EU Energy Entrepreneurs Experience Economic Epiphany Exposing Elusive Emissions Endgame

http://www.enn.com/climate/article/31567

Power Users Warn EU Investment Stalls Over Climate

From: Reuters Published February 21, 2008 11:41 AM

By Huw Jones and William Schomberg

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Energy-intensive industries in Europe warned on Thursday that big investment decisions are being put on hold until the European Union hammers out its plan for fighting climate change after 2012.

A month after the EU's executive announced proposals to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the 27-nation bloc, executives from some of Europe's biggest companies said they could not afford to wait long for details of how the system will work.

Juha Rantanen, chief executive of Finnish stainless steel company Outokumpu, said the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme, which will make companies pay increasingly for their pollution, was already hitting his company's plans to expand mining of ferrochrome, a stainless steel ingredient."With not knowing what the price of electricity will be beyond 2012, or what will be the price of emissions rights, we are not making that investment and instead we buy ferrochrome from South Africa and Kazakhstan, where it's being produced in an environmentally less efficient way," he told Reuters.

"This trading scheme puts a cost into operations in Europe which is higher than for competitors in other regions. That will ultimately lead to European industry investing less in Europe."

Jean-Pierre Clamadieu, CEO of French chemicals group Rhodia , noted that French cement maker Lafarge had recently suspended its investments in plants in the EU and said Rhodia might face a similar dilemma in the near future.

"It is important we get as quickly as possible visibility on (the EU plans)," Clamadieu said. "If we don't, then I think there will be lot of investment project delay or investment which will move to different regions of the world."

DECISION DEFERRED

EU governments aim to agree on a post-2012 reform of the Emissions Trading Scheme by the end of this year, but the Commission wants to defer the question of special treatment for energy-intensive industries until 2010.

The outcome will depend on whether there is an international agreement on curbing greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for global warming, it argues.

Addressing the same conference on climate change and business, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso pledged again that if there were no global solution,

the EU would look at interim measures such as free emissions permits for energy-intensive industries.

Other executives voiced concern that Europe's ambitious plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions would hurt the competitiveness of industry.

The United States, the world's biggest economy, rejects the idea of mandatory emissions caps and major developing economies, such as China and India, say it is unfair to ask them to make big emissions cuts after centuries of pollution by richer countries.

U.S. Ambassador to the EU Boyden Gray suggested Europe should delay its ambitious targets for cutting emissions from 2020 until 2030 to allow time for technology to develop.
European industries that are the biggest consumers of power want special treatment under the new rules.

Michel Wurth, who sits on the management board of the world's biggest steelmaker, ArcelorMittal, said companies like his wanted know how the EU would define energy-intensive industries, what proportion of emissions rights they would have to pay for and how much funding they would get to finance research into cleaner manufacturing and new products.

"Today the European steel industry is at the top in terms of energy efficiency so if you force European steel to reduce or get out of production, the consequence will be the global steel industry will emit more than it does today," he said.

ArcelorMittal recently agreed to keep open a blast furnace in Liege, Belgium, until 2012 but possibly not longer due to the uncertainties about the next phase of the EU energy rules after that date, Wurth said.

(Additional reporting by David Lawsky, editing by Anthony Barker)

Irrational Green Biofuel Exuberance Is 1 of 4 Major Causes of Food Price Increases

http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/newsroom/wfp173342.pdf


Testimony to the European Parliament Development Committee

by Josette Sheeran, Executive Director


UN World Food Programme


Thursday 6 March 2008



...Food prices have been aggressively increasing to historic highs.


There are four major drivers for this:


- the rise in oil and energy prices which affect the entire value chain of food production from fertilizer to harvesting to storage and delivering and access to water;


- the economic boom in nations such as India and China, creating increased demand for all commodities including food and forcing China, which was a major food exporter just a little more than one year ago, to now being an importer of food;


- increasingly harsh and frequent climatic shocks like hurricanes, floods and drought, have made for some bad harvests in particular regions like Australia and regions of Africa;


- and fourth is the shift to increased biofuels production that has diverted hundreds of millions of metric tonnes of agricultural output out of the food chain, and has caused food prices to be set at fuel price levels in many places, including, for example, palm oil in Africa which is now being priced out of household reach because it is being set at fuel prices as a biofuel addition.


