“Incandescent light bulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications,” Assemblymember Levine said. “Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about five percent of the energy they receive into light. It’s time to take a step forward – energy-efficient bulbs are easy to use, require less electricity to do the same job, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and save consumers money.”

Detractors claim that more advances in fluorescent technology are needed as existing models take more energy to create and dispose of once used, somewhat cancelling out the energy savings when used. Others still question why yet more legislation is required, and wonder if it simply a soft option for legislators to take to be seen as more environmentally friendly, as seen in some of the comments from the public to an Editorial from Redding.com.

That said, there is ample evidence that the actual usage of fluorescent bulbs does save on energy usage, something that has already been promoted for years, with bulbs readily available in supermarkets and hardware stores.

According Assemblymember Levine’s release, the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), a nonprofit organization that focuses on energy policy, says that replacing a 75-watt incandescent light bulb with a 20-watt compact fluorescent would result in the same amount of light but would save 1,300 pounds of carbon dioxide and save customers $55 over the life of the bulb (while the life of one 75-watt incandescent bulb is roughly 750 hours, the life of a compact fluorescent is a whopping 10,000 hours). Meanwhile, incandescent bulbs use 750 kWh over 10,000 hours, while compact fluorescents use only 180 kWh.

Levine’s release says that “a utility can give away a compact fluorescent lamps more cheaply than it can fuel its existing power plants, which is why Southern California Edison, for example, has given away more than a million such lamps”.

Given the march toward green energy over the past few years, despite the big push in 2006 and this year due to high oil and gas (petrol) prices and the recent UN report on the climate demonstrating that human beings are indeed a cause of global warming, it should come as no surprise that utilities all over the world, at least in developed nations, have undertaken fluorescent bulb distribution schemes, sometimes in concert with programs linked with the global Carbon Credits trading scheme.

While any form of government action should really be aimed at encouraging voluntary take-up of anything, be it a new and more efficient light bulb or any other idea, rather than forcing behavior through legislation, Assemblyman Levine is a politician after all, and doesn’t know any better.

Therefore, Levine announces that “Electricity-saving technologies may not be glamorous, especially when compared with the idea of a shiny new power plant, but the facts are that there are hundreds of electricity-saving innovations now on the market that if fully used throughout the United States, would significantly decrease the electricity the country now uses”.

He then associates this with his legislation, and says that “The time has come for this legislation, and what better state to lead the charge than California”.

What a shame it is that energy efficient behavior has to be legislated for, rather than the market being encouraged to further innovate in the energy efficient bulb space to release a product that is cheaper or costs the same, has the energy efficiency required, and is cheap and environmentally friendly to create.

Other technologies such as LED (light emitting diodes) lamps, now powering torches and other bright lights with low power requirements, along with other lighting technologies need to also be considered, rather than just reaching for the quick fix of the legislative hammer ever time a politician thinks they have found a nail.

The only good thing? In 2007, politicians are finally thinking seriously about the environment and are wanting to take action. Let’s encourage them to take more action to encourage the market to create better technologies that the public is happy to voluntarily buy, rather than forcing upon us what they – or the lobbyists – think is a good idea for the rest of us.
{moscomment}