Holy Hypocrisy!! UK Proselytizes About Climate Change, But Can't Even Meet its Own Carbon Commitments!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4009254.ece

UK CO2 emissions rise faster than EU average despite carbon-trading scheme

By David Charter

Times Online

May 27, 2008

Britain pumped out more greenhouse gases last year under the EU carbon trading scheme designed to cut emissions, according to figures released in Brussels.

The British increase was 2.2 per cent. There was an overall increase across Europe of 0.68 per cent, or 16million tonnes of CO2. Emissions rose in ten of the EU's 27 countries, including Germany and Spain, despite the scheme's target to cut CO2 by a fifth by 2020.

Ministers argued that the extra 5.4 million tonnes of CO2 produced in Britain could be more than explained by 59 organisations joining the trading scheme, in which polluters are given carbon credits and forced to buy more if they emit beyond their allocation.

They added that when the scheme is revamped next year, there will be tougher controls on the number of credits available. Phil Woolas, the Environment Minister, said that without the new entrants into the scheme, emissions would have gone down by 2.9 million tonnes. “Companies are taking their responsibilities seriously and carbon reduction and trading has become a normal part of their business,” he said.

But environmental campaigners said that the figures, combined with plans for more coal-fired power stations, showed that the carbon-trading scheme was not tough enough to meet reduction targets.

“The only thing that matters is how much CO2 is going into the atmosphere,” said Robin Oakley, head of Greenpeace's climate campaign. “It does not sound credible to call the emissions-trading scheme a success when we have seen a proposal for a new coal-fired power station in Kent. It is not sending a strong enough signal to the power companies.”

Stavros Dimas, the EU Environment Commissioner, said that the rise in emissions was below the 2.8 per cent rise in Europe's GDP last year. “Emissions trading is yielding results,” he said. “Studies show that emissions would most likely have been significantly higher without the EU emission trading scheme.”

The biggest rises in tonnage of CO2 in 2007 came in Germany (up 8.99 million tonnes), Spain (up 6.79 million tonnes), Britain (up 5.42 million tonnes) and Czech Republic (up 4.21 million tonnes).

Yesterday a committee of MPs told the Government to go ahead with a system of personal “carbon credits”.

Under the scheme everybody would be given an annual carbon limit. Anyone who wanted to spend more could buy extra credits from low-carbon emitters.

The Environmental Audit Committee said it would be more effective than green taxes and would promote behavioural change. It admitted that there would be strong public opposition but urged the Government to be courageous.

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."