14 DAY TRIAL // After the recent ban that the European Union placed on incandescent light bulbs, a statistics report, formulated by the Worldwatch Institute, shows that the electricity consumption could indeed decrease by more than 40 percent Union-wide, if conventional bulbs are eliminated altogether and carbon fluorescent light (CFL) is used exclusively. By 2030, these savings would translate into about 16.6 billion tons of carbon kept out of the atmosphere.
The main issue with CFLs is that they can emit a large quantity of mercury in the environment, if they are disposed of improperly. However, scientists argue that the levels of this dangerous chemical are less likely to surpass the current mercury output, coming from coal-powered power plants, which are still primarily used to generate electricity. Ecologists argue that the environment will be far better off with the wide use of CFL than the conventional illumination method.
Aggressive recycling projects are mandatory for this substance, and they will have to be designed at a scale never-before encountered. Virtually anywhere in the world, collecting points will have to be set up, which may prove to be a daunting task, both from an economic and an infrastructural perspective. However, they are absolutely necessary if mercury-poisoning is to be averted.
Introducing this type of lighting is a serious challenge for authorities worldwide. While in developed countries, such as the US or Canada, the incentive for change is the concern for the environment, in developing countries the situation is very different. Here, the economic incentive is dominant, because people cannot afford to pay extra for a fluorescent bulb.
That's why education campaigns have already begun in some nations, aimed at evidencing the benefits of using CFLs. Their long life (compared to that of a conventional incandescent bulb) and low-energy consumption levels mean less costs for electrical power, which, in a short period of time, can easily offset the initial cost of the investment.