Experts like Joachim von Braun, the Director General of the International Food Policy Research Institute, point out that food supply and fuel supply are now inexorably linked; triggering a competition between crops for food and crops for fuel that will affect food prices and supply for years to come. He raises the question that even if food production were to increase 20 percent this year would it go into fuel or would it go into food? For the first time in history we don’t know because it would go to the highest bidders on markets.


These high food prices are placing food out of reach for many of the world’s most vulnerable and especially for those living on less than US$1 a day. Of particular concern is the emergence of what I call the new face of hunger – hunger characterized by markets full of food with scores of people simply unable to afford it. These conditions have triggered food riots from Cameroon to Burkina Faso to Indonesia to Mexico and beyond. (pp 3-4)

Polar Bear Politics: Employing The U.S. Endangered Species Act To Force US Climate Change Regulation Endangers Indigenous Rights & US Energy Security

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-03-09-polar-bears_N.htm


Polar bears caught in a heated eco-debate


By Oren Dorell, USA TODAY


Eskimos in Alaska and Canada have joined to stop polar bears from being designated as an endangered species, saying the move threatens their culture and livelihoods by relying on sketchy science for animals that are thriving.


Eskimos in Alaska and Canada have joined to stop polar bears from being designated as an endangered species, saying the move threatens their culture and livelihoods by relying on sketchy science for animals that are thriving.


Although they say sea ice has melted, some Natives question the accuracy of the most dire predictions of a warming climate in the Northern Hemisphere, and members of the Inuit Circumpolar Council seek evidence that a change would seriously harm the bears.


Their stance has put them at loggerheads with a usual ally: environmentalists who say the bears need protection now to survive a warmer climate in the future.


"It would have a really big effect on us Inuit, because we go by dog team to traditionally hunt polar bears," said Jamie Kablutsiak, who guides U.S. trophy hunters for big money onto the ice on Canada's Hudson Bay. As for the bears, "I don't think they're decreasing because there's usually lots, even in summer time," he said.


A decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will come soon, spokesman Bruce Woods said.


The petition marks the first time a healthy species would be considered at risk under the Endangered Species Act and the first time global warming would be officially labeled a species' main threat.


Polar bears have increased from a population of 5,000 in 1972 to between 20,000 and 25,000 today.


The Center for Biological Diversity submitted a petition in 2005 for endangered species protection based on projected habitat loss due to global warming.


The petition resulted in a 2007 report by the U.S. Geological Survey, which predicted a loss of two-thirds of the world's polar bear population by 2050, based on a projected 42% summertime loss of "optimal polar bear habitat" such as shallow-water sea ice.


Some scientists, however, question predictions that sea ice will disappear, and even that polar bears would disappear if it did.


Richard Glenn, an Alaskan Inuit hunter and ice researcher, told U.S. senators in January that "marginal ice," which freezes in winter and melts in summer, will grow as multiyear ice disappears.


"Even the Fish and Wildlife Service study acknowledges that … may be beneficial to ice seals and polar bears," he said.


The aim of the environmentalists is to use the Endangered Species Act to force the U.S. government to take action on global warming, said Kassie Siegel, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity. It would require federal agencies "to look at the cumulative effect of greenhouse gases on polar bears" and limit emissions by cars and power plants, Siegel said.


Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin disagrees with that approach.


"If you want to address climate change, address it directly," said Doug Vincent-Lang, Palin's coordinator for endangered species.


To the Inuit, the polar bear has been a source of food, clothing and income for millennia, said Duane Smith, president of the Inuit Circumpolar Council in Canada, which represents Inuit across Canada.


The Inuit Circumpolar Council, which represents Native communities in Greenland, Canada, Alaska and Russia, wants Fish & Wildlife not to make a decision until Natives have a greater role, Chairwoman Patricia Cochran said. Any decision should be based on "sound science," which includes traditional knowledge, Cochran said.


Big money is at stake. Sport hunters pay between $25,000 and $30,000 each to bag a polar bear.


The Alaska Nanuuq Commission, which represents Eskimos on polar bear issues, supports the listing as long as it allows subsistence hunting by Alaskan Inuit to continue. Executive Director Charlie Johnson said the group chose to avoid clashing with U.S. environmentalists.


The conservation scheme works because "it's in the best interest of the (Inuit) people out there to maintain the (bear) populations," Smith said. But it may end if the bear is listed because U.S. hunters will be banned from importing any part of the bear, such as a pelt, Smith said.


"The numbers of polar bear are good," said Smith, a former conservation officer for the Canadian government.


Steven Amstrup, chief polar bear researcher for the U.S. Geological Survey, said climate models predict that it will be warmer by midcentury than "ever in the course of polar bear evolution." Other scientists question that view.


Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said far too few data were used to make predictions about both climate change and polar bear behavior and populations.


"We looked at historical studies. The first thing you notice is the whole climatic system undergoes huge fluctuation," Soon said.


Over the possibly 200,000 years the polar bear has existed as a species, it has survived "very harsh conditions" of extreme cold, such as ice ages, and warmth, such as the last interglacial period, 100,000 to 110,000 years ago, Soon said.

US Energy Law Can Penalize ‘Commercially Available’ Canadian Fuel’, Raise US Consumer Energy Prices, Jeopardize US Energy Security & Trigger Trade War

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3310a3d0-ee0d-11dc-a5c1-0000779fd2ac.html


Canada warns US over oil sands

By Sheila McNulty in Houston

Financial Times

Published: March 9 2008


Canada has warned the US government that a narrow interpretation of new energy legislation would prohibit its neighbour buying fuel from Alberta’s vast oil sands, with “unintended consequences for both countries”.


In a letter to Robert Gates, US defence secretary, Canada said that it “would not want to see an expansive interpretation” of the Energy Independence and Security Act 2007. A copy of the letter, from Michael Wilson, Canadian ambassador, and copied to Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, and Samuel Bodman, US energy secretary, has been obtained by the Financial Times.
See http://www.ft.com/cms/67ed53dc-edfe-11dc-a5c1-0000779fd2ac.pdf


Section 526 of the law limits US government procurement of alternative fuels to those from which the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are equal to or less than those from conventional fuel from conventional petroleum sources. Canada’s oil sands are considered unconventional fuels, and producing them emits more greenhouse gas than conventional production.


The Bush administration has, nonetheless, encouraged developing oil sands, given the US’s favourable relationship with Canada and that it would reduce reliance on Middle East imports.


Amy Myers Jaffe, energy expert at Rice University, said cutting out the oil sands as a source of fuel would also limit global supplies further, forcing up the price of oil: “$106 a barrel is going to look cheap.”


The three presidential candidates hoping to replace President George W. Bush are proponents of strong US policy to counter greenhouse gas emissions, which could lead to a narrow interpretation of the law. That could be why Canada wants the law interpreted now.


“The Canadians do, in fact, have something to worry about, particularly from a Democratic administration,” Ms Jaffe said.


Environmentalists say extracting a barrel of crude from oil sands results in five times the amount of greenhouse gas emissions than extracting conventional crude – a figure some energy companies dispute.


Tristan Landry, spokesperson at the Canadian embassy in Washington, said: “Classifying fuel from the oil sands as non-conventional fuel ... would unnecessarily complicate the integrated Canada-US energy relationship.”


The energy department said the US was “assessing any implication to the US federal fuel procurement practices arising from the bill and will work co-operatively with Canada”.


Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Call For Large Unspecified National 'Sacrifices' and High Cost Enviro-Energy Use Regulatory 'Changes'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/opinion/01tue1.html


New York Times


January 1, 2008


Editorial: In Office


The One Environmental Issue


The overriding environmental issue of these times is the warming of the planet. The Democratic hopefuls in the 2008 campaign are fully engaged, calling for large — if still unquantified — national sacrifices and for a transformation in the way the country produces and uses energy. The Republicans do not go much further than conceding that climate change could be a problem and, with the notable exception of John McCain, offer no comprehensive solutions.


In 2000, when Al Gore could have made warming a signature issue in his presidential campaign, his advisers persuaded him that it was too complicated and forbidding an issue to sell to ordinary voters. For similar reasons, John Kerry’s ambitious ideas for addressing climate change and reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil never advanced much beyond his Web site.


Times have certainly changed. It is not yet clear to what extent Americans are willing to grapple with the implications of any serious strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: more specifically, whether they are ready to pay higher prices for energy and change their lifestyles to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.


Polls suggest, however, that voters are increasingly alarmed, and for that Mr. Gore is partly responsible. His film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” raised the issue’s profile. Then came four reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore, predicting catastrophic changes in weather patterns, sea levels and food production unless greenhouses gases can be quickly stabilized and then reduced by as much as 80 percent by midcentury.


There is also a growing appetite for decisive action — everywhere, it seems, except the White House. Governors in more than two dozen states are fashioning regional agreements to lower greenhouse gases, the federal courts have ordered the executive branch to begin regulating these gases, and the Senate has begun work on a bipartisan bill that would reduce emissions by nearly 65 percent by 2050.


