Two years after a Directive was enforced to phase out the use of incandescent bulbs in Europe the ban has yet to reach America.
Back in 2007 George W Bush signed phasing out proposals into law as part of an Energy Saving Bill but the ban is still heavily contested. In America the traditional 100w incandescent bulb is due to be banned in January 2012 but resistance is widespread, especially within the Tea Party.
Tea party member Patti Gettinger has called on the ‘free market to prevail’ and condemned ‘federal regulatory over reach.’ Other campaigners have been critical of the alternatives citing health risks and problems with flicker, colour and the time bulbs take to warm up.
Yet on the other side there are many who welcome the energy saving results which could be up to as much as 80% and the reduction in carbon footprint that the move will bring about.
Dr. Kathleen Hogan from the Department of Energy has said ‘there was a lot of progress in the technology which allowed us to put in place a new standard to deliver savings.’
Evidence of uncertainty has already been seen in Canada where the phase out of incandescent bulbs due to start in January 2012 has been postponed for 2 years. Media and public speculation over health issues has been rife with many concerned about the use of mercury and disposal of CFLs. The Canadian Government has announced it intends to spend the next two years communicating the safety of lighting alternatives to the public.
It seems that in the long term the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs in America and Canada is inevitable but just as in Europe it will always have its opponents. Those determined to resist the ban are already stocking up; Gettinger herself already has a 30 year stash of incandescent light bulbs!