You Are Here:
Why is Greenpeace calling the incandescent bulb a 'hazardous product'?
Climate change is now the most serious environmental threat to the planet and its inhabitants. It is caused mainly by burning fossil fuels that release CO2 into the atmosphere. A major emitter of CO2 is the burning of coal to produce electricity. Any product that wastes energy is therefore a climate killer and hazardous. Up to 95% of the energy used by an incandescent bulb is wasted as heat. That’s why Greenpeace considers it to be a hazardous product.
Do we need to ban the bulb? Can we just make the purchase of the CFLs more attractive?
We have a very small window of opportunity to save ourselves and our future generations from the devastating impacts of climate change. There is no time for half measures. Making CFLs more attractive will not lead to a time bound and quick phase out of the hugely inefficient incandescent bulb.
CFLs are about 10 times more expensive than incandescent bulbs. Are they worth it?
Yes. The CFL will actually SAVE you money in comparison to an incandescent bulb. A CFL lasts 10 times longer and consumes 80% less electricity than the ordinary bulb. You will recover the cost of the CFL in approximately 4 months from savings in your power bill!
How can poor people afford CFLs?
This problem can be solved. Many state governments and power utilities are already implementing schemes where they collect payments in installments and in some cases even distribute CFLs free of cost or at subsidised rates. In fact, the utilities can actually profit by distributing free CFLs, because electricity saved by the household sector allows the power utility to sell this to the commercial sector at higher rates.
By banning the bulb aren't you taking away my right to choose?
Individual liberty should not mean the right to jeopardise the future of the planet and our children’s futures. In society, for our own well being,we accept that certain practices and products are dangerous and therefore need to be banned. The time has come to ban the ordinary bulb.
Isn’t it true that CFLs contain mercury that is toxic?
CFLs contain mercury vapour. Manufacturers claim that the content is now down to 2 to 5 mg per lamp. Mercury is toxic and therefore Governments must implement laws that enforce recycling of CFLs and also push manufacturers to find safer alternatives and phase out the use of mercury. Considering the threat from climate change, this is a relatively smaller problem that can be tackled. Greenpeace is demanding that the government implement a take back and safe recycling policy for CFLs.
Climate change is now the most serious environmental threat to the planet and its inhabitants. It is caused mainly by burning fossil fuels that release CO2 into the atmosphere. A major emitter of CO2 is the burning of coal to produce electricity. Any product that wastes energy is therefore a climate killer and hazardous. Up to 95% of the energy used by an incandescent bulb is wasted as heat. That’s why Greenpeace considers it to be a hazardous product.
Do we need to ban the bulb? Can we just make the purchase of the CFLs more attractive?
We have a very small window of opportunity to save ourselves and our future generations from the devastating impacts of climate change. There is no time for half measures. Making CFLs more attractive will not lead to a time bound and quick phase out of the hugely inefficient incandescent bulb.
CFLs are about 10 times more expensive than incandescent bulbs. Are they worth it?
Yes. The CFL will actually SAVE you money in comparison to an incandescent bulb. A CFL lasts 10 times longer and consumes 80% less electricity than the ordinary bulb. You will recover the cost of the CFL in approximately 4 months from savings in your power bill!
How can poor people afford CFLs?
This problem can be solved. Many state governments and power utilities are already implementing schemes where they collect payments in installments and in some cases even distribute CFLs free of cost or at subsidised rates. In fact, the utilities can actually profit by distributing free CFLs, because electricity saved by the household sector allows the power utility to sell this to the commercial sector at higher rates.
By banning the bulb aren't you taking away my right to choose?
Individual liberty should not mean the right to jeopardise the future of the planet and our children’s futures. In society, for our own well being,we accept that certain practices and products are dangerous and therefore need to be banned. The time has come to ban the ordinary bulb.
Isn’t it true that CFLs contain mercury that is toxic?
CFLs contain mercury vapour. Manufacturers claim that the content is now down to 2 to 5 mg per lamp. Mercury is toxic and therefore Governments must implement laws that enforce recycling of CFLs and also push manufacturers to find safer alternatives and phase out the use of mercury. Considering the threat from climate change, this is a relatively smaller problem that can be tackled. Greenpeace is demanding that the government implement a take back and safe recycling policy for CFLs.
