A former chairman of Shell has argued that the European Union should ban cars that get fewer than 35 miles per gallon. The basic idea is that there is no reason for cars to be less efficient than that and the new ones that do more poorly are intolerable luxury items. Forcing all cars to meet the standard is presented as a way of making the rich “do their share” when it comes to climate change.
Similar arguments exist about lightbulbs. Should governments ban incandescent bulbs, impose extra taxes on them, or do nothing? The last option won’t help with climate change mitigation. The middle option risks dividing the world between an upper class nicely lit in flattering yellow hues and an underclass rendered corpselike by flickering green compact fluorescent bulbs. Banning the bulbs outright could prevent their use in the few situations in which they are genuinely highly valuable, as evidenced by the willingness of their owners to cut emissions in other areas in order to not have to give them up.
The ideal solution is sustainable, tradeable carbon allowances. Everyone on earth gets about 750kg a year, and are free to trade it between them. Yes, the poor will sell to the rich, but they will do so voluntarily because the money is worth more to them than their emissions are. This certainly isn’t perfect (people may sell under duress or still lack sufficient means for a decent life), but it’s better than the ‘grab what you can’ approach that dominates presently. Of course, this allowance approach is hopelessly unrealistic. The emissions of people in the rich world are so far above what’s sustainable, they would never sign on to a system that required them to cut back as far as is appropriate.
Another big question has to do with induced technological change. Automakers will howl to the moon if you demand that they make 35mpg cars across the board. Sputtering, they will swear that it is impossible and even trying will bankrupt them. Actually forced to do so, however, it is probable they would squeak over the line. The question is whether such a policy would have benefits that outweigh the associated costs - including the perceived loss of liberty on the part of car makers and car owners.
How then do policymakers reconcile the possible with the fair, the risks associated with climate change and the reality of other social and equitable issues? The idea of forcing manufacturers of luxury cars to turn out models that get 50mpg does have appeal, but it is probably a mistake to conflate the fighting of climate change with the desire to reduce the profligacy of the wealthy. Excessive emissions are the behaviour properly targeted by climate policies: not pompous displays of extravagance. Mandated standards do have a role to play in situations where elasticity of demand is weak and there are possibilities for structural change. Those, in combination with carbon pricing, do have the capacity to help us move to a low-carbon economy. The devil of that transition, as ever, is in the details.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Nice photo. I like the contrast between the arches and the straight lines in the blue light.
As usual, these kinds of bans are called for by people who know nothing about the subject they are imposing a ban on. What is efficiency for a car? When I drive my fathers suburban with 7 people and all their gear, is that inefficiently? You would need 2 35mpg honda civics to do it, so its unclear how, since I burn less than 2 honda civics, I’m being inefficient.
If you say that’s no good because its a rarity, you make a rule which encourages people to use their car as single-occupancy commuter boxes, do we want to encourage that?
It would make far more sense to charge a per km “gas guzzler” tax, so that people who wish to buy large vehicles pay a penalty proportional to how much they use them.
Also, it is important to consider that when we replace our suburban, we would like to do so with another suburban, but this one would get 20-30% better mileage while fulfilling the same task. You yourself posted recently on why its in SUVs that the largest fuel efficiency gains can be made - because 20% of 15mpg is a lot.
But lastly, this whole scheme ignores that driving style impacts fuel economy as much as driving a car one class bigger or smaller. If you take a 15mpg truck according to the government numbers, and drive it at 50mph instead of 70, all of a sudden you’re getting about 20mpg. Wierd eh? If we really want to reduce mass oil consumption - we should drop the national speed limit to 55mph because this reduces the consumption possible by all vehicles. And then, it needs to be enforced not on safety rhetoric (it isn’t noticeably safer to drive slower) but on climate change moral rhetoric.
As for light bulbs, no one understand the perverse effects discrete lighting has on the human mind. However, if you go talk to people, many will tell you that fluorescent lights do in fact bother them. What are the hidden physiological and psychological costs of these “energy efficient” lights? We don’t know. So, it’s a good idea not to ban the alternative but rather to let people decide for themselves how much light they want, and how much energy they wish to consume.
I’d also like to make a comment as to why the approach of banning certain products is like diet cola.
