Why we take a dim view on being forced to accept energy-saving ideas

HOW many Greens does it take to change the entire nation’s light bulbs? Just one. Minister for the Environment John Gormley is the man about to pull off that remarkable feat.

He is also the chap who is leading a 19-strong delegation that is representing the country at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, of all places, but we’ll get to that later.

Mr Gormley has decreed, in the first “carbon budget”, that from January 2009 it won’t be possible to buy an incandescent light bulb, the type that most of you light your homes with. Instead, you will have to purchase a CFL or LCD lightbulb, at a potentially much higher price, every time you want to replace a blown bulb.

Mr Gormley believes this will promote the more efficient use of electricity in our homes, as these different bulbs burn less energy to prove light.

So far, so good and all apparently logical. But whether it is accepted by the public is another thing entirely.

It is the small things that often get people outraged. This is going to be controversial for a number of reasons. One is the cost. While it is possible to buy relatively cheap CFL and LCD bulbs, some of the better ones are far more expensive. For some people the price of replacing a lightbulb will become an issue.

Another is the quality of the light offered by the alternative bulbs. The light provided by many is different, far duller than what you may be used to having. The bulbs may take some time to light up. Many of the bulbs don’t work on dimmer switches. It can be very difficult to find bulbs that work properly with down-lighters.

They don’t always offer the long life as claimed either. The technology is improving all the time of course, but whether it will be to everyone’s satisfaction by 13 months’ time is another matter.

Some people are going to be upset by the elimination of choice, given that this decision is being forced upon them. Greens can cite the plastic bags levy and the banning of smoking in the workplace as examples of potentially unpopular measures that won widespread acceptance. But while many people understood the logic that it is better not to use plastic bags because they don’t disintegrate, and that it was financially more worthwhile to invest in a permanent bag, they were left with the choice. They could suffer the financial penalty of buying a plastic bag if they so chose.

The smoking ban provided a disincentive to smoke, but there is indisputable scientific evidence to show that smoking causes lung cancer and the purchase of cigarettes remains legal because it is something that people choose to do.

But the decision about using more efficient light bulbs is not going to be left up to the public, because Mr Gormley has decided to eliminate choice. The impact of this from a climate change viewpoint is doubtful.

I am not denying climate change. There clearly is something going on with climate that is going to require an innovative and perhaps ingenious response by humankind to protect standards of living and indeed many lives too. Anything we can do to prevent unnecessary damage should be done.

But I remember as a child during the 1970s being struck by apocalyptic stories of a looming Ice Age because of climate change. More recently, I remember being sceptical about the overwhelming consensus that the so-called Millennium Bug was going to destroy all computers at the turn of the century and not being surprised when it turned out to be hyped out of all proportion, costing computer owners a fortune.

The Green movement in Ireland has failed to convince people of the seriousness of climate change, notwithstanding the regular media hyping of reports by international scientific groups, including the one that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Proof of that was the very disappointing performance of the Green Party in the general election, when it expected to get a much higher vote and far more than six seats.

Yet the Greens are in power and the Government is going to spend €15 million over five years telling us of the need to reform our habits, particularly our energy consumption, if the planet is to be “saved”. The Greens talk in those sorts of terms, the Irish version of the evangelical religious movement in the bible belt of the southern states of the US.

Primarily Bertie Ahern wanted the Greens in government to give him sufficient numbers for a large enough Dáil majority to withstand crisis more easily. It is a tactic that has worked brilliantly so far, especially as the public has rained ire on the Greens for defending the very things they once reviled, such as political corruption and excessive pay.

But I suspect that Mr Ahern also realised that this country would come under international pressure to be seen to be doing something about tackling climate change. So who better to take the rap for unpopular measures that the Greens?

The lightbulbs idea might actually be a good one and there is little doubt that the Green-imposed directive on improving building standards — to insist on heat retention — is a long overdue, progressive measure. But there remains the impression that Fianna Fáil will be very slow to agree to more controversial measures, such as the introduction of a carbon tax.

There has been much talk in the last week, for example, about the introduction of carbon-based motor taxes and a new system of vehicle registration tax from July 1, 2008. A far more effective system would be based on fuel usage and mileage but it’s most unlikely to happen because of the uproar that would come from people who are forced, by reason of where they live and the absence of public transport, to drive long distances.

Finance Minister Brian Cowen does not give off the air of a man utterly convinced by the climate change crisis. One of his more memorable pre-election contributions included a Questions and Answers comment that on a 24-hour clock Ireland’s contribution to climate change made up about seven seconds.

It might do more good to argue for changed behaviour on the basis of our over-dependence on oil, the price of which is likely to continue to rise, so we need to consume less or find alternatives.

Meanwhile, the Irish delegation that has flown to Bali is apparently adding 100,000 tonnes to carbon emissions. However, the Government is purchasing carbon offsets, paying a form of international tax in other words, to compensate. It is hardly Mr Gormley’s fault that exotic Bali has been chosen as the venue for this conference, which hopes to set down a template for further conferences about a successor to the Kyoto Agreement. Whether the delegation needed to be 19-strong is another matter.

Whether Kyoto was worth the paper it was written on is another, as is the issue of its successor. We can also make ourselves feel good about agreeing to a successor to Kyoto — the protocol the Americans are chided for not signing — but we have failed utterly to meet our own targets for carbon emissions as agreed at Kyoto.

Agriculture and industry are the major offenders in Ireland, so whether people will be persuaded that being forced to change their light bulbs is going to make a real difference is an interesting challenge for the Green ministers in government.