"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!
 

Why Incandescent Light Bulb Ban is Wrong:The Deeper Reasons

The worldwide attempts to ban incandescent bulbs by defined standards have met some resistance mainly in North America (funding block of USA incandescent ban implementation as renewed July 2013, 2 year implementation delay in Canada to 2014, with possible further delay or abandonment).

As the phase out continues, it has become obvious what the main talking points are.


Usual arguments:

1. If it's a ban or not.
The response being "We are not banning any bulbs, just making them more energy efficient,
you can still buy similar incandescent bulbs!"
Not allowing certain bulbs obviously bans them, and the several reasons the above does not hold is covered on the page How Regulations are Wrongly Justified, point 1

2. How terrible the fluorescent "energy saving" bulbs (CFLs) are.
Again the standard reply is "Well you can still buy types of incandescent bulbs..and look at the new LED bulbs!"
Certainly there are issues with fluorescents, also covered via above link, but the obvious retort about other alternatives should not be accepted either.
There is a flurry of "Great LED bulbs" promotion on the internet.
Certainly all bulbs have advantages, but more intrinsically,
Incandescent = Bulb
Fluorescent = Tube
LED = Sheet
in biggest relative advantages.
There is something strange about "progress" being cloning simple existing alternatives.
Besides, the rare earth mineral use of LEDs and other environmental issues of these complex bulbs should not be ignored either.
See How Regulations are Wrongly Justified, point 5 and later points in that rundown.


The following therefore is summary of arguments that focus on what most commentators seem to ignore or not know about.
They also appear in the linked rather lengthy discourse, but I wanted to highlight and sharpen some of the points made.
While originally aimed at a US audience, it has parallels in the EU and elsewhere, as the further references in the above linked rundown shows.

Much is applicable also to houses, cars, white goods, vacuum cleaners, TV sets, computers and all else subject to increasing and choice reducing regulation.


Industrial Policy and Energy Efficiency Regulation, as on Light Bulbs

Energy saving is not the only reason to choose a bulb,
incandescents have several advantages over replacement technology,
and touted "allowed" halogen type replacements will be phased out too.
Halogen incandescents still have differences anyway and cost much more for marginal usage savings which is why they are not popular either with consumers or politicians - no "halogen switchover programs".

Re "old obsolescent" incandescents,
that also means they are well known in usage compared to questionably safe alternatives.

Progress is not a bunch of bureacrats setting arbitrary energy usage cut off points.
Progress involves competition with existing alternatives: governments keen on helping "energy saving" products to market can always do so, without necessarily having continuing subsidies on those products.


Society laws should be about society savings,
not about what light bulb Johnny wants to use in his bedroom, personal money savings or not.
Money savings are hardly there (or take a VERY long time) for most rarely used bulbs in 40+ bulb US households, Energy Star data.
Tax payer subsidies for CFL/LED bulbs should be remembered, as for utilities:
Money savings are not there anyway when utilities are compensated for lower sales (eg California)

Overall society energy savings are negligible as well.
Cambridge Scientific Alliance (normally UK Gov supporting in advising on energy use reduction):

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

The society savings are comparatively small also on US Dept of Energy grid data, around 1%, and that does not include the greater life cycle energy use of the more complex replacements, or the fact that night use involves mainly spare grid capacity anyway
(= already there, for whoever wants to pay for it), or other factors as linked.

Supposed CO2 savings hardly there either,
as coal plants are slow and expensive to turn down at relevant times outside peak demand (DEFRA, APTECH referenced, previous link).
Effectively, the same coal is often burned regarding what bulb is on or off.


"Sustainability"?
Apart from negligible society usage savings, complex CFL/LED replacements involve more energy and CO2 in mining, manufacture (including component parts) transport and recycling - while if not recycled, then one has the dumping of mercury containing fluorescents and the loss of rare earth minerals of LEDs.

Easier to locally make simple generic cheap regular bulbs for small and startup companies to give local jobs too:
compared to patented complex bulbs mostly made in major (China) plants and brought over on low grade bunker-oil powered ships.

Long lasting low cost 10 000 - 20 000 hr incandescent bulbs can and are being made for mining and other industry, but kept away from consumer outlets for industrial political reasons, as follows.


Why did GE, Osram/Sylvania and Philips welcome the ban?
Why welcome what you can or can't make?