[THIS IS PATENTLY FALSE - RATHER, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ORDERED, IN MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA, WHICH WAS DECIDED APRIL 2, 2007, THAT
(http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf) "BECAUSE GREENHOUSE GASES FIT WELL WITHIN THE [CLEAN AIR] ACT'S CAPACIOUS DEFINITION OF 'AIR POLLUTANT', THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MUST EVALUTE WHETHER GREENHOUSE GASES, SUCH AS CARBON DIOXIDE, "CAUSE[] OR CONTRIBUTE[] TO AIR POLLUTION WHICH MAY REASONABLY BE ANTICIPATED TO 'ENDANGER' PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE", WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7601(a)(1) OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT. THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT REQUIRE THE EPA TO REGULATE CARBON DIOXIDE AS MANY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST GROUPS HAVE FALSELY CLAIMED. "WHILE THE STATUTE [CLEAN AIR ACT] CONDITIONS EPA ACTION ON ITS FORMATION OF A 'JUDGMENT', THAT JUDGMENT MUST RELATED TO WHETHER AN AIR POLLUTANT 'CAUSES[S], OR CONTRIBUTE[S] TO, AIR POLLUTION WHICH MAY REASONABLY BE ANTICIPATED TO ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE'." §7601(a)(1). UNDER THE ACT'S CLEAR TERMS, EPA CAN AVOID PROMULGATING REGULATIONS ONLY IF IT DETERMINES THAT GREENHOUSE GASES DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE CHANGE OR IF IT PROVIDES SOME REASONABLE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY IT CANNOT OR WILL NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY DO."]


Still, the country is a long way from a comprehensive response equal to the challenge. That is what the Democratic candidates are proposing. Senators Joseph Biden, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, former Senator John Edwards, Gov. Bill Richardson and Representative Dennis Kucinich have all offered aggressive plans that would go beyond the Senate bill and reduce emissions by 80 percent by midcentury (90 percent in Mr. Richardson’s case), much as called for in the United Nations reports.


These plans would rest primarily on a cap-and-trade scheme that imposes a gradually declining ceiling on emissions and allows power plants, refineries and other emitters to figure out the cheapest way to meet their quotas — either by reducing emissions on their own or by purchasing credits from more efficient producers. The idea is to give companies a clear financial incentive to invest in the new technologies and efficiencies required to create a more carbon-free economy.


[THE USE OF EMISSIONS CAP & TRADE REGIMES ARE QUITE EXPENSIVE TO THE PUBLIC (CONSUMERS) AND CANNOT ENSURE THAT ACTUAL EMISSIONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE INTO THE ENVIRONMENT ARE INDEED REDUCED, SINCE A CAP & TRADE REGIME SIMPLY INVOLVES ONLY 'PAPER ACCOUNTING ENTRIES' THAT REFLECT 'OFFSETS' OF FICTITIOUS CARBON CREDITS CALCULATED IN RELATIONSHIP TO A REGULATORY LIMIT, WITH ACTUAL CALCULATED EMISSIONS. THE CANDIDATES' CAP & TRADE PLANS DO NOT SPECIFY HOW SUCH CALCULATIONS CAN AND WILL BE VERIFIED. ONE NEED ONLY LOOK TO THE SELF-ADMITTED FAILURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION'S CARBON DIOXIDE CAP & TRADE SYSTEM]


None of the Democrats trust the market to do the job by itself. All would make major investments in cleaner fuels and delivery systems, including coal-fired power plants capable of capturing carbon emissions and storing them underground. Every Democrat except Mr. Kucinich says that carbon-free nuclear power has to be part of the mix, although all are careful to say that safety issues and other concerns must first be resolved.


Internationally, the Democrats say they would seek a new global accord on reducing emissions to replace and improve upon the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Winning agreement among more than 180 nations will be slow-going, so several candidates, including Mrs. Clinton, have suggested jump-starting the process by bringing together the big emitters like China very early in their administrations. China and the United States together produce about 40 percent of the world’s total emissions and neither has agreed to binding reductions.


The only Republican candidate who comes close to the Democrats with a plan for addressing climate change is John McCain, one of the authentic pioneers on the issue in the Senate. In 2003, along with Joseph Lieberman, Mr. McCain introduced the first Senate bill aimed at mandatory economy-wide reductions in emissions of 65 percent by midcentury. He also regularly addresses the subject on the campaign trail.


