Trip the switch
* Illuminate eco-bulb hazards
* Don’t shell out on new-fangled lighting
* Start a health scare
* Switch off the lights for good
You despair sometimes. Some days it feels like everyone is obsessed with protecting the planet. Green this, lentils that. As the hours wound down to Britain’s first ‘Energy Saving Day’, you began to feel oddly restless. The organizers of E-Day had begged people to switch off electrical devices which they did not need over the 24-hour period. As expected, 27th February 2008 was one of the longest days of your life. Finally, after hours of careless energy-saving, came the moment for the National Grid to announce the results. You bit your lip. But, unbelievably, it was up. Consumption was up! Despite widespread publicity from campaign groups, electricity demand was actually higher than the ‘business-as-usual’ figure. Proof, surely, that you are not alone in not giving a f**k. Coming so soon after Live Earth’s laughably poor audience figures, it was another development to celebrate.
But the government still seemed determined to ascertain for itself whether its public cared about all things green or whether, like them, it just talked a good game. It knew that almost a quarter of a home’s electricity goes towards keeping on the lights. As a tester, it announced that it was going to ban traditional tungsten bulbs and replace them with the aesthetically challenged compact fluorescent light. The genius of Thomas Edison was recast as a crime against the climate and another means by which politicians could tell you how to run your own homes. It was a vital moment: if the British public decided to embrace the move, the first genuine steps towards a low-carbon economy would have been made. It was the thin end of the wedge. You are concerned that a comprehensive, well-planned energy-efficiency campaign might follow, a campaign that actually might make a difference. Somehow, this great light switch must be flicked off and Britain must be forced to stay in the dark ages.
It seemed a thankless task. You had frittered away hours trying to hatch up a plan that might stop what the Sun had termed ‘the great light switch’. It was difficult to make the introduction of these bulbs seem anything other than reasonable. Normal light bulbs use just 5 per cent of their energy to illuminate, while eco-bulbs are sparing by comparison and last six times longer. How to stop the scheme from succeeding? The blinding flash came when you learned that these new-fangled bulbs had been known to poison family homes – the entire British population could die if they were given the go-ahead. Bingo! By some minor miracle you discovered that the great ‘clean’ eco-lights were actually powered by one of the most heinous toxins on the planet. Exposure to even a tiny amount of mercury could trigger severe effects on the human’s central nervous system. Teeth would become loosened, and hypertrophied gums bleed easily. Shucks.
Government advice was characteristically non-alarmist. Evacuate the room immediately if the bulb of a compact flourescent light should fall to the floor and break; under no circumstance use a vacuum cleaner to clear up the mess, as the machine’s sucking action could spread toxic mercury droplets around the house and, better still, contaminate nearby water supplies if allowed to escape outside. This was green fascism at its finest: not only could the plan prove harmful to you and the environment, but in an era of eco-guilt, no one had a choice.
What were you to do? With exquisite timing, news broke of another health warning: doctors announced that intact bulbs aggravated a range of ailments, such as dizziness. Not to be outdone, the Migraine Action Association weighed in, alleging that eco-lights had prompted a wave of the agonizing headaches. Six million people in the UK suffer from migraines. A national scandal was in the making, and it could only get worse. Green bulbs, explained the next health warning, could induce epileptic fits in sufferers. Next up were complaints from sufferers of lupus, a chronic immune disease that prompts pain and extreme lethargy. Yet the real coup de grâce was still to materialize…
The British Association of Dermatologists provided the killer blow, explaining that low-energy lighting could make people look crap. In a superficial world, little rivals the power of vanity. Environmentalists can witter on about polar bears all day, but if they learn that something might make their cheeks sag or go a bit spotty, then it’s a different story. So when a leading dermatologist announced that tens of thousands of people with skin complaints might risk exposing their flaws by going near the bulbs, it was effectively curtains for the government’s green dream. People were being ordered to switch to something that might save them half a penny on their bills but in return they would look rubbish. Sacrifice your chance of pulling for the needs of the planet? Not a hope in hell. Dermatologists warned that the lights could cause conditions such as eczema to flare up. Another 340,000 people with photo-sensitive skin could be affected by the first step towards an environmentally aware Britain. Rashes were a risk. Most people would rather live in an oven than risk developing a rash. And, finally – hallelujah! – there came the prognosis that, yep, you guessed it, eco-bulbs might lead to skin cancer, all caused right in your own home. And there wasn’t even the flipside of a tan.
Undeterred, former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, told everyone to calm down, just moments after warning that if they did not swap their bulbs his city’s residents risked ‘catastrophic climate change’. Getting into the swing of things, Livingstone then ordered a ‘light-bulb amnesty’: those who dumped their regular tungsten time bombs could avoid the electric chair. He glossed over the fact that some light fittings could not accept the new-fangled green bulbs. People would just have to compromise. Stairways would remain unlit, old people tumbling to their deaths in the darkened corridors of their homes.
It doesn’t say anything about this on the box. You welcome the news that the Environment Agency has demanded more information be made available on the health and environmental risks posed by low-energy light bulbs. Lurid health warnings printed on packaging should do the trick, you suspect. Parents need to be told. Set up a website, campaign for the public to be informed. Okay, so the planet might be warming, but do people really know what they are risking by installing eco-bulbs in the sitting room? Write to the media asking why the EU can consider banning mercury in barometers and yet happily wrap it in a fragile glass coating and sanction its arrival in your lounge. Distribute pictures of wide-eyed toddlers gazing fondly at the poisonous illuminator. People would rather get fried by the sun than subject their little ones to hypertrophied gums.
And it’s not just inside our homes that the government wants to play God. It also wants to lay down its decree in the streets. Councils are starting to trial blackouts between midnight and 5 a.m. in an attempt to meet energy targets. Your cue, then, to protest at a perceived rise in muggings, robberies, dark doings. ‘A perverts’ paradise’, you write, in one frantic missive to a local newspaper. Police can be counted on for support. Concerns over crime will always outweigh those of the environment.
There you have it: the death of energy efficiency. Fewer than three in every hundred bulbs sold is currently an eco-bulb and, as you wonder whether you actually know anyone who would risk their lives for such little gain, you wait impatiently for the next eco-bulb health warning. Impotence always works a treat.
* A small child dies after ingesting mercury from broken bulb. Complete recall ordered by safety watchdogs. Possible.
* A clean Amy Winehouse injured after falling down stairs. She blames ‘flickering’ eco-bulbs for making her lose her balance. Mass opprobrium follows. Plausible.
* Transformation to eco-lights happens without a hitch. Maybe.
* Blackout imposed by Westminster council to tackle global warming. Home secretary mugged after leaving Commons. Likely.
* The little-known Live Longer Bio-Medical Health Solutions consortium condemns the switch to eco-lights as ethically untenable. Imaginable.
Likelihood of eco-bulbs being resisted by most consumers by 2010:78%