GE, Osram/Sylvania and Philips involvement in US lighting legislation
has been well covered in the press (eg Moorhead of Philips own
description of involvement, and GE executives on Gov advisory board),
and in a 2011 book by Howard Brandston co authored with Michael Leahy
"I, Light Bulb".
Howard Brandston (Congress consultant on lighting, a NY lighting
designer by profession) was himself involved in the hearings leading
up to the ban

Quote: The NEMA Lamp Subcommittee was composed of General Electric,
Osram Sylvania, and Phillips, the same industrial giants who formed
the old Phoebus Cartel back in 1924.
When I asked NEMA for help in fighting the incandescent light ban, I
was politely told that they could not be involved in any research
program like that.
In April 2007, ahead of Congress hearings, NEMA then announced its
support for energy efficient lighting policy...
http://ceolas.net/#phoebuspol

And the Phoebus cartel?
That is why 1000 hr standard life on regular bulbs endures - they fixed it.
As said, incandescent bulbs lasting 20 000 hrs can and are being made at low
cost for industry like mining.


And now?
Financed by the World Bank under UN auspices, Philips and Osram are part of the UNEP en.lighten program allowing profitable disposal worldwide in developing countries of CFL (or LED) light bulbs that they presumably would not otherwise sell for equivalent income.
The supposed society savings are negligible as previously referenced, and not counting dumping of mercury containing CFLs and loss of rare earth minerals in LEDs.

It's a bit as if generic patent-free penicillin was blocked and discouraged, so pharmaceutical companies could sell their expensive patented replacements to poor African countries.

There is nothing wrong in private enterprise looking for profit.
There is every wrong in assisting them by removing competition rather than increasing it.


Product standards,
are always welcome for consumer information and to assist cross-border trade.
However, it does not necessitate banning products not meeting the standards.
Even if incandescents needed specific targeting, they could be taxed and the income used to lower prices of alternatives (so people "not just hit by taxes").
But as described, governments could rather help alternatives to market without continuing subsidies, and get the manufacturers themselves to properly market their products.

People have always desired products that save energy.
"Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run":
If that is true, then as with batteries (Energizer bunny commercials) and washing up liquids, manufacturers could advertise accordingly, rather than run to regulators lobbying for bans on less profitable cheap patent expired regular bulb alternatives.

Energy saving is good,
but "energy waste" hardly comes from a personal choice of a product to use for its specific advantages,
"energy waste" is rather from unnecessary product use, as with municipal and office lighting continually left on at night.


How many politicians should it take to change a light bulb?
None
How many people should be allowed to choose?
Everyone
 

Philips, Osram, the UN, World Bank and EU: How we will en.lighten the World in 2012

Extensively edited August 8


How manufacturers,
who of course themselves could voluntarily choose to stop making the cheap unprofitable incandescents they keep saying are "bad for the planet",
instead seek to invoke international cooperation in replacements and regulations, the real aim being to cut down any competition from local upstarts who might want to make the simple popular and locally more easily made incandescent bulbs

 
The United Nations (via UNEP) cooperation agreement with Philips and Osram, the en.lighten initiative which was agreed in 2009, is now set to "change the world" in 2012, having gradually built up funding to be able to launch a comprehensive worldwide lighting conversion programme.

The following looks at it with edited extracts from the Philips and Osram CEO presentation.



A  Global  Transition  to  Efficient  Lighting

 

by
Rudy Provoost, CEO of Philips Lighting
Martin Goetzeler, CEO of OSRAM
Darth Vader, CEO of Death Star
(there may or may not be an odd one out)

Private sector and the UN in partnership to en.lighten the world.

The UNEP en.lighten initiative was created as a partnership between UNEP, Philips Lighting and OSRAM, with support of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) [more on GEF follows].
The initiative addresses the challenge of accelerating global market transformation to environmentally sustainable lighting technologies by developing a global strategy in support of the gradual phase-out of inefficient lighting.

• the development of a global policy strategy to gradually eliminate inefficient and obsolete lighting products;
• the promotion of high performance and efficient lighting technologies in developing and emerging nations;
• the substitution of traditional fuel-based lighting with efficient alternatives.

The en.lighten initiative has created global taskforces where international experts from developing, emerging and developed countries and sectors are working on a global approach to phase out inefficient incandescent lamps.


Market forces are not sufficient to achieve the rapid transformation needed in the lighting market to respond to the climate change challenge.
Instead, a multi-stakeholder global partnership is required to support countries as they embark upon efficient lighting transformation programmes.