Either, “Use the appropriate amount of light”, or “use all the light you want because its fluorescent!”
Either, “Ration your driving, take transit, don’t drive needlessly”, or “Drive all the fuck you want because your car is 50mpg/electric/powered by your own sense of self satisfaction!”
As for legislating improvement amoung the US car manafacturing sector, of course you are right. But it is no use legislating “35mpg across the board” - what would be useful would be a formula of the sort “the vehicle must get X miles per gallon per pound”, on a non-linear scale.
It’s absolutely the case that cars you buy in the US now get horrible mileage because the market prefers more power rather than more mileage. Cars today get barely better mileage than my 20 year old ford taurus, and with an engine of about the same size. However, from that same size engine, which in my case produces 140hp, they can now easily get 250hp. This means an everyday family car is faster than a Ferrari from the mid 80s. And we wonder why the mileage numbers havn’t gone up.
When it comes to light bulbs, the sensible approach is probably to require a certain level of efficiency in terms of watts per lumen. That way, you can drive technological innovation and reduce energy consumption without strictly requiring one technology or another.
A global solution is hopelessly impractical. A better approach would work nationally. Everyone gets credits equal to the mean per-capita emissions for 2007. Each year, the allocations fall by some percentage: perhaps 2% to start but increasing with time. Industries that want to emit gasses need to buy permits from private individuals, who must also use them for their own emissions. Eventually, the whole system is tightened to the point where per-capita emissions are 750kg rather than 23,000kg.
Tom,
Your comment about lightbulbs reveals a fundamental miscomprehension of the only ways light can be produced. Light can be produced as a black body curve by heating something up real hot. This is the only kind of light humans had ever seen (other than phospheresant undersea creatures) until the fluorescant bulb. The fluorescant buld produces much more lumens per watt because all the radiation is produced at a single or a small group of frequencies, however, as I often argue, the effects of producing light in this artificial way are unknown and worrying. Therefore, it seems perverse for the state to ban the use of lights that are not discrete - we don’t want the state taking away our lights!
As for how many watts are consumed per lumen its not something technology can improve given a certain kind of technology - only by inventing new technologies. The only improvement possible to the incandescant bulb while remaining a black body source of light is the halogen bulb. Because the gas in a halogen bulb allows the filament not to burn up at 5000 degrees (not accidentally, 5000 is the temperature of our sun and the colour we see as ‘white’), it is more efficient than a bulb producing a black body curve that peaks at 2500 degrees - because more of the radiation it produces is in the visual spectrum.
One thing to consider when we talk about improving the efficiency of individual lightbulbs is how insane it looks when you look at energy as a system. Seen as a system, you notice how when you have a furnace, it comes on more often when you have less incandescent lightbulbs on - because everything coming out of that lightbulb is radiant heat (its only interesting as distinct from an electric heater because alot of that heat can be seen by the human eye as light). Every drop of energy produced by that bulb heats your house - except the bit that escapes out the window. So, when we say a lightbulb is inefficiently this is only in the summer - when less light is needed. So when we say more efficient light bulbs will save some amount of energy, it is likely that they will save less than half of that energy when you take into account the extra energy necessary for heating.
[T]he effects of producing light in this artificial way are unknown and worrying. Therefore, it seems perverse for the state to ban the use of lights that are not discrete - we don’t want the state taking away our lights!
There are all sorts of new and unusual things people are being exposed to now, from flame retardants in mattresses to food additives. Do you have any evidence to suggest that compact fluorescents are dangerous in some way?
“from flame retardants in mattresses to food additives. Do you have any evidence to suggest that compact fluorescents are dangerous in some way?”
Consider the incentives in the production of such “evidence”. Consider that even today with cell phones, there is documented evidence that using them before bed prevents people from sleeping. The solution? Don’t use them before bed. They still will not admit they are dangorous (they really heat up the brain!).
In other words the connection between “scientific evidence” and the existence of real danger is happen-chance at best. In this case, there is simply massive annecdotal evidence that people get headaches from fluorescent lights.
Of course the studies I’m calling for - such as long term effects of discrete lighting on office employees, would be very expensive. But when you consider the fact that humans have for millions of years had everything lit in one way, and now almost all artificial light is radically different from that sort of light, it does seem like a cause for concern.
