings are politically explosive throughout: Green consumption - whether by energy-saving bulbs, hybrid cars or the Energiewende energy turning point - does not solve our problems.
(ed- "die Energiewende", Germany's recent decision to abandon nuclear power and go for more wind and solar development along with more stringent energy saving measures, a play on "Die Wende", "turnaround" word, used for the fall of the Berlin Wall 1989, more)

The research report particularly refers to report findings of a "Jevon's paradox" effect whereby energy saving lamps cheaper to use are therefore simply used more, negating supposed savings.
This is nothing new, though of course continually ignored by most politicians.
As Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute has noted, already in 1987 the town of Traer, Iowa handed out 18,000 free fluorescent bulbs to its residents in a demonstration project aimed at reducing power consumption. Residential electricity use actually rose by 8 percent, because people used more lights and kept them on longer, once they realized their lighting was cheaper (more).


However, this is just one of many reasons why the supposed energy or CO2 savings aren't there, as extensively laid out and referenced in the "How Bans are Wrongly Justified" energy/emission section.


In summary, whatever one's opinion on global warming and any man made CO2 contribution, light bulbs of course don't burn coal or release CO2 anyway
- if there is a problem, deal with the problem.
There are as seen much more relevant savings measures from electricity generation through grid distribution (including new "smart grid" systems) through alternative consumption saving measures.

Society savings are as officially referenced (EU Commission, US Dept of Energy data) a fraction of 1% of EU/US energy use - even before the also rferenced greater life cycle (manufacturing, transport, recycling) energy use of the more complex replacement lighting alternatives.

Power plant off-peak night time electricity production, when greatest incandescent lighting use occurs, is about using below capacity power plant use and even the burning of surplus coal (coal plants being slow expensive and difficult to turn up and down from higher daytime demand levels) - making bulb use irrelevant anyway.
Meanwhile, peaktime electricity use from additional quicker firing gas or hydro turbines involve lower CO2 emissions than coal anyway... and coal CO2 emissions can in themselves be lowered in various ways.
Again, the CO2 reductions they themselves plan in electricity production, are completely ignored by ban-happy politicians extrapolating old figures forwards to give suitably large savings figures for eager uncritical journalists to swallow.

There are even specific reasons why CO2 may rise rather than fall from banning incandescents, as the several referenced research institutes point out, when incandescent heat derived from "clean" electricity sources is replaced by fossil fuel burning room heating sources.

Mock Memorials... Tombstones

See the previous post.
To start with then, tongue-in-cheek memorial activity was included in the otherwise also serious German Light Bulb Ban Memorial 2010 "Das grösste Birnendenkmal Deutschlands", Germany's biggest light bulb memorial, as posted on before (a 2012 follow up was planned, but seemingly not taking place).
As seen it had several components, including "trash" video, people's stories about the bulb, and many amusing images...

source  birnendenkmal.de

"banning the protester against banning the bulb"

source  birnendenkmal.de

Related,
perhaps predictably, various tombstone/gravestone images are also appearing...

As it happens, the above is from a good recent September 2012 article "Incandescent ban evokes nanny state" on ECN by technical editor Jason Lomberg, finishing

....An acute manifestation of the nanny state has slipped in the back door.
The incandescent ban cannot and should not be allowed to stand.
Should the federal government facilitate adoption of newer technologies by legislating older ones from existence? Or should consumers have a say in the matter?

Meanwhile, Icelandic lighting designer Kristjan Kristjansson also made imaginative use of the idea, promoting a memorial installation (some photos from which on Facebook)...

German Light Bulb Ban Memorial: "Das grösste Birnendenkmal Deutschlands"

"Coming to a place near you soon"


Well, whatever about a 2012 offering - last I heard it was as yet undecided whether it would still take place - there already was a 2010 version. It was mainly organized by Lutz Jahnke and Julia Diehl who were also behind "Europe's smallest" light bulb memorial as previously posted on, the canned bulb.
The website is Birnendenkmal.de, from which most of the information below comes.



Background

The original idea was Projekt 24 of the 2010 Luminale light festival that took place 11-16 April in Lutz Jahnke's home town Offenbach near Frankfurt.
The festival returned in April 2012 (alt link) without the memorial project returning at that time.

As seen from the 2010 press clipping in German below, Frankfurt City Council was at the time involved in extensive campaigns with prizes and rebates that involved trying to get people to switch their lighting.
Similarly, it seems that the incandescent bulb memorial was not meant to honor the bulb, if anything the reverse, from the city council view of it...

