E-petition on the No. 10 Downing Street website

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to levy a tax on energy inefficient light bulbs so that their long term financial and environmental cost is visible in their retail price.

EDM: Cross-party support for the Ban The Bulb campaign

At present the EDM's signatories include:

Conservative Party: Derek Conway, Bob Spink + Edward Vaizey

Democratic Unionist Party: Dr William McCrea, Iris Robinson + David Simpson

Labour Party: Martin Caton, Jeremy Corbyn, Ann Cryer, Janet Dean, David Drew, Jeff Ennis, Bill Etherington, Paul Flynn, Kelvin Hopkins, Brian Jenkins, Lynne Jones, John McDonnell, Jim McGovern, Martin Salter, Alan Simpson, Rudi Vis + Betty Williams

Liberal Democrats: Tom Brake, Colin Breed, Annette Brooke, Edward Davey, Timothy Farron, Lynne Featherstone, Evan Harris, John Hemming, Paul Holmes, Paul Keetch, John Leech, Paul Rowen, Andrew Stunell, Mark Williams, Stephen Williams + Phil Willis

Plaid Cymru: Hywel Williams

Scottish National Party: Mike Weir and

Social Democratic + Labour Party: Mark Durkan.

EDM 2656: That this House notes the problems caused by increasing energy demands, including rising energy costs, reduced energy security and climate change; recognises that improved energy efficiency is the cheapest way for the UK to reduce energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions; welcomes the Ban the Bulb campaign, which aims to increase the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs; and calls on the Government to help main-stream energy efficient lifestyles by granting energy saving goods and services the same 5 per cent. VAT rate as condoms, strengthening UK building regulations and making energy efficiency a key criteria in all Government procurement.

Update: 13 Nov : Two more MPs have signed up!

Liberal Democrats: Martin Horwood + Greg Mulholland

Hansard: a written answer on merits of banning bulbs

Light Bulbs

Mr. McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will assess the merits of instituting a ban on the sale of incandescent light bulbs. [92383]

Ian Pearson: The Government are committed to using all suitable policy instruments to remove the least efficient products from UK markets. Our current assessment is that, by removing ordinary incandescent light bulbs (GLS bulbs) from the UK market and encouraging sales of the most efficient alternatives, we could avoid approximately one million tonnes of carbon emissions per year by 2020.

The UK cannot unilaterally ban or prevent the free trade in products such as incandescent light bulbs on the basis of their energy efficiency. However, the Government are pressing the European Commission to make light-bulbs a priority for regulatory action under the recently agreed Eco-Design for Energy Using Products (EUP) framework directive. We are also discussing with retailers and manufacturers how we can remove inefficient lighting products from UK shelves in advance of regulations.

Reader : tax based on wattage x life time of product

Dear Matt,

I've been thinking about the fact that the problem to be tackled is an "up-front cost" one. From that side, the only way to smooth the up-front cost of a CFL versus an incandescent bulb is by incorporating the full-life cycle cost in the price. At present we have a good example of market failure.

I think it would be more equitable to calculate the appropriate level of tax that should imposed on an electricity using product according to all of the carbon emissions generated by a device during its life-cycle. That is,

bulb estimated life : 1000h
consumption : 100W
makes 100kWh.

CFL estimated life : 6000h
consumption : 20W
makes 120kWh.

Considering the fact that you'll need 6 incandescent bulbs, over time that adds 600 vs 120. This plays against taxing just for the sake of it.

I've recently read the following Market Transformation Programme article (http://www.mtprog.com/SelectProductStrategy.aspx?intSelection=4&intSector=4).

The scenarios remain crystal clear albeit the taxation appears to me a bit arbitrary. Why 50p, and not 30p? or 72p?

The mechanism I have suggested based on lifetime emissions would drive people to get the least consuming device they needed.

It could also be applied to some sort of mathematics linked to the price of the emission of CO2. Therefore, the measure could be more easily "translated to average Joe".