Consider this: our sensitivity to light radiation evolved to suit the black body radiation pattern of the sun. That’s why when you overset the visible spectrum on the solar spectrum, we can see the strongest frequencies. If the sun gave off light of the kind we look at now, we would have evolved in a drastically different way. I can’t do the physics off the top of my head, but I would guess this would be an easy problem for an evolutionary biologist to answer.
Yes, most human experience has been with light of many wavelengths. Black body radiation is something quite different.
That doesn’t change that your assertion that compact fluorescent lights are dangerous is anything but speculation. Please provide some data.
On the matter of incentives, look at the mint that lawyers have made off of asbestos. If they could prove that something as ubiquitous as cell phones or fluorescent lights were dangerous, there would be a strong financial imperative to do so, especially in the United States.
No, “blackbody radiation” is not something else.
Blackbody radiation is a model we use to simplify the frequency/intensity curves of radiation that bodies give off when they heat up. It’s called “blackbody” because we assume the body to be when hot, black - in other words it does not reflect any light. If it did reflect light, it could not obey this rule because there would be some other light in there messing it up. In practice, things like the sun, and fillaments in incandescant lightbulbs are blackbody.
When someone refers to a “blackbody curve” the really essential thing they are referring to is how the light is spread out smoothly over the spectrum. Compare that with fluorescent light where you get 100 or 1000 times as much intensity at one particular frequency.
I’m sorry that I’m not up to my knees in scientific documentation, but I will repeat my point: there do in fact exist situations where its in the elites best interests that something simply does not get researched. The fact that we would evolved very differently, or at least our eyes would have, if the sun was actually a florescent bulb should be enough to worry anyone.
The fact that we would evolved very differently, or at least our eyes would have, if the sun was actually a florescent bulb should be enough to worry anyone.
I don’t see why this is necessarily the case. It is plausible that a sun with different wavelengths of dominant light would affect the course of biological evolution, both in terms of visual sensory organs and biological components that otherwise interact with sunlight (skin, chloroplasts, etc). It is a leap in logic to say that, on account of that, compact fluorescent lights are harmful.
One piece of real data - a study, and experiment demonstrating adverse cognitive effects - has much more value than continued speculation and assertion.
There do in fact exist situations where its in the elites best interests that something simply does not get researched.
Quite possibly, but elites are not all powerful. If fluorescent lights were having big negative effects on people, someone would have come up with some evidence by now. A vast shadowy government conspiracy designed to protect the reputation of fluorescent bulbs is pretty unlikely. Indeed, given entrenched interests, it is more likely that continued manufacture of incandescent bulbs serves elites.
Compact Fluorescent Lamps: What You Should Know
Flicker can occasionally produce headaches and eyestrain in some people. The 60-Hz flow of electrons through the compact fluorescent lamp results in a 120-Hz fluctuation in the UV radiation incident on the phosphor coating. The stable nature of phosphorescence smooths out the effect of this cycle, but the instantaneous variations in fluorescent light output known as flicker still occur. The 120-Hz variation is too fast to be seen by most human eyes, but a stroboscopic effect can be observed when rapidly moving or rotating objects are viewed. High-frequency ballasts that send current through the lamp at frequencies up to 40 kHz can be used to prevent flicker problems.
In addition, the physical appearance and brightness of luminaires can affect one’s impressions of brightness in a space. Light from CF lamps, in comparison to incandescent lamps, is typically more uniformly distributed over a larger portion of the lamp surface area. One might therefore propose that these differences in luminous distributions could affect one’s impressions of the brightness of the space. These potential psychological effects are currently being studied.
Emission spectra of some compact fluorescent lamps (CFL bulbs)
“elites are not powerful”
This is a tautological falsity. “Elite” simply means, “those who have the power”, “those whose interests are taken into account”.
Also, it is not a leap in logic. The argument states merely that we evolved with one particular kind of light in mind, and now we are producing light which at first appears similar but under more thorough investigation is very different. Our retinas would work very differently if the sun was a compact fluoresant, because there are some frequencies it simply fails to emit. When a frequency is not emmited, it cannot be reflected. In other words, we would likely be ‘blind” a whole slew of colours between colours.