... having perhaps focused on the project's own "politically correct" conclusion of its presentation, March 2010 (pdf in German with information and images).

Im besten Falle wird also nicht nur ein großes Gemeinschaftsprojekt zur Luminale entstehen,
sondern auch ein größeres Bewusstsein für einen nachhaltigeren Umgang mit Energie.

"At best, therefore, not only a great community project for the Luminale,
but also a greater awareness for a sustainable use of energy."

... if so, understandable since they needed a permit for it, as per the news article below.
In any case, as the presentation also said, it was meant to provoke thought, and took on a tributory meaning in development, also seen from the story of the "small memorial" project that succeded it and that it inspired.



Undated article from around the same time






Followed by a Frankfurter Rundschau article by Angelika Ohliger 7 April 2010, a week before the event start, with further information:
[or see Google translated English version]

It involved several collecting places for spent bulbs, also in Frankfurt and Aachen... they were as seen originally hoping for 15 000 bulbs.




The Project Aspects

People were invited to upload photos and stories, as seen on this wall.

There were also plans to have a floating bulb balloon of some sort, though that does not seem to have happened.

Also, a "trash video" was made involving a bulb character, and photos also taken of him running around...

The bulbs themselves were assembled as ice mountains or pyramids...


From the Metermorphosen website, below:
[or see Google translated English version]

Epilogue

As can be imagined, there were several participants helping to bring it all about,
the main ones being Lutz Jahnke and Julia Diehl pictured below 1st and 3rd from the right respectively.

The "credit roll" according to the organizers themselves... left here in the German original, seems more fitting, and it's self-explanatory in the main...

Lutz Jahnke – Initiator, Organisation, Konzept und Gestaltung
Julia Diehl – Initiator, Konzept und Text
Ulrike Bellmann – Organisation
Michael Schumann – Programmierung
Emilia Neumann – Birnensammelstellen
Eva Becker – Filme
Teresa Habild – Illustration, Birnenquiz
Leonie Langenstein – „fliegende Birne“
Frank Flaskämper – Denkmal-Konstruktion
Claudia Jahnke – Denkmal-Architektur
sternmorgenstern – Denkmal-Architektur
Oliver Schick – Modellbau
[and Ariane Mayer – Denkmal-Konstruktion]

Heatballs are Dead... Long Live Special Lamps!

Given the canned bulb "culture reserve" memorial as per recent posts, rather co-incidental to see the Heatballs getting the same fate, as quoted below, with my emphasis.

[In summary, the Heatball venture was a satirical gesture against the light bulb ban, turning the "95% heat waste" jibe around to therefore justify the sale of the incandescents as heat bulbs rather than light bulbs. The courts did not approve, believing that "misuse" was likely and that they were sold "with false product information" as to their likely use.]

Fazit ist, dass die Heatballs 2nd Edition in 75~W und 100~W, matt und klar wegen möglicher Fehlanwendung durch den Verbraucher und den damit verbundenen Gefahren für nachfolgende Generationen unter Verschluss bleiben. Wir halten eine weitere Klage vor dem OVG in Münster für aussichtslos und haben uns daher entschieden, die Heatballs der 2nd Edition als Kulturreserve einzulagern und Museen als Ausstellungsstücke zu überlassen.

The bottom line is that the Heat Balls 2nd Edition in 75W and 100W, frosted and clear, because of possible misuse by the consumer and the associated risks for future generations [ed- irony] remain blocked. We hold another appeal to the Higher Administrative Court in Münster to be futile and have therefore decided to store the [rest of] the 2nd edition Heatballs as a cultural reserve, to be passed on to Museums as exhibits.

Nevertheless, they did get recognition of Heat balls as potential "special lamps".
But selling them as a way to get round the ban did not please the authorities.
So in a change of tactic, a serious marketing venture will be launched using the website
ewg-eg.de   Elektrische Widerstandsgenossenschaft eG, "Electrical Resistance Cooperative".
Rather than a satirical sale of Heat Balls, a serious sale of Special Lamps...well, maybe not completely serious (the packaging here is not necessarily relevant!)

Comment

The Heatball story is not as straightforward as might appear...

As covered in recent news stories, such as by the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, "rough service" bulbs are being sold legally in the EU.
It so happens that the last Heatballs from China were of this or similar type i.e. unlike the first Heatball bulb types, they were being legally sold by others as light bulbs!
In other words the supposed "misuse" of the bulbs would result in perfectly legal, ordinary use,
while their use for heating was never challenged legally (whatever practical reservations may have been felt about it, as in the EU response on the matter).

