site

  1. myWWF Sign in
  2. Sign up
  3. Help

WWF welcomes fading of Europe’s incandescent glow

Posted on 28 August 2009

An energy-saving lightbulb. WWF welcomes the ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs, coming into effect in the EU from 1 Sept.

Brussels, Belgium- WWF welcomes the ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs, coming into effect in the EU from 1 September, but it says that equally energy wasting light bulbs like standard halogens should also be removed from the market.

The phase-out ban voted by Member States in December 2008 will remove all conventional incandescent bulbs from the shelves by 2012 and save 15 million tons of CO2 annually by 2020, equivalent to the entire current electricity consumption of Romania per year.

“Getting rid of incandescents is a no-brainer, but halogens are nearly as wasteful: we need to see the EU push innovative solutions into the market.” says Mariangiola Fabbri, Senior Energy Policy Officer at WWF’s European Policy Office.

The traditional incandescent bulb is one of the least efficient ways of producing light, along with the standard halogen. It disperses 95% of the energy it uses. The alternatives to energy wasting bulbs are most efficient halogen bulbs, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and LED (light emitting diodes) bulbs.

WWF together with other organisations has launched a web portal to inform consumers about the most energy-efficient appliances and lighting equipment across Europe (www.topten.info).

“Consumers need to receive correct and simple information about the many alternatives already available in the market”, says Fabbri. “Simple information on packaging and recycling collection systems at points of sale are crucial to achieving real savings and changing consumers’ habits”, says Fabbri.


Comments

Ute Holder

September 21, 2009 - 21:11

Energy-saving, compact lightbulbs are not really the solution we need. As long as they include mercury and as long as they show other negative side effects I can not use them thinking I am doing something good for our environment. As humans tend to do, we only consider one single aspect instead of taking a look at the whole system. Do we have an alternative solution for these contaminated lightbulbs? If yes, everyone should get this information.

rloitam

September 18, 2009 - 15:25

Universal application is doubtful at the moment in spite of our earnest desire. Other energy efficient ideas/concepts need also to be explored.

Asaka Jerry

September 16, 2009 - 10:34

This is a very great move in the right direction. I wish my country (Kenya) could embrace it. Personally, I stopped using the conventional incandescent bulbs in my house last year september. I am not only saving on cost in terms of electricity bills but also I feel fulfilled knowing that am doing something to reduce my carbon foot prints. Little by little and we will curb global warming. I support the move

Sammie

September 15, 2009 - 21:28

People - before you spout any half-informed factoids, go and learn! Just go to the above mentioned URL and check out "III.14. Mercury content and the environment." Also, go and learn about the brand new LED bulbs - they'll probably last a lifetime and use even less energy than CFLs. About the dimmability - go to above mentioned URL and *learn* - see # "III.6. Dimmability."
If you don't trust the official source given, just go and use that darn G-search engine for something good. The info's out there, *if* you want to find it.

Marius Goosen

September 15, 2009 - 21:22

I changed back to tungsten bulbs after using energy savers for years. I realized it is not the type of globe that we use, or this thing, or that thing that kills the world, but rather the greed in human nature.

After many years as an electrician I know that fixing one light has a greater impact on a customer’s mind than tidying up his whole cable system for example, and which is generally unseen. And so with the whole world being worked up into hysteria (no problem with that) about the planets condition, it is only natural that the manufacturers of lighting equipment would not hesitate to jump on the surfboard and ride the wave.

They might or might not be justified, because the world will now save so many mega tons on CO2 emissions. Every bit helps. Sure. But is our focus right? The first thing that comes to mind when one talks about saving energy is using energy savers. That should be the last thing on your mind.

Let’s get things into perspective. It’s time for dinner. You send the kids to wash their hands and every one sits down at the table. The kids used the hot water tap to wash their hands. What’s more they forgot to close it properly. During the hour long dinner you will lose, let’s say twenty liters of warm water.

Little brats you think. Don’t judge them; you left the stove on as well.

So what is the damage? If your water heater has a standard 4000 watt element and your four stove plates has a combined wattage of 8000 watt, then at any one time you could be consuming 12 000 watts of power.

Now how does that compare with the energy saving capacity of a single energy saver? If you use the same amount of energy that you wasted during dinner to run one energy saver of 15 watt, you can run it for 800 hours.

Do you see that energy saving bulbs is a truth amplified out of proportion? Do you see that energy saving lighting, good thing as it is, should not necessary be the first option coming to mind?

I will go back to energy savers when they compare better with ordinary bulbs as far as pricing and reliability is concerned.

Zoltan

September 15, 2009 - 18:15

These energy-saving, compact lightbulbs are a double-edged sword...Their manufacture involves some HIGHLY toxic chemical processes which damage the environment. Also, a recent study shows that they have a highly electromagnetic radiation...
It is really nice that we cut CO2-emission, but on the other end we poison the environment and ourselves further.

Look deeper into the abyss....

Malcolm

September 15, 2009 - 14:58

There is a lot of confusion here. What type of halogens are we talking of and how do we tell the difference! Clear as mud. Also I have some wall timer switches which only work with ordinary bulbs so they will have to be junked. Still, whatever is necessary must be done to prevent global catastrophe.

Lauren Stevens

August 31, 2009 - 16:19

Anyone know of a petition for this?

Amber Thompson

August 30, 2009 - 14:55

Florescent bulbs contain mercury, and are classified as toxic waste, in some places.

Boyana Vuyanovic

August 29, 2009 - 13:56

I'm affraid that the neon bulbs are even worse, for their chemical content...

 

 

 

Add your comment

captcha

reload

@import url('http://s3.amazonaws.com/getsatisfaction.com/feedback/feedback.css');