Voluntary phasing out of incandescent light bulbs insufficient
Amber Marie Beard welcomes moves to phase out inefficient lighting, but argues it's wrong to pile the costs onto residents and manufacturers
In our continued attempt to reduce our city's energy consumption, Hong Kong's environment minister Wong Kam-sing said last month that the government is moving forward on the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs.
After two years of discussion on the topic, the agreement takes not the form of legislation but rather of a voluntary "charter" among lighting vendors. Despite the fact that most other governments have opted for regulation in similar moves to phase out incandescent light bulbs, our environment minister said he remains "optimistic" that a voluntary charter in the private sector will work.
Compact fluorescent lamps and LEDs use less energy than an incandescent bulb and are part of the equation in creating a more energy-efficient Hong Kong. However, the effectiveness of a voluntary charter is extremely questionable.
Where is the incentive for vendors to phase it out if their competitors can continue to sell cheaper incandescent bulbs? Why would consumers buy energy-efficient bulbs, at an increased price, when the cost of energy is so cheap?
Additionally, we need to look at the impact that such a charter would have on the overall energy consumption of Hong Kong. Incandescent light bulbs are used primarily in homes and, according to a 2008 study by the government, they accounted for 900GWh of electricity consumption every year, or about 2 per cent of the total.
Besides, Hong Kong has a great number of commercial buildings and shopping centres, and a lot of exterior lighting, that don't use common incandescent bulbs. Many malls use tungsten halogen lamps, which are only marginally more efficient but are excluded in the charter as a target for substitution.