It's as if a drinking straw was sold to stir drinks with, but forbidden because it might be "misused" in that people might actually drink through it!


Unsurprisingly, Drs. Rudolf Hannot and Siegfried Rotthäuser behind the venture felt there could have been political pressure involved in the decisions.
The "special lamp" status for use as heating is legal enough, but the satirical campaigning of it as a way to get round the EU ban worked against them.

Turning the tables on the authorities, who after all seem very safety conscious, they enquired as to the measured mercury content values of previously suspected fluorescent lamp types...
receiving the unsurprising answer that this had not been checked. No worries there, then.

Meanwhile, their venture into selling light bulbs is therefore not over.
The new Electrical Resistance Cooperative will as said sell "special lamps" as well as generally campaign against light bulb regulations, membership is 100 Euro.

Zwöfter Heatball Newsletter
Kulturhauptstadt 2010 Essen
2012-08-26


Liebe Heatball Freunde,

am 19.06.2012 haben wir in Aachen vor dem Verwaltungsgericht in der
Hauptverhandlung um die Zukunft des Heatball gekämpft.

Mittlerweile liegt das Urteil auch schriftlich vor und kann auf unserer
Webseite im Aktionsverlauf studiert werden.

http://www.heatball.de/pdf/VG_Aachen_Urteil_2012_06_19.pdf

Facit ist, dass die Heatballs 2nd Edition in 75~W und 100~W, matt und klar
wegen möglicher Fehlanwendung durch den Verbraucher und den damit verbundenen
Gefahren für nachfolgende Generationen unter Verschluss bleiben. Wir halten
eine weitere Klage vor dem OVG in Münster für aussichtslos und haben uns daher
entschieden, die Heatballs der 2nd Edition als Kulturreserve einzulagern und
Museen als Ausstellungsstücke zu überlassen.

Zitat aus der Ordnungsverfügung:

... liegt die Anordnung der sofortigen Vollziehung auch deswegen im
besonderen öffentlichen Interesse, da nach Artikel 20a GG der Schutz der
natürlichen Lebesgrundlagen im Vordergrund stehen muss ...

Nachdem nun erneut Warnungen zum Thema Energiesparlampe ergangen sind, hatten
wir bei der Bezirksregierung als zuständige Marktüberwachung nach den
Quecksilberwerten beanstandeter Energiesparlampen gefragt.

Originaltext: Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V.
Digitale Pressemappe: http://www.presseportal.de/pm/22521
Pressemappe via RSS : http://www.presseportal.de/rss/pm_22521.rss2

Antwort der Bezirksregierung:

>
>Von: Bensberg, Claudia [mailto:claudia.bensberg@bezreg-koeln.nrw.de]
>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. August 2012 12:49
>An: Hannot, Rudolf
>Cc: Ledwig, Thomas; Goeble, Sascha; Brosius, Karl
>Betreff: AW: Deutsche Umwelthilfe stoppt erneut Verkauf von ...
>
>Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Hannot,
>
>leider liegen uns die von Ihnen gewünschten Werte nicht vor.
>
>
>Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>im Auftrag
>
>Claudia Bensberg
>
>Dezernat 55
>Produktsicherheit/Sprengstoff
>
>
Soviel zum Thema Artikel 20a Grundgesetz. Doch es gibt auch Hoffnung. In
der Verhandlung haben wir das Thema Speziallampe noch einmal darstellen können
und hierzu den Heatball 2.0 demonstriert. Aus der Veredlung einer anerkannten
Speziallampe ist dieser hervorgegangen und liegt nun seit Monaten bei der
Marktüberwachung zur Begutachtung vor, ohne Reaktion.

Sehr wichtig für eine Speziallampe ist, dass diese mit der richtigen Gesinnung
vertrieben wird. Sobald der Verbraucher durch eine satirische Aussage dazu
verleitet wird, die Lampe nicht entsprechend des angegebenen
Verwendungszweckes zu nutzen, ist diese keine Speziallampe mehr.

Der juristische Dienst der EU-Kommission hat klargestellt, dass die Erklärung
des Herstellers und der Hinweis, dass das Produkt nicht zur allgemeinen
Raumbeleuchtung geeignet ist, ausreichen, um eine Speziallampe zu
erhalten. Beim Heatball 2nd Edition ist es aber eine Gesinnungsfrage, die über
den Titel Speziallampe entschieden hat, allen physikalischen Fakten und der
Verordnung selbst zum Trotz.