The other leading Republican candidates — Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee — talk about energy issues almost exclusively in the context of freeing America from its dependence on foreign oil. All promote nuclear power, embrace energy efficiency and promise greener technologies. Only Mr. Huckabee has dared raise the idea of government regulation, embracing, at least theoretically, the idea of a mandatory cap on emissions. The rest prefer President Bush’s cost-free and demonstrably inadequate voluntary approach, which essentially asks industry to do what it can to reduce emissions.


So far, the Democratic candidates seem more engaged with the issue than some of their interrogators in the news media. In a recent study, the League of Conservation Voters found that as of two weeks ago, the five main political talk-show hosts had collectively asked 2,275 questions of candidates in both parties. Only 24 of the questions even touched on climate change.


One result is that even the candidates who urge comprehensive change have not been pressed on important questions of cost: How do they intend to pay for all the new efficiencies and technologies that will be necessary? And what kind of sacrifices will they be asking of people who almost certainly will have to pay more for their electric bills and their greener cars?


[THESE ARE EXCELLENT QUESTIONS THAT DESERVE HONEST ANSWERS, WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN FORTHCOMING]


Addressing these questions will require more courage of the candidates than simply offering up broad new visions. The voters deserve an honest accounting and the candidates should be prepared to give it.

Green Companies Aim to Save the World at Consumers' Expense

Bye, Bye Light Bulb - If Only Microsoft Could Argue its Competitors Hurt the Environment


http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110011070


Opinion Journal of the Wall Street Journal


REGULATION WATCH


BY BRIAN M. CARNEY


Wednesday, January 2, 2008 12:01 a.m. EST


Just like that--like flipping a switch--Congress and the president banned incandescent light bulbs last month. OK, they did not exactly ban them.


But the energy bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush sets energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs that traditional incandescent bulbs cannot meet.


The new rules phase in starting in 2012, but don't be lulled by that five-year delay. Whether it's next week or next decade, you will one day walk into a hardware store looking for a 100-watt bulb--and there won't be any.


By 2014, the new efficiency standards will apply to 75-watt, 60-watt and 40-watt bulbs too.


Representatives of Philips and General Electric, two of the biggest lightbulb makers [$$$], say there's nothing to be concerned about. And Larry Lauck of the American Lighting Association says, "I think everyone's pretty happy" with the new law.


But then, the lighting industry has no reason not to be: People will need light, whatever the law says--according to Randy Moorehead of Philips, there are four billion standard-size (or "medium base") light sockets in America alone.


So if you're GE or Philips or Sylvania, the demise of the plain vanilla lightbulb is less a threat than an opportunity--an opportunity, in particular, to replace a product that you can sell for 50 cents with one that sells for $3 or more. [$$$$$]


Yes, the $3 bulb lasts longer. Yes, it cuts your electricity bill. Mr. Moorehead says that when every one of those four billion light sockets has an energy-saving bulb in it, the country will be saving $18 billion a year on its electric bill. That's $4.50 per bulb--and the bulb makers are standing by to make sure a substantial portion of those "savings" get transformed into profits for them. [$$$]


Now it may be that those bulbs are worth more--because they last longer, etc. But some of those bulbs, like compact fluorescents and Philips' new "Halogena-IR" bulb, are already available. Currently they command all of 5% of the lightbulb market. That means that, whatever value proposition GE and Philips are selling, consumers aren't buying.


What we bulb buyers needed, it seemed, was a little nudge. Or, if you want to be cynical about it, the bulb business decided to migrate its customers to more-expensive--and presumably higher-margin--products by banning the low-cost competition.


[BULB MANUFACTURER LOBBYING TANTAMOUNT TO DISGUISED PROTECTIONISM WITHIN DOMESTIC U.S. & GLOBAL MARKETPLACE]


"I was kind of involved at the very beginning" of this legislation, Mr. Moorehead says modestly".
Indeed, in December 2006, Philips announced a campaign to encourage governments all around the world to phase out low-cost bulbs by 2015.


[IS THIS THE NEW 'GREEN ECONOMY' WHICH SENATORS CLINTON & OBAMA SPEAK OF? HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST $$$ ORDINARY AMERICANS?????]


Now, I'm sure that Philips and GE and Sylvania all want to make the world a better place and so on. But if they can do so while at the same time getting the government to force their customers to pay 10 times as much for their products, well . . . did they mention that they're making the world a better place?