This also brings up the question - if CFs miss frequencies, what are we seeing when we see objects lit up by them? We obviously see very different colour signatures since certain frequencies are simply left out.
elites are not all powerful
Furthermore, they are not always in agreement. It is improbable that lightbulb barons have wide-reaching powers to suppress the emergence of scientific evidence from anywhere. The fact that you haven’t presented any at all suggests that there isn’t much to be found.
When a frequency is not emmited, it cannot be reflected. In other words, we would likely be ‘blind” a whole slew of colours between colours.
I understand what you are saying, but there is no reason to go from thinking this to thinking CFLs are harmful. Furthermore, it’s entirely possible that the biochemistry of retinal cones and rods means that even beings that evolved under a star that produces light in narrow bands of wavelengths would still be able to see other colours.
It is also perhaps worth noting that not all living things on earth see the same range of wavelengths. Some can see further into the red than we can, some further into the violet, and some further in both directions. This seems to be a fairly limited adaptive capability, not something of massive importance to the overall well-being of an animal.
The Case for CFLs
Compact fluorescent light bulbs are safe, and they look great, too.
By Brendan I. Koerner
“The case against CFLs is built largely on half-truths and innuendo. Yes, the energy-saving bulbs contain mercury, a neurotoxin responsible for a tremendous amount of human suffering over the years. And safely recycling CFLs remains far more difficult than it should be. But these facts don’t justify sticking with inefficient incandescent technology that has barely changed since the invention of the tungsten filament nearly a century ago…
The last, desperate swipe at CFLs—as elucidated by the Lantern’s colleague last week—is that their light is cold and dreadful. Perhaps this was true in years past, but the Lantern just doesn’t see it anymore: In a recent test, Popular Mechanics rated CFL light as far superior to that produced by incandescent bulbs. Don’t believe the hype? You’ve got nothing to lose by trying a single CFL bulb (one that’s received EnergyStar certification) and seeing for yourself. And then, once you’ve become a convert, please spread the word.”
I’m going to drop the CFL spectrum argument, and simply re-iterate my more important claim that the energy saving numbers are grlosely exagerated because the ignore the fact energy is a system.
Lightbulbs are heaters. Heat that doesn’t come from lightbulbs comes from the furnace. Lightbulbs are more efficient heaters than furnaces because they heat specifically the area of the house you use, and at the time you are using it.
Heating is not required in the summer, but, there is much more sun in the summer. So not only are the savings bills 50% of what they claim they are (presuming the furnace is on half the time), they are much less than this because we likely use lights for 3 to 5 hours less a day in the summer on average.
Lights to go out on inefficient bulbs by 2012
Last Updated: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 | 12:31 PM ET
The federal government will ban the sale of inefficient light bulbs by 2012 in a move to reduce energy consumption and reduce greenhouse gases, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said Wednesday.
“The federal government will ban the sale of inefficient light bulbs by 2012 in a move to reduce energy consumption and reduce greenhouse gases, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said Wednesday.
Lunn said the ban would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than six million tonnes a year, saving homeowners about $60 annually in electricity costs.”
Phasing Out Incandescent Light Bulbs
The Government is developing regulations under the Energy Efficiency Act that will phase out the use of inefficient incandescent light bulbs in most areas of regular use by 2012. The regulations will ensure customers that the lighting choices they make will always meet a high standard of energy efficiency. The new standards will also provide certainty for manufacturers and support investments in new products they will meet both the Government’s standards and the public’s demand for efficient lighting sources. The Government’s efforts to regulate lighting efficiency will lead to 5.70 Mt of expected reductions for 2012. This amount is included in the table above for Regulating Energy Efficiency.
Welcoming our new efficiency overlords
By Adam Stein
The so-called incandescent light bulb ban (not actually a ban) included as part of the recent energy bill has prompted a low-level but consistent set of complaints that deserve further consideration, because they betray a fair amount of confusion about the which policy tools to break out for which issues.
On the right, the reaction to the new lighting efficiency standard has ranged from hysterical whining to hysterical snark. But even on the left, it’s fairly common to run across the high-minded opinion that finicky legislation like the lighting efficiency standard only wastes time and stirs up needless recrimination. Instead we should set a price on carbon, and let the market sort out the rest.
