Local BC ban in Canada "On Hold"

 
Update on the previous Canada Ban Delay post
( http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/11/canada-delay-to-2014-its-official.html )


It seems British Columbia will now delay any further phase-out of incandescent bulbs.

This is according to a recent National Post article by Tamsin McMahon, in reporting on how the local BC Conservatives have decided to rescind the ban altogether, if they gain power.

The article also notes that a B.C. Ministry of Education and Mines spokeswoman said that the proposed ban on 40- and 60-watt bulbs due to take effect next year
(in addition to already banned 100 and 75W bulbs),
is now on hold because of the federal government's decision to delay it's ban on incandescent light bulbs until 2014.


In confirming the information, Tamsin tells me this is indeed so as far as she knows, and it was the media spokesperson for the Dept. of Energy and Mines rather than Education and Mines as in the article
(Education and Mines, an interesting mixed portfolio for a minister - never a day's dull work?!)
 
 

"Acute Crisis" of Dumped CFLs: Swedish Environment Minister

 
Old CFLs are not being collected for recycling?
Hardly surprising - and nothing new, you might say.

But even government politicians are waking up to the fact!

In a series of articles over the past week,
the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet has uncovered the large scale ongoing dumping of fluorescent bulbs (CFLs), and the dangers of released mercury that goes with it.

One article reports on the "acute crisis" commenting by the environment minister Lena Ek, another article on how Mina Gillberg, former advisor to EU environment commmisioner Margot Wallström at the time of the EU launching a CFL switchover policy, is now regretting the consequences of the decision.


A good more detailed review by Kevan at SaveTheBulb.org

Also covering this news, in English:
Greenwashing Lamps, including linked past statistics


Question:
If environmentally conscious, environmentally lauded Sweden is having "a crisis",
a country with dutiful citizens who normally with great diligence recycle all kinds of products in well organized community and government programs (I have lived there)
-- then what is happening in more populous less organized countries?

Don't worry, Superman to the rescue :-)




Roll on, universal light bulb regulation...
 
 

"Ban" or "Energy Efficency Measure"? Still wrong either way...

 
Increasingly, a lot of light bulb regulation supportive media are emphasising that "it is not a ban", just a great measure to make light bulbs more energy efficient.

A recent example is the Media Matters website.

Mediamatters.org, November 28 post:
Right-Wing Media Continue To Mislead On Nonexistent Light Bulb "Ban"

With some provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 scheduled to go into effect on January 1, right-wing media have revived the false claim that the government is "banning" incandescent light bulbs. In fact, the law simply restricts the sale of inefficient bulbs and has led companies to develop numerous alternatives, including energy-efficient incandescents.

... going on with Republican media excerpts and rebuttals

See the more extensive earlier post on why it is a ban, and why it is wrong as such.



A "Ban"?

While some may welcome it, it is obviously a ban, in the sense that not allowing products that don't meet a certain standard is the same as banning them.

But that is not all.
It is effectively also a ban, on all known incandescent replacements for ordinary ("general service") household bulbs, including the touted Halogen types, by 2020 at the latest.

Besides, as also seen from all the pre-existing CFL programs, the temporarily allowed Halogen-type incandescent alternatives are less pushed and less available (and in any case are different to simple incandescents in light quality etc, as well as costing much more for marginal savings, which is why few buy them voluntarily).

Moreover, MediaMatters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and similar defenders of the ban, for some reason choose to leave out part of the 2007 EISA specifications...

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

EIA at Dept of Energy confirms:
"The second tier of efficiency improvements becomes effective by 2020, essentially requiring general service bulbs to be as efficient as today's CFLs"

No incandescent light bulb on the market, none of the new "Ecosaver" halogen or other incandescent types meet these requirements for general service type lamps. Period!
Anyone seen a "Halogen" rather than "CFL" Government/Industry replacement program?
Since the replacement incandescents politically involve expensive light bulbs with marginal energy savings compared to CFLs, and industrially involve a lack of relative profitability, the likelihood of manufacturers making more energy efficient unprofitable incandescents can be taken as zilch, beyond the immediate trumpeted alternatives offered, that allay consumer fears.