As two of the biggest lighting manufacturers in the world,
we have chosen to focus our efforts on transforming the lighting market in partnership with UNEP through its en.lighten initiative.
With its unparalleled global network, UNEP can provide leadership by inspiring and enabling nations to prioritise efficient lighting and reap the benefits of lowered energy costs.

An "Efficient Lighting Toolkit" for governments worldwide will be available in early 2012.
It will provide "comprehensive guidance on how to transform their markets to efficient lighting".

They also invite partners to participate - lots of saving consultancy schemes are offered, with an invitation to contact the en.lighten secretariat.

A footer confirms that "The en.lighten initiative is a partnership supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), OSRAM AG, Philips Lighting and the National Lighting Test Centre, China (NLTC)".

The National Lighting Test Centre, China (NLTC),
has over the years "built professional relationships with its wide range of international and domestic clients, providing them with tailor-made solutions for either purchase from or entrance into the Chinese lighting market."

The Global Environment Facility (GEF),
is yet another funding facility bailing out manufacturers who can't sell (or can't be bothered to market and sell) their expensive wares on the open market...
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) unites 182 member governments — in partnership with international institutions, civil society organizations (CSOs), and the private sector — to address global environmental issues.
Established in 1991, the GEF is today the largest funder of projects to improve the global environment.
The author Jeffrey Sachs in his book CommonWealth describes the World Bank association with the GEF in making it the world's largest environmental fund facility.
As seen from the above link it also involves the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and many other financing institutions.

The extensive activities of UNEP and the GEF, in spreading the New Lighting Gospel around the world with Philips and Osram, is further covered on the Ceolas website (http://ceolas.net/#unep and onwards).



Comment

So, a big pay-off to Philips and Osram from the World Bank to offload otherwise unwanted expensive patented fluorescent or LED bulbs on developing countries.

Somewhat (though only somewhat) tongue-in-cheek one might ask, why not ban cheap well known generic penicillin too - allowing the offloading of expensive patented less well known drugs on Africans and others?


Light bulb manufacturers have a long and dark history in seeking to avoid fair competition on open free markets, beginning with the Phoebus Cartel in the 1920's, continuing up to the present day lobbying for bans on patent expired unprofitable generic regular bulbs, and indeed now this subsidised product dumping.

See http://ceolas.net/#li1ax onwards with article references, documentation, and copies of official communications.


Any doubting casual observer can of course just ask themselves:

Why welcome "being able" to stop the manufacture of incandescents?
If it's "so great" to stop making incandescents, and make other light bulbs instead:
Why don't the manufacturers just stop it themselves then?

After all, the major light bulb manufacturers have a history of getting together and setting their own product-limiting manufacturing standards.

The mentioned Phoebus Cartel was all about setting a common 1000 hour lifespan standard, so that the manufacturers could sell more profitable (shorter lasting) bulbs on the world market they carved up between themselves.

1000 hours is still the regular incandescent "benchmark" lifespan standard.

So manufacturers could again cooperate, openly or not, on standards that eliminate the incandescents.
But, of course, they would again want to to make sure that noone else makes those bulbs, that would lose them sales and profits...

With the Phoebus cartel, the times were easier, with more readily controlled markets, and a special "1000 hour life committee" as discovered by recent referenced research, effectively oversaw both membership compliance and the blocking of outside manufacturers to market access.

How wonderful therefore, when naive politicians step into the breach, this time handing the major manufacturers the markets on a plate, by banning anyone else from making the cheap but relatively unprofitable bulbs:
Stopping small local outfits who might not be able to get the bigger profits from the more complex and harder to manufacture bulbs, but can still do good business on simple if less profitable bulb varieties.
Thereby the green rebound irony, of prohibiting simple cheap safe locally made locally transported products!.


The American side in the development of the 2007 US EISA legislation, was not least illustrated in the previously posted review of the 2011 eBook "I, Light Bulb: A Death Row Testimonial" by Leahy and Brandston, the latter directly involved in consultation and hearings:
Notice in particular the described GE and NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) involvement in the 2007 legislation.

As for the European 2009 EU legislation, the EU Ban Story also covers the European Lamp Companies Federation (ELC) and their openly admitted lobbying activities.

ELC Board: Philips Lighting: Mr Jan Denneman (President) Osram GmbH: Mr Wolfgang Gregor (Vice President) GE: Mr Tony Everett (Treasurer).

