The k2p blog

This is in favour of the simple, cheap, traditional incandescent light bulb.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/07/article-1108775-02F409FC000005DC-572_468x313.jpg

I just do not like the new low energy bulbs — they are slow and the light they emit is cold and creepy.

Their claims of 5 or 8 or 10 year life cannot really be tested (there is no guarantee of course and if you drop one its life is over immediately). They are generally bulky and ugly.

They seem to have health risks (http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Study_warns_of_green_light_bulb_electrosmog_.html?cid=8584642)

and emit more mercury. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=aa7796aa-e4a5-4c06-be84-b62dee548fda

They are supposed to reduce man’s carbon footprint but this is a nonsense on three counts: firstly switching bulbs is almost insignificant in terms of reducing man-made carbon emissions which are in turn a very small part of total carbon emissions and  in any case the effect of CO2 on climate change is insignificant. This argument is not very convincing.

I cannot help feeling that somebody, somewhere is making a lot of money from this change of regulations and enforced switch to the new bulbs. My prime suspect is the lighting manufacturers and their bureaucratic symbiotes.

Tags: environment, global warming, light bulbs

This entry was posted on August 31, 2010 at 12:25 pm and is filed under Business, Energy, Environment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.