Eco Light bulbs and Green Politics

There is no doubt about it but the debate on energy saving light bulbs and Green politics certainly seems to lead to much ranting and raving.

Unless we have sound and accurate debate based on scientific and economic facts such tasteless and absurd hyperbole as noted in the ARCHON article last week will drag us all back to the stone age.

We all create our own reality, however, the ignorant and absurd comments of last week, show not only a lack of comprehension of the current economic crisis, the impacts of which are so enormous it is difficult to comprehend, but also a total lack of understanding of science resulting in a hysterial and misinformed article not worthy of publication.

As a member of the Institute of Energy and Chartered Environmentalist I feel duty bound to respond to these comments.

There are a number of problems with this article; not least that the Green party has lost all credibility, abandoned its guiding principles, the Programme for Government and so on, but also that Minister John Gormley's endeavors to ban traditional lights bulbs were not a good idea. Also, bizarrely, ARCHON states that eco light bulbs contain dangerous levels of mercury and damage health!

While to some it may sem trivial to talk about light bulbs, the reality is that lighting accounts for a significant portion of Ireland's electricity use and represents one of the quickest and simplest ways of saving energy. Across Europe, wasteful lightbulbs keep the equivalent of 10 large power stations pumping out up to 50m tonnes of CO2 each year. Given the repeated failure of Ireland to reduce its carbon emissions, the decision to ban incandescent lightbulbs is, in fact, a vital step.

Secondly, energy efficient bulbs will save you money. Each Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) bulb lasts between 6 and 15 times longer than a traditional incandescent bulb. This is because normal bulbs only convert around 5% of the electricity into light while the equivalent figure for CFLs is 20%. A CFL bulb will save you around €8 per year, so even though they are typically more expensive than the old technology, they pay for themselves quickly though efficiency and longevity. If your entire house is fitted with CFL bulbs - and the average home in Ireland has 26 light bulbs - you will save €700 on your lighting bill over the course of the bulb's lifetime.

Thirdly, energy saving Light Bulbs will reduce environmental pollution. The fact that energy-saving lighting contains trace levels of mercury will not bring new environmental problems rather net mercury emissions related to lighting will be reduced by more than 50%, as fewer kilowatt hours of electricity will need to be produced in coal-fired power plants, which emit a relatively high percentage of the substance through their chimneys. It is important to note that the extra coal - a major source of mercury pollution - that is burned in order to light an older incandescent bulb, leads to roughly three times more mercury being released into the atmosphere compared to a CFL bulb.

Fourthly, banning traditional light bulbs will reduce greenhouse gas emission and help tackle climate change. The International Energy Agency staggering figures speak for themselves, globally lighting currently consumes more electricity than is produced by either hydro or nuclear power and results in CO2 emissions equivalent to about 70% of the world's cars. A single low-energy bulb in normal use saves 111 kilos of carbon dioxide annually. Banning old-fashioned lightbulbs across the whole of the EU would cut carbon emissions by about 20 million tonnes a year - and save between 5 and 8 billion euros a year in domestic fuel bills. Is this not good for the consumer, not to mention the environment ?

Fifthly, Ireland is not alone in attempting to ban the old-fashioned light bulb with policies being introduced in California, Canada, Austrialia and Central America. In fact, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he wants to see the UK to be one of the first countries to phase out inefficient light bulbs. Also, in the UK supermarkets voluntarily decided to stop replacing their existing stock of 100W lightbulbs after New Year's Day 2009.

Despite the best efforts of the majority of the world's scientists, ARCHON has somehow managed to remain totally oblivious to, or unconcerned by, the hidden financial costs and environmental harm associated with keeping tens of millions of wasteful incandescent lightbulbs alight. Who would have thought that something as mundane as a humble lightbulb would trigger such an outpouring of ill informed journalism? It would seem to be no more than a desperate attempt to whip up a political frenzy over the fact that the public, according to the most recent political survey, believe that the Green Party are acknowledged as a proactive party in Government!

I sincerely hope that the Minister's attempt to ban traditional light bulbs will provide a firm launch pad for all the other, much bigger, improvements that the Green Ministers introduce in the years ahead; improvements that will save the taxpayer money and help the environment. Meanwhile, ARCHON will write smugly about how the Green Party is incoherently bellowing their message. What the author obviously has failed to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath us, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, are outdated and that we need to move forward. Suggesting that the party has abandoned its guiding principles is nonsense. For me, it is indeed a healthy sign of any political party that members are willing to resign. Unfortunatley there are too many political parties in this country whoes members from former Taoisigh to elected councillors refuse to resign regardless of principles, justice or moral integrity.

Finally, it appears that political parties in opposition and commentators will attempt to find any and every opportunity to discredit the Green Party. As a small political party operating in Government as a junior partner for the first time in their history and during the most turbulent of ecomomic times, they are managing their respective Departments well and providing new vision and political leadership.

While some wish to say that Bus Éireann cuts are the responsibility of the Green Party, this is a matter for the Minister for Transport. In our present econonomic reality Bus Eireann has seen a sharp decline in passenger numbers as employment has decreased, emigrants return home and consumer spending reduces. Passenger journeys fell by 4 to 5 per cent last year and the company recorded an operating loss of €10 million in 2008 with further decreases expected and projected losses of €30m this year.

Faced with such financial losses any company has no option but to move forward in whatever way they can and minimize further financial losses while securing employment as much as possible. In the private sector, such an operator would cease trading and go into bankruptcy.

What ARCHON appears to support is more public money pumped into a system that is shown not to be working rather than moving forward and adapting the bus service to current demands. In reality what we are talking about is a 10 per cent reduction in staff and the fleet, amounting to 120 vehicles being taken from the Dublin Bus fleet of 1,182 vehicles. This is indeed unfortunate but it is also a failure of successive Governments to invest in sustainable public transport and the public themselves who prefer to travel by private car rather than take public transport even when such options are readily available. This is something that the Green Party has been bellowing about for two decades.