Hi Ivan and Martin,
I am still against a ban. It just gets peoples back up. We all seem O.K. without
incandescants but some people are not. When the first non incandescant passes the incandescant Turin
test - then maybe we should consider the options.
Martin I totally disagree with looking at things in isolation. An ad-hoc fragmented approach just absorbs
time and money with poor results.
A way to nudge behaviour in the "right" direction would be :-
Tax incandescants adding 10p tax every three months. This would not ban them and still allow freedom of
choice. after 10 years the tax would be £4 per bulb. Hopefully by this time a decent replacement at a
decent price would exist. And we have a gently rising price not a shock to customers or producers. Giving
both time to switch to alternatives.
Use the considerable amout of money raised to produce the result required. Use it to fund research at
universities for new lighting technologies and manufacturing technologies. Aim to be the world leader
in super efficient lighting. Manufacture in the U.K. and license the technology world wide.
Considering the considerable time spent by Eurocrats banning incandescants this is a far better way to
produce energy savings. Maybe the Eurocrats should concentrate on finding a way to nudge people into buying fewer cars. This would be 10,000 times more effective. Also Nudge remaining owners to drive less miles.
One mile in a car uses 1 kWh approx. Car sharing encourage as much as possible. One day a week working
from home would save 1000's time more than a light bulb ban.
Our politicians increased car production using the car scrappage scheme.

It seems our leaders lack imagination !
Regards Richard