It’s an excellent theory, one that I subscribe to under most circumstances, but sometimes command and control really is just the thing. The math on light bulbs is pretty easy to run. Follow along if you’re interested, or just skip the next two paragraphs.
Okay, tell me what is wrong with the following reasoning:
If I replace all my incandescent lightbulbs with compact fluorescents, I can cut my electricity usage for lighting by about 75%. I get approximately the same amount of light, which means that the 75% of energy was going somewhere. As it can’t just vanish, it must have ended up as heat in my home. I live in Canada, and heat my home for about 8 months of the year. My heater is controlled by thermostat (lets assume I don’t adjust it), which means if the lightbulbs stop contributing to heating my home, the furnace has to make up the difference. So for eight months of the year, there is no net energy saving.
Worse, my lights are powered by 100% renewable electricity (kindly supplied by a company called Bullfrog power). My furnace is powered by natural gas. So for eight months of the year, my new lightbulbs actually result in a net increase in CO2 emissions.
During the summer I might need to cool the house with an airconditioner for, say, 1 month. In that month, the old lightbulbs were working against the air conditioner. But of course, that’s the month with the most daylight, so it’s the month when I use the lights the least.
If this reasoning is correct, it means that changing the lightbulbs is pretty irrelevant in colder climates, even for people not getting their electricity from renewables. If I take into account the extra impact of the manufacture of compact fluorescents, and the fact that my electricity supply is 100% renewable, whereas my heating isn’t, replacing my bulbs actually increases my carbon footprint.
Switching off incandescents a no-brainer?
“We know that between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of the electricity that flows into old-style incandescent bulbs is used to support its primary purpose, which is to produce light. CFLs, on the other hand, are between four and fives times more efficient.
When former energy minister Dwight Duncan announced a year ago that Ontario plans to ban the sale of inefficient incandescent bulbs in the province by 2012, he pointed out that the 87 million incandescent bulbs being used in Ontario homes and businesses were wasting enough electricity to power 600,000 homes.
Electricity that isn’t used to produce light is released into the ambient air as heat. In the summer, and in year-round hot spots such as California, this heat energy is truly wasted. In fact, it makes our air conditioners work harder – a double-whammy that makes the switch to CFLs a no-brainer.”
If you live in Alberta, which relies heavily on fossil fuels for both its power generation and home heating, then switching to CFLs always makes sense.
It’s simply more efficient to heat your home using, say, a natural gas furnace, rather than using dirty electricity from the grid to power a resistance heater.
In provinces such as Manitoba and Quebec, which rely primarily on emission-free electricity, you can come to the opposite conclusion. Using clean hydropower to light up an incandescent bulb and fill your home with residual heat during the winter will release fewer greenhouse gases than using a natural gas furnace to provide that same amount of heat.
“If all homes in Quebec were required to switch from (incandescent) bulbs to CFLs, there would be an increase of almost 220,000 tonnes in CO{-2} emissions in the province, equivalent to the annual emissions from more than 40,000 automobiles,” the paper suggests.
“In fact, this amount will increase in future as homes move away from electric space heating to cheaper and more efficient fossil fuel sources.”
For the last time, switch to CFLs
Please don’t use incandescent bulbs for heating
“From either an energy or a CO2 perspective, incandescents are a big loser. If you really like electric resistance heat, buy the best portable forced air heater — it’s is still infinitely better than using an incandescent for heat from a CO2 perspective. It doesn’t really matter what the source of your electricity is, since energy around Canada and North America is fungible (and we don’t yet have an oversupply of zero carbon electricity).
But again if you really prefer heating your house with electricity because you have zero-carbon electricity, then buy an electric heat pump — if you have one, then dump your incandescent, the heat pump is much more efficient. For a new home or gut rehab, get a geothermal heating and cooling system. Plus better insulation of course.
This is especially true if you do any significant amount of air-conditioning during the year — which certainly most commercial office buildings do in Canada — and I’m guessing many people run air-conditioning in your homes in Toronto during the summer (certainly that will become more common thanks to global warming).
I can assure you that if you were to do the life-cycle analysis in detail, you’d find that keeping incandescents for the heat value is an energy/climate loser.”