The French press is abuzz with reports on the imminent ban on incandescent light bulbs, on environmental grounds. Intrigued, I tried to find out more, without much success. In my opinion, this initiative is bad policy, procedurally undemocratic, and environmentally questionable.
What justifies this affront to consumer sovereignty?
Consumers today have a choice between:
- incandescent bulbs that are cheap to buy but that use large amounts of electricity; and
- Compact fluorescent or halogen bulbs that are costlier to buy but that use smaller amounts of electricity.
Consumers have been comparing, and choosing; most French households reportedly have several lower-consumption light bulbs.
Why not continue to let consumers choose? Why ban one light bulb family, leaving consumers with less choice? Why outlaw choices that make sense, such as a bulb in the attic or a closet that is put into use once or twice a year, for only a few seconds?
If this measure tracks consumer choices and makes great environmental sense, why is it being decided by backroom technocrats, out of public view?
The interdiction is part of a
European Directive that has been in the works for years. The
Ecodesign Regulatory Committee, a group of self-proclaimed experts set up under a
2005 EU Directive who seem scared to disclose their identity or to tolerate any public visibility (through a web site, fixed address, or telephone number), proudly
announces that it has blessed the interdiction, but relegates the deliberations of the elected European Parliament to a seeming formality before adoption, planned for next March.
French authorities, judging from press reports, seem impatient to interdict incandescent bulbs sooner rather than later. As a policy matter, I'm uncomfortable when producers or distributors meet to organize markets; my discomfort grows when these actions occur with the blessing or presence of public officials. And I'm positively wriggling with discomfort when these decisions seem decided without parliamentary debate or public comment in established rule-making procedures.
Citizens like saving money and profess concern for the environment. If a ban on incandescent bulbs achieves both ends, why not discuss it publicly or shy away from putting it to a vote before elected bodies? And why is a proposal presented in the press as a done deal?
Does science really support a ban on incandescent light bulbs?
The scientific case in favor of an incandescent bulb ban seems to be:
- incandescent bulbs use more electricity than compact fluorescent or halogen bulbs;
- the aggregate "extra" electricity that households use on incandescent bulbs requires, in France, electricity producers to use, in addition to nuclear power plants, "dirty" coal- and oil-fired power plants;
- the "dirty" power plants generate hundreds of tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year.
This marginal-demand argument is really weak. Is this the only upside ecological benefit to banning incandescent bulbs?
The question matters, because there are downside ecological costs, especially to compact fluorescent bulbs. These use small amounts of mercury, whose toxicity is well-known. The amount used in a single bulb apparently no danger to human health. But the aggregate amount of mercury that could be dumped is significant. A recycling scheme has been hatched to recover used light bulbs for recycling –in practice, extracting and reusing mercury, among other components– with recycling bins in retail stores. Of course, viewed from the stores' perspective this is a disguised tax, and the stores are less than enthusiastic about joining the recycling team.