Vor Gericht wurde uns durch die Bezirksregierung versichert, dass es derzeit
keine akuten Bestrebungen gibt, den Heatball 2.0 zu verbieten und man auf eine
Stellungnahme der Ministerien warte.

Da nun der Herbst naht und viele Besitzer von Niedrigenergiehäusern den
Vorteil der Speziallampe Heatball nutzen möchten, haben wir beschlossen, dass
wir eine erste Charge entsprechend der nicht beanstandeten Warenproben, die
der Bezirksregierung vorliegen, in Auftrag zu geben.

Sobald diese Speziallampen verfügbar sind, werden wir sie über die Seite der
Elektrischen Widerstandsgenossenschaft eG www.ewg-eg.de humorlos und mit
technisch nüchterner Gesinnung anbieten. Die Satireseite www.heatball.de wird
als Erinnerung an das Widerstandsprojekt online bleiben aber keinen Shop mehr
haben.

Da wir uns nun am 1.9 von den letzten Glühbirnen verabschieden müssen, hat die
Presse das Thema auch wieder aufgeriffen. In der Sendung markt im WDR
Fernsehen läuft am Montag, 27.8 um 21:00 ein Beitrag, in dem Heatball
mitwirkt.

..........................

Mit vorherbstlichen Grüßen

der Vorstand der EWG eG

R.Hannot
S.Rotthäuser

Light Bulb Conspiracy Documentary Update

The post on the Light Bulb Conspiracy documentary online video by Cosima Dannoritzer has been revised, and there are also now long versions in several languages.

Whatever You Can, We Can Too

As they commented in the last post, feeling that their idea had been copied, it turns out that what "Kultur Reserve" cans...

"Licht Konserve" cans too...

They also sell canned Halogens and other products alongside, as seen here.

Also, promotion with online sales at plentino.de, with sales also via cardanlight.com, gebrauchlicht.de and maybe via other sites...

Sales brochure (pdf) here.


Walsroder newspaper article 19.12.2011 by E. Lindemann, as in the press section of Lichtkonserve.de, Google translation modified a bit to make some sense...

Light out of the Tin Can

A rebel from Schwarmstedt conserves light bulbs and sells his own lighting systems.

"I've always plotted my own lighting," says Bernhard Stich. As a trained electrician he was active for many years as a buyer of commercial electric lighting. Cable systems with halogen lights especially excited Herr Strich - but less so the prices.
"So I just built himself such a system," he says. Immediately there was demand from friends and acquaintances - the cornerstone of his company Halogenkauf Lightech was laid. The then 30 year old electrician designed his own home lighting systems, his wife mounted them while watching television, and the sale went through a newspaper ad.

"I have made my hobby into a career," he says. A milestone in the company's history was Expo 2000 in Hanover. "We fitted out about 120 gift shops on the Expo site with lighting systems," the lighting expert recalls. He is also a renowned expert in the lighting of retail stores. A specialty of the company are the furniture stores, for which the company has developed flexible systems.

Bernhard Stich started off with a designer store for lights in Hanover. "I grew into it the last 30 years out of that," says the 53-year-old. Step by step it grew into his current construction company.

The parts for his own lamps Stich initially had manufactured in Germany.

The contact with a Chinese man whom he had met at a trade show finally led to Halogenkauf Lightech being manufactured in China. Several times a year CEO Stich now flies to China and negotiates with producers. If space remains in the shipped containers, then it can happen that a popcorn machine or bamboo flooring also come to Germany and are sold in one of six online stores of the entrepreneur.

Still, Bernhard Stich remains a man of lighting. And that's why he could not just accept the ban on incandescents. His resistance he now does with a witty marketing concept: His firm has unceremoniously packed 60-watt bulbs into tin cans and now sells them as canned light. Already, the cans are to be had via his online business. Of course, Stitch has also secured its own website: www.lichtkonserve.de. Soon, the cans should also be available at gas / petrol stations, hardware stores and other shops.

Licht Konserve do seem to have started later, whether independently or not.
The point about mentioning them here is that they still seem to be selling the cans, with various offers, for anyone interested.
Maybe, as is often the case, the commercially based venture with more legal resources than the artistic based venture?
Or do authorities choose to bully those who can't fight back?!

Remember the Heatball sellers difficulty with the authorities too.
A serendipidity event is that by chance they just communicated that they have also given up the legal battle with Heatball and are now presenting remaining bulbs for posterity... yes, as "Kultur Reserve" :-)   Albeit probably not canned.
Maybe another follow up post, then...