"What are our objectives?"
[To provide consumers with good lighting they want to buy? No...]
"To promote efficient lighting practice for the benefit of the global environment, human comfort and the health and safety of consumers.
To monitor, advise and co-operate with legislative bodies in developing European Directives and Regulations of relevance to the European lamp industry.
To act as the key discussion partner for the European Union (EU)

Philips is the worlds largest lighting manufacturer.
Osram is the second largest.
Both are headquartered in Europe.

How they have participated not just in cartel market rigging, but have also benefited from a direct involvement in the specifications set by the EU Commission Ecodesign division, is also covered via the above link.
EU specifications, unlike North American or Australian counterparts, also have direct CFL purchase inducements, such as the immediate 2009 ban of all non-clear incandescents (including halogens) on the basis that "people can buy the CFLs instead".

Scottish lighting designer Kevan Shaw is actively involved as a "stakeholder" in EU regulations. As he says, and which subsequently is being covered in the media, the EU is now likely to ban low voltage halogens too.

Philips have just reported falling light bulb profits. So perhaps more "help" for them is on the way.
Further reading: EU: "The Unholy Alliance between Philips and the Greens" by a Dutch scientist and a Dutch research journalist.
USA: Philips lobbying federally and for LED Prize


Other sources on lobbying have come to light in recent years...

Susanne Hammarström of Sweden was head of the Brussels based PR agency Diplomat-PR engaged in the lobbying on behalf of the light bulb manufacturers.
Translated from the largest Swedish business paper, Dagens Industri:

"The ban would never have happened, without the large and extensive lobby campaign, in all member countries, as well as towards The European Commission and the media", Susanne Hammarström says.
She believes that a voluntary switchover to energy saving lamps would have been the preferred policy, without the systematic lobbying work.

See the industry policy section of the 14 point rundown linked below.



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.

China Joins the Fray...

 
China is now more actively seeking to phase out incandescent light bulbs...
Kevan at Savethebulb.org has the most informative article on this, culled from several sources.

Excerpts, with some comments:

Imports and sales of 100 watt and higher incandescent bulbs will be banned from October next year, while those of 60 watts and above will be banned from October 2014
[with more set to follow]

The move has been forced from outside China.
The Global Environment Facility fund, which has invested millions of dollars in China to encourage the phase-out, says that moving to efficient lighting is one of the simplest ways for countries to cut carbon emissions.

Christophe Bahuet, the deputy country director of the United Nations Development Programme, said: “I think what’s important for us is that China is joining an international trend. It also sends a signal that will inspire others.”

Lighting professionals in China are less enthusiastic for the ban. Liu Shengping, the secretary general of the China Association of Lighting Industry, said that it was “unrealistic” to require energy efficient lights were used everywhere. “As long as the demand exists, Chinese manufacturers can hardly pull the plug on the production line.”Wang Jinsui, the president of the China Illuminating Engineering Society, told the China Daily newspaper that the government should consider subsidies because many families would not be able to afford the more expensive energy-efficient bulbs.

Given the massive and typically very poor population in China the personal burden on families of having to pay for expensive compact fluorescent lamps will be very great
[or the subsidies will tax the tax payers, as it were...]

If China increases lamp production then there will be further increases in Cinnabar mining and Mercury production with consequent increases in pollution.

It is also unlikely that China will be any more effective that Europe in managing the collection and recycling of dead CFLs from consumers thereby increasing mercury in land fill.

Yet again the ban appears as a political tool rather than an effective measure towards sustainability!

Comment

The ban also clearly has a profit motive for Chinese CFL/LED manufacturers (including outsourced GE, Philips etc production).

Philips and Osram have been involved in other United Nations "switchover" programs.
More on how major light bulb manufacturers have pushed for and welcomed light bulb regulations and CFL programs, with references and documentation copies http://ceolas.net/#li12ax

Apart from affecting people’s freedom of product choice, the actual switchover savings are not that great anyway =
a fraction of 1% of overall energy use is saved from banning the bulbs, similarly in grid usage, as shown by US Dept of Energy, EU statistics and other official information (http://ceolas.net/#li171x) with alternative and much more meaningful ways to save energy in electricity generation, distribution or consumption.

Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2.
Power plants might.
If there's a problem - deal with the problem, rather than a token ban on simple safe light bulbs, light bulbs that people obviously like to use (or there would not be the pre-supposed savings in banning them).