In the already ban legislated EU for example, where the regulation specifications will similarly ban all general service halogen replacements, Philips have abandoned their pre-ban trumpeted plans to improve Ecosaver halogens, beyond the currently available types.

So why would anyone want to make unprofitable incandescents, banned or not?
Because the profitability is relative:
Local startups can easily and cheaply make simple standard incandescents for local consumption and make profits
- the profits are relative, not all manufacturers can afford to make and market complex CFLs or LEDs.
The major manufacturer cartel lobbying going on of course also serves to stop any such upstarts!
Nothing new in this:
See the Phoebus cartel story, how all the major manufacturers got together to maximize standard light bulb lifespans to the 1000 hours that they still are today.


So much for green sustainability thinking, when the green brigade happily seek bans on simple, locally made locally transported and safe-to-use products, light bulbs that themselves of course don't burn coal or release CO2 gas!





"Efficiency"?

The above EIA quotation brought up efficiency:
the eventual requirement of general service bulbs "to be as efficient as today's CFLs".

Well, is it not great that Government is making sure that Americans use more efficient bulbs?

1. "Efficiency" is a relative word:
Energy efficiency is of course not the same as performance efficiency, whether with fast cars or bright light bulbs!

Yes, incandescents use less energy as light:
But are much easier to make bright 100 W + incandescents, than equivalently bright, omnidirectional CFLs or LEDs.
Go figure.


2. The defence "this is not a ban like on some unsafe product, just a measure to make sure the product saves more energy"
This just makes the measure less - not more - legitimate!
Energy saving mandates, whether on buildings, cars, washing machines or light bulbs, also change their characteristics - there is no free lunch.
Besides, why should someone not be allowed to use energy, that they pay for in its provision, as they wish.


3. The idea that Government needs to tell industry to make energy efficient products.

Energy saving products have always been invented, and improved.
Since energy saving is a positive money-saving quality, the energy saving bulbs can be marketed and sold as such (like some batteries, cleaner fluid etc in commercials)... "Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run".
Adequate free market competition is all that is needed: Governments can help new ideas to the market, but no more than that.

So Price is no Excuse:
Even if it was, incandescents could be taxed and help pay for price-lowering subsidies on CFLs and LEDs.
Choice, equilibrated market, energy usage reduction (supposedly), and Government income.
Wrong on free market principles, but obviously better than bans for all sides, not least for cash-strapped pro-ban left-oriented Governments
(Hello California, British Columbia, Washington, Brussels, Canberra...)




Ban or no ban,
end-user product regulations are token measures, certainly so in the case of light bulbs.
Only around 1% of grid electricity usage is theoretically saved from it (Dept of Energy etc sources), and much less in overall energy savings, as covered on http://ceolas.net/#li171x giving more relevant generation, grid distribution and consumption based policies.
Light bulbs don’t burn coal or release any CO2 gas!

Household energy saving does not necessarily save money anyway, at least not overall, to the extent promised:
Electricity companies are allowed to raise prices, or be taxpayer-subsidised, for any lowered electricity sales.
As already seen in CFL programs in California, Ohio etc

It is a new strange kind of political logic, not to allow the sale of simple safe cheap and popular products:
Little point in banning what people don’t actually want!



Worldwide,
Clean Tech Manufacturers of green (often patented) products are happy to avoid market competition, through Government subsidies, product substitution programs and switchover regulations, allowing them to greatly profit in shifting expensive wares which would otherwise not be bought, while singing about "Saving the Earth".

Governments should not keep falling for this idiocy.

Yes, energy saving is good: So deal with it directly then.
Don't keep supporting all your manufacturing buddies (hello, Solyndra) to such end.
 

BB-Day USA

 
And so Bulb Ban Day January 1 2012 is approaching,
when the federal USA lighting regulations take effect.
It is indeed a "ban" on all known General Service Incandescents, including the touted Halogen replacements, by 2020 at the latest.