[THIS IS MARKETING GENIUS!!! PERSUADE GOVERNMENT THAT THEY NEED TO CARVE OUT A NEW MORE PROFITABLE MARKET NICHE BECAUSE THE MARKET CAN'T ACHIEVE THIS RESULT BY ITSELF!!!]


The light bulb that costs 10 times as much does, it is true, last four times as long. But if you're a lightbulb maker, that's a pretty good trade.


[ACTUALLY, IF YOU ARE A LIGHTBULB MAKER, THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD TRICK!!!]


If you're a consumer, you have to decide that for yourself. Except that, after the ban, you won't be allowed to any more. You just got traded up, forcibly, to a "better" product.


[ACTUALLY, IF YOU'RE A CONSUMER, YOU ARE LIKE CHARLIE BROWN, 'OUT OF LUCK'!!]


What's remarkable about this bit of market interference is that there is, basically, nothing wrong with the present-day, Edison-style lightbulb. It's not a lawn dart or a lead-painted toy or a magnet that will perforate your kid's intestines if he swallows it. It is what it is, and for most people in most applications, it was good enough. So the lightbulb makers and the environmentalists convinced Congress to ban them for no better reason than they believed everyone would be better off with something else.



Note that the lightbulb makers didn't need a ban to convince consumers to "upgrade."Microsoft, Dell, Apple and any number of other companies manage to convince the Joneses that they need a better "one"--whatever it is--every few years.


If Philips wanted a Halogena-IR bulb in every socket, it had only to put them on the market at a price that made them irresistible compared to the 50-cent bulb of yore. Likewise with the much hailed compact fluorescent. They have been on the market a good deal longer than Philips's fancy new incandescent. The prices have come down and the quality has gone up. But not, apparently, enough for 95% of the bulb-buying public.


A few years back, one could have argued with a straight face that consumer awareness of the benefits of CFLs was inadequate. No more. The sticking point lies at that ineffable nexus between price and quality--with all that "quality" implies, whether it be service life, the delay between flicking the switch and full power, or color temperature or the look of the thing.


There are billions to be made--and spent--figuring out how to get consumers to pay more for something. This year Steve Jobs convinced a million people to pay $400 for a cell phone in a market in which many people believe that the phone should come free with a service contract.


But why worry about making a product so good people feel they have to have it, when you can instead get the government to tell them they have no choice?


Don't fault the bulb makers for this. If Microsoft could get a law passed requiring users to upgrade Windows, they'd probably go for it, too. Same with Detroit--"Buy a hybrid, or else!" would probably suit them fine.


But do remember this the next time a company goes to Washington to save the world: They'll end up doing it at your expense.


Mr. Carney is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.

Mindless Green UK Mandates Make Migraines A Medical Concern

Energy-Saving Light Bulbs Blamed for Migraines


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/03/eabulb103.xml


Telegraph.co.uk


By Laura Clout


Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 03/01/2008


The energy-saving light bulbs that will be made compulsory in homes in a few years can trigger migraines, campaigners have claimed. The Migraine Action Association (MAA) said some of its members alleged the fluorescent bulbs had led to attacks of the powerful headaches. Some energy-saving bulbs may trigger headaches.


By 2011, Britain will be the first European country to phase out traditional bulbs as part of a strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The MAA is calling on the Government to avoid a complete ban on old-style bulbs, by providing an opt-out for people with health problems. Last year it was claimed that the "green" bulbs can cause people with epilepsy to experience symptoms similar to the early stages of a fit.


There have also been complaints from people with lupus, a chronic immune disease that causes pain and extreme tiredness. Low energy light bulbs use only a quarter of the energy consumed by traditional versions and are estimated to save 2,000 times their weight in greenhouse gases. They are often five times more expensive but the greater efficiency means they can pay for themselves within months. Several versions use a technology similar to fluorescent strip lights and some migraine sufferers say they produce a flickering effect that triggers their condition.


Karen Manning, from the MAA, said: "When the Government announced that traditional light bulbs would be phased out, we were inundated with over 200 calls and emails from members who said the flickering had caused migraines."This is a debilitating condition which can often leave people bed-ridden for days."The bulbs do not necessarily affect every sufferer, but we are talking about up to six million people in the UK who suffer migraines - so this is a serious concern.


"We would ask the Government to avoid banning them completely and leave some opportunity for conventional bulbs to be purchased."The Lighting Association, which represents manufacturers, denied that modern designs produced a flicker.A spokesman said: "A small number of cases have been reported by people who suffer from reactions to certain types of linear fluorescent lamps. These were almost certainly triggered by old technology."