Morning:
11°c
An awesome and ridiculous film that leaves you thrilled beyond the point of your natural endurance
London faces a wave of bus and Tube strikes that could cause chaos for millions of passengers as unions walkout over pay and conditions
More...
Traditional lightbulbs to be replaced by 'green' bulbs in four years
Last updated at 00:52am on 28.09.07
End of an era: Old-style lightbulbs to be phased out within four years
One of the new low-energy light bulbs
Traditional lightbulbs will be switched off for good within four years.
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said all homes and businesses would have to use low-energy "green" bulbs by 2011.
He told the Labour party conference in Bournemouth that banning energy-guzzling iridescent bulbs would help Britain meet its tough carbon reduction targets.
The "green" bulbs use up to 80 per cent less electricity than traditional bulbs - which use a different filament - to generate the same amount of light.
They are already becoming increasingly popular with the environmentally conscious British public.
Mr Benn told delegates: "The major retailers and the energy suppliers are now leading a voluntary initiative, with the strong support of the lighting industry and of the Government, to help phase out traditional high-energy lightbulbs. We need to turn them off - for good."
Traditional 150-watt lightbulbs would be phased out by January next year, 100-watt bulbs the year after, 40-watt bulbs the year after that and all high-energy lightbulbs by 2011.
Mr Benn claimed the move would save five million tonnes of CO2 a year - the equivalent of a medium-sized coal-fired power station.
The Government has a target to reduce carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.
He also urged retailers and manufacturers to phase out the least efficient electrical products - including some set-top boxes and televisions - from their ranges.
EU leaders agreed this year to start phasing out iridescent lightbulbs in a bid to tackle climate change.
Firm proposals for saving power in office and street lighting will be introduced by 2008 and in homes by 2009.
The replacement low-energy fluorescent bulbs are more expensive to buy but they are longer-lasting and work out cheaper in the long run.
It is also hard to find "green" halogen bulbs and others with non-standard fittings at present.
In most homes lighting accounts for up to 15 per cent of electricity bills and green groups claim every low-energy bulb could save householders up to £7 a year.
Philip Sellwood, chief executive of the Energy Saving Trust, said: "We fully support the idea of phasing out inefficient lighting in favour of energy-efficient lightbulbs.
"If everyone in the UK installed three energy-saving lightbulbs, we would save enough energy to power all the UK's street lighting for a year."
Reader views (16)
My heart bleeds purple kool-aid for you Les!
I have them throughout the house and have seen my energy costs go down every month
I also use solar panels to power the refigerator, which uses the largest amount of electricity in the house,
Doing that alone cut my energy costs in half.
I'd rather save the money than give it to an energy company!
- Matt, USA
Another EU regulation. Thank God we have them.
- Grim Reaper, London
Why impose change before creating a better option to change over to? Not only are low-energy bulbs bad for the environment (they contain harmful gases which are very difficult to dispose of) they are also bad for the aesthetic of the world that we live in. Our homes are at risk of looking like laboratories, coldly lit and clinical. Perhaps that is what the government are aiming for, after all they seem to treat us like lab rats these days!
- David, London
Reading the negative comments goes to show how dim some people can be when it comes to saving money and being environmentally-friendly.
- Austen, London
Spare a thought for those of us with SAD, to whom artificial sunshine from powerful halogen lights provides a degree of relief from the gloom. I've already purchased a lifetime supply!
And it's a nonsense to say it'll save that much energy. What they forget is that lighting is mostly used during the dark hours of winter, while your house is being heated. At these times heat not generated by the lights will be generated by the heating instead, and the CO2 output will be unchanged. Money would be better spent on insulation upgrades than on replacing light fittings.
- Nigel, London
I feel a trip to B&Q coming on - how the hell am I supposed to use these bulbs in the bathroom, with dimmer switches, and in the fridge, microwave and sewing machine, when they only come with standard fittings and are frankly not bright enough? Another shining example of the Government acting without thinking. I'd be tempted to ask the last person to leave Britain to turn the lights off but, with these bulbs, would anyone notice?
- Emma, Staines, UK
This should have happened years ago.
- Mike, Bedford, England
Yes, we don't mind changing but give us something to replace it with. The current range of bulbs are absolutely revolting.
- Jay, London, UK
Yet another example of silo thinking from our politicians! The low energy bulbs use more energy to make, transport and dispose of whereas the extra heat warms our home. Only for a few months in summer, if we are lucky, is this extra heat a disadvantage - otherwise it needs to be replaced by other forms of heating.
And please, let us have replacements before we ban things! So far there are many incandescent bulbs that have no low energy replacement. Having to replace light fittings, lamps, etc adds to the economic and energy waste; having these bulbs in the direct line of sight is bad for ones sight!
- Ken, Oxford, England
I already use "green" lightbulbs wherever I can, but there are some places I cannot yet. Either the availability of current bulbs must continue or the manufacturers of "green" ones must invent ones which can cope with timers & dimmers etc. Ovens & microwaves still use filament-style bulbs too. I am all for encouraging a green lifestyle, but legislation cannot be rushed in so that people are left literally in the dark!
- Clare, Cambridge, UK
It really is a return to the dark ages ... there's no way these new bulbs give out light of a similar quality to the old ones, and in my experience they don't last any longer either. There will also be a problem with a vast number of light fittings, halogen units and - of course - they don't work with dimmers either.
- Paul, London
Nobody mentions that dimmer switches won't operate with low energy light bulbs but in any event, why should we be forced to replace all our dimmer switches to help the government meet some self imposed target?
There is no concrete proof that carbon dioxide is a driver of climate change, in fact it is more the case that climate change [as it alters sea temperature] is a driver for the amount of carbon dioxide released or absorbed by the oceans. However think about volcanoes which have pumped out more carbon dioxide than we could ever aspire to achieve & yet we are all still here.. including those who would tell us how to live our lives; it is environmental bullying!
- Keith Simpson, Wareham, England
All rubbish. Where is common sense? The low enery bulbs will be made in China to make them affordable. The manufactoring costs are multiple that of a traditional filament bulb. The Chinese factories will belch far more CO2 that we will ever save. And there's more. These low energy bulbs will need recycling as they contain dangerous pollutants. I expect we will have to pay the private contractors heavily to get rid of them from us.
- Harry, London
Completely pointless and probably more environmentally damaging. While CFLs use less electricity, they contain mercury gas, phosphorous coating and harmful chemicals in the internal electronic circuit. None of this can be easily recycled so they will all end up as landfill. The incandescent bulb contains inert argon and a tungsten filament which are harmless. We should be focusing on the development of LED technology which has even lower requirments and is less environmentallty harmful.
- Marc, Harrow, UK
Yes, it might save energy and emissions in the UK, but these bulbs take an awful lot more energy, with the attendant knock on of emissions, wherever it is they are manufactured. So unless one of these bulbs last for over 10 years the net effect is negative.
You think they'll last longer than the current incandescent bulb? Well they could last a very long time too if it wasn't for the fact they were designed to fail after only a few thousand hours.
Just watch, once everyone has switched to these bulbs, how the bulbs' lifetime shortens.
- Threaded, Roskilde, Denmark
Stupidity itself. What they are not saying is that every energy-saving lightbulb contains some Mercury, isn't that a precious metal?
Also, light fittings in bathrooms are supposed to be an enclosed type of fitting, such that you can't touch the bulb with wet hands. You cannot fit energy-saving lightbulbs in enclosed type light fittings. What are we supposed to do in bathrooms? Only wash in daylight?
- Les, Essex, UK