Unfortunately, the Burgess funding amendment to the Energy/Water Bill, reported on earlier in this blog as an attempt to hold up funding for regulation oversight and thereby also to hold up the ban itself, does not seem to be working out:
The "bait" was for the Democraticaly controlled Senate to swallow the whole funding package, an overall funding package for renewable energy etc that they reportedly were keen on getting through. However, they now seem happy enough to engineer their own bill and lobby it back to the House...

Any direct federal repeal process would of course face President Obama's veto, as he staunchly defends the regulations. That also explains the rather circuitous legal ways used to get round them.

As is often pointed out, the regulations were brought in under President Bush.
However, most if not all of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates are not as supportive of them, with Governor Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Ron Paul particularly active in repeal ban involvement.


Never to late to see the light...

Saturday's Washington Times Editorial reviews the current situation.

Washington Times Editorial    
November 26 2011    

Time to stock up on light bulbs    

Within four weeks, it will be a crime to manufacture a 100-watt version of Thomas A. Edison’s brilliant invention. Thanks to a Democratic Congress and the signature of President George W. Bush in 2007, anti-industrial zealots at the Energy Department received authority to blot out one of the greatest achievements of the industrial age.
They’re coming for our light bulbs.

Know-it-all bureaucrats insist that foisting millions of mercury-laden fluorescent tubes on the public is going to be good for the planet.
The public obviously does not agree.
Voting with their wallets, people have overwhelming favored warm, nontoxic lighting options over their pale curlicue imitators.
Beginning Jan. 1, Obama administration extremists will impose massive financial penalties on any company daring to produce a lighting product that fully satisfies ordinary Americans.

The Republican House hasn’t done enough to stop this.
Rep. Michael C. Burgess, Texas Republican, added language to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill to prohibit the ban’s implementation. A Senate committee deleted this sensible amendment in September, and it’s been quite a while since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has allowed an up-or-down vote on a funding bill.

“This was bad policy in 2007 and worse policy in 2011, especially considering Congress‘ awareness of the American people’s opposition,” Mr. Burgess told The Washington Times. “Harry Reid has literally removed Americans’ choice over what to put in their own homes. This issue is too important to our core values as Americans not to pursue.”

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership hasn’t made this a priority.
Many in the GOP remain cowed by the fraudulent claim that these are just harmless “energy standards” and opposing them would be a crime against the environment.
The reality is that this ban is yet another example of the sort of job-destroying regulations that enrich the administration’s friends at the expense of consumers. Specifically, the rules turn a 50-cent light bulb into a purchase of $3 or more.

Rampaging bureaucrats aren’t just satisfied with foisting inferior light bulbs on the public.
The Energy Department uses the force of the federal government to redesign an entire suite of consumer products to meet their personal preferences.
In nearly every case, their meddling makes things worse.
Current regulations micromanage the function of ceiling fans, clothes washers, dehumidifiers, dishwashers, faucets, freezers, furnaces, heat pumps, lamps, pool heaters, power supplies, refrigerators, room air conditioners, shower heads, stoves, toilets and water heaters.

Enough is enough.

All of this is entirely unnecessary.
The public is more than capable of encouraging the development of efficient products.
House Republicans need to force a repeal of the light-bulb ban into the final budget deal so people will know each time they throw a light switch that their representatives see their concerns.

Comment

It should be said that Americans don't have to use the CFLs or LEDs for some time, but all incandescents will as said eventually be banned, and the temporarily allowed Halogen types are much more expensive for marginal savings, apart from having some light quality and other differences. Scroll below for more on the regulations...

Furthermore, some may avail of the fact that Canada has put off a ban for 2 years, and that Texas and perhaps other states may come to manufacture the incandescents.
Mexico, however, also has a ban in the pipeline, possibly next year - though they may consider the large subsidised CFL switchover program currently in operation, to be sufficient for now (considerable problems with the CFLs have been reported, due to Mexican electricity mains instability affecting bulb performance and life).

As noted before, the overall energy savings of a ban are low. with much more relevant alternative ways to save energy and emissions in electricity generation, grid distribution, and consumption.
Amazing as it may seem:
Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas!