Anger at EU light bulb ban

Who crushed the incandescent bulb?

The EU, which in March 2007 agreed to phase out incandescent light bulbs by 2012. Proponents say that the old bulbs waste most of their energy (95 per cent) on heat, use up four times more electricity than the new breed of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and are bad for the environment. Artificial light accounts for 19 per cent of the world's electricity consumption, producing 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, about 5 per cent of the global total. By switching its bulbs, Britain hopes to save a million tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, the equivalent of taking more than 150,000 cars off the roads. And if all the light bulbs in Europe are changed to energy-saving models, the continent will reduce its CO2 output by as much as 50m tonnes a year: equivalent to planting 10m acres of forest.

So how is it being done?

Each member state can choose its own path. Here, the Government has asked retailers to help bring about a voluntary switch-over. Last year, the 150-watt bulb was scrapped; this year, stocks of 100W and 75W bulbs will be run down; 60W bulbs, commonly used for table and reading lamps, will be phased out in early 2010. All incandescent bulbs will be banned by 2012, and from 2016, those who deal in old light bulbs will be committing a criminal offence. But the phase-out of the 100W and 75W bulbs has led to a stampede as consumers try to stockpile the old bulbs before the ban comes into effect. In many parts of the country it is now almost impossible to buy 100W or 75W incandescent bulbs.

Who came up with the bright idea of incandescent bulbs?

The glory usually goes to the American Thomas Edison, but it was the Briton Humphry Davy who, in 1802, created the first incandescent light by passing electrical current through a strip of platinum, a metal with a very high melting point. The light this gave was not bright or long-lasting enough to be practical, but it inspired dozens of inventors over the next 80 years. In February 1879, English chemist Joseph Swan revealed his invention: an enclosed bulb from which all air had been removed, with platinum lead wires and a light-emitting element made from carbon. Edison displayed his own bulb - with its famous 'filament' (the super-thin wire whose high electrical resistance generates a bright light) - six months later. It needed far less current than Swan's, but Swan's patents were strong enough to win in British courts, and, in 1883, the Edison and Swan companies merged into the Edison and Swan United Electric Company.

What are the alternatives?

Most common is the CFL (compact fluorescent lamp), a coiled-up version of the strip lights found in offices. Rather than heating a metal filament, the electric current passes through a mixture of inert gases and mercury, producing a glow. Critics say the bulbs are ugly, expensive and simply not bright enough, that they take up to two minutes to warm up and that even then, the light given out has a blueish, harsh quality, unlike the warm glow of a traditional bulb. It's also said that CFLs flicker, causing headaches, eye strain, even seizures. And there's concern about the use of mercury, a substance the EU has otherwise banned as highly toxic, creating serious problems with disposal.

What does the Government say?

That it's time to use less energy. The Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra), which is overseeing the change, says low-energy light bulbs are a "great way to help the environment and save money". Because the new bulbs use less energy and last around 12 times longer than traditional ones, replacing a 100W one can save £60 over the new bulb's lifetime. Defra points out that the newest generation of CFL bulbs operate on a higher frequency than earlier models, which means a constant, flicker-free light. And as for concerns about mercury, Defra advises the public to take the new bulbs to council recycling plants, where they will be disposed of by specialist companies.

Are these cost and energy savings estimates reliable?

Not necessarily, argues Michael Hanlon in the Daily Mail. If a CFL is switched on and off frequently, it can shorten the working life of its electronic circuits. To reach full brightness at maximum efficiency, CFLs need to be left on for long periods, a bit like car engines. This negates any CO2 savings if light is only needed for a short time. Others challenge their energy-saving credentials, pointing out that the excess heat produced by incandescent bulbs is useful in a frequently cold country like Britain.

Has any other country banned incandescent bulbs?

Cuba was the first to implement a ban, in 2005; Brazil and Venezuela followed suit - then Australia, Italy, Switzerland and Canada began their own phase-outs; in 2007, the US Congress passed legislation that will consign incandescent bulbs to history by 2014. But many remain sceptical. The LA Times chose CFL bulbs ("a light source that does not render colour or texture") as one of the "bad design trends we hope die in 2009".

Can we learn to love them?

You can make CFLs warmer by using coloured shades; the latest versions can now be dimmed. Besides, CFLs are not the only option; far better mercury-free LED lights are on their way. In any case, argues David Randall in the Independent, much of the resistance is based on our old friend, fear of change. "The spirit of 1940 is being invoked" by papers like the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, he says. "The forces of eco-scepticism, anti-Europeanism, and those who oppose the Nanny State, have mustered. The cry has gone out that this is Lighting Correctness Gone Mad." In the end, the reaction to the new bulbs is not that different to the reaction when incandescent bulbs became widespread a century ago. They were considered dangerous (a permanent risk of electrocution) and far too bright for any respectable household. ·