By Nathaniel Tanenbaum
This past August, new energy efficiency rules from the US Department of Energy went into effect, effectively banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs. These bulbs, which represent the original technology patented by Thomas Edison in the 19th century, are woefully inefficient. Only 10% of the energy they use is converted into light, with incandescents seeing an energy efficiency of only 17 lumens per watt, compared to over 70 lumens per watt for the bulb's main competitor, LEDs.
Despite the demonstrated inefficiency of incandescent bulbs, their ban has caused a firestorm in the US. Many have turned towards hoarding incandescents, with New Hampshire resident Kevin Sezmyd describing having bought more than 4,800 of the bulbs before their ban from sale, noting the 'sunlight-quality' nature of the lights that LEDs cannot compare with. These sentiments have driven real impacts on consumer behaviour, with incandescent models sold for just $15 before the new regulations now worth over $150.
This reaction largely mirrors those in the UK and the rest of Europe, where incandescents were prohibited by the EU in the late 2000s. Reactions largely hinged on what Sezmyd describes as a desire to let people make their own decisions in using the technology. These reactions to the inflexibility of such heavy-handed and state-led approaches to sustainability have resulted in backlashes to green policies which have unintentionally led to negative impacts on the environment.
Former US President Donald Trump capitalised on desires to take back 'freedom' in light bulb choice pushed by Republican lawmakers in reaction to Bush's 2007 energy efficiency legislation, reversing restrictions on incandescents which were meant to come into effect during his presidency. As a result, for each year under Trump's administration that incandescents were sold unrestricted, 800,000 tons of preventable CO2 emissions were released into the atmosphere. Furthermore, the Natural Resources Defense Council argued that the inefficiencies resulting from the legislation have been equivalent to the lost energy production of '30 large power plants'.
The fallout resulting from perceptions of government overreach lead to serious backfiring of environmental efforts. That is why it is critical for governments to be flexible and nimble in crafting environmental policy. For instance, the main driver in incandescent light bulb sales have been discount stores in impoverished communities, which tended to stock incandescents over pricier LEDs. This cheaper purchasing price belies the fact that incandescents are more expensive over their lifetime, with higher electricity costs and more frequent burn-outs, realities which are a boon to manufacturers.
Therefore, the superficial economic appeal of incandescent bulbs could have easily been rectified by the institution of a purchasing tax on inefficient lights, with proceeds used to fund environmental protection efforts while saving money for low income individuals by redirecting them to LEDs. Bulb-purists enamoured with holding on to incandescents represent a small part of the populace, and with such a tax could retain access to the bulbs while supporting environmental protection. Instead, the blanket bans instituted by various governments have rallied many to oppose sustainability efforts more broadly, with light bulb restrictions becoming a commonly-used symbol by Trump to challenge environmental regulations which he says 'cripple working-class families'.
Ireland's plastic bag tax, the first in the world upon its introduction in 2002, is a clear example of the success environmental taxes can have in improving sustainability while maintaining public support. The tax has reduced the proportion of plastic bags within Ireland's litter from 5% in 2001 to 0.13% in 2015, and the proceeds of the levy fund environmental protection projects. The scheme also anticipated public pushback to the effort, garnering grassroots support by conducting a publicity campaign which highlights the importance of fighting plastic pollution. Today, the tax is highly supported by Irish consumers, whose widespread adoption of reusable bags have even led proceeds from the levy to plummet. By pairing support from the public and environmental improvement, Ireland's efforts to reduce plastic bag use are seen by environmental policy-makers as one of the world's most successful sustainability measures.
Such an approach could easily be applied to light bulbs, with a tax reducing use of inefficient incandescents while preventing the backlash associated with the bans seen in the US and EU. Even as anger over light bulbs settle, future environmental policies must maintain popular support to ensure long-term environmental sustainability. This is illustrated by the Conservative Party's surprise win in an outer London byelection, a result widely believed to have been influenced by local opposition to Labour mayor Sadiq Khan's expansion of car-emission rules. The fact that the Conservative Party, which has lately pursued multiple reversals of environmental policies, was able to find victory despite large national swings against it indicates the threat that unsupported sustainability rules can pose for broader environmental protections.
The fight over light bulbs exemplifies the broader issues inherent in government approaches to sustainability. Whether addressing incandescent bulbs, plastic bags, or gas-powered cars, policy-makers must avoid temptations to take an unaccommodating, top-down approach in order to garner the support necessary to ensure lasting environmental protection.
No comments:
Post a Comment