• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
Celebrating our 1,000th edition. The climate news you need
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  FEATURED
Soaring Fertilizer Prices Could Deliver ‘Silver Lining’ For Emissions, But Farmers Struggle to Limit Use June 26, 2022
BREAKING: UN Nature Summit, the ‘Paris Conference for Biodiversity’, Moves to Montreal in December June 19, 2022
‘LET’S SUE BIG OIL’: Legal Team Launches Class Action Campaign for B.C. Municipalities June 17, 2022
‘It Could Have Been Any of Us’, Colleague Says, After Brazil Confirms Murders of Bruno Pereira, Dom Phillips June 17, 2022
Infrastructure Gap a ‘Life and Death’ Matter as Northern Canada Warms June 17, 2022
Next
Prev
Home Demand & Distribution Energy Access & Equity

Incandescent Bulbs Raise Living Costs for America’s Poorest Communities

January 31, 2022
Reading time: 3 minutes

aixklusiv/pixabay

aixklusiv/pixabay

34
SHARES
 

America’s poor pay the most to light their homes—both at the till and on their electricity bills—as lower-end retailers continue to sell the inefficient incandescent bulbs that have been replaced by energy-saving LEDs in stores serving more affluent neighbourhoods.

Not only are LED bulbs less available in poorer areas, they also cost on average $2.50 more per bulb than in wealthier communities, writes the New York Times, citing a Michigan study.

The old-fashioned, inefficient bulbs continue to prevail in dollar stores and convenience stores across America because light bulb manufacturers made a concerted effort to stall energy efficiency standards during the Trump presidency, according to the Times. These same manufacturers agreed to eliminate incandescents in the European Union. But in the United States, the Trump administration lost ground in 2019, blocking a rule meant to phase out the older bulb—calling it unnecessary and an impediment to consumer choice, according to the Times.

At the time, the wannabe reality TV star then occupying the White House objected to energy-efficient bulbs on grounds that they made his skin look orange.

Had the Trump administration not caved to industry pressure and its fearless leader’s narcissism, store shelves would have been virtually empty of incandescents by now, thanks to the incremental progress of national light bulb efficiency standards that have been on the books since 2007.

And that transformation would have meant big savings for the consumer. Citing calculations by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Times writes that over the longer life of an LED, savings can range from $50 to more than $150 per bulb—a fair chunk of change given that the average American home contains 52 bulbs.

LEDs produce savings at the meter, as well, with a typical 60-watt incandescent bulb using as much as 12 times the electricity of a five-watt LED to deliver the same amount of light.” 

Those savings add up, as well, the Times notes, given that lighting accounts for as much as a fifth of the average American household’s electricity bill—and even more for minority communities.

While the Biden administration has moved to reinstate the efficiency standards hamstrung by Trump, lobbying continues apace, with manufacturers urging more time to make the shift away from incandescents.

The Times notes that every additional month the bulbs are sold will mean $300 million in lost energy savings for American consumers and 800,000 tons (725,000 tonnes) of carbon dioxide emissions.

“That’s equivalent to emissions from almost 200,000 passenger cars driven for a year,” the Times says.

As America’s poorest neighborhoods continue to reap the consequences of Trump’s disdain for efficiency standards, UK households are paying for then-prime minister David Cameron’s short-sighted promise in 2013 to “cut the green crap”— the levies applied to energy bills to help finance the energy transition. Citing recent analysis by the Energy and Climate Intelligence United (ECIU), The Independent reports that fallout from that announcement included a sharp drop in the number of homes insulated every year across the country.

Poor insulation translates into a spike of around £170 (roughly C$290) on individual home heating bills when energy prices rise this spring.

Had home insulation continued at its pre-Cameron pace, UK homeowners would have saved £1.5 billion this coming fiscal year, an equivalent of C$2.5 billion.



in Buildings, Climate Denial & Greenwashing, Demand & Efficiency, Demographics, Ending Emissions, Energy Access & Equity, Energy Politics, Legal & Regulatory, United States

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

David/flickr
United States

U.S. Supreme Court Expected to Gut Emission Controls as Climate Scientists Petition for Plan B

June 26, 2022
1
pxhere
Environmental Justice

Environmental Racism Bill Passes Second Reading in House of Commons

June 26, 2022
1
Graco/Facebook
Food Security

Soaring Fertilizer Prices Could Deliver ‘Silver Lining’ For Emissions, But Farmers Struggle to Limit Use

June 26, 2022
2

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

The federal government's Cliff Street Power Plant is at the centre of Ottawa's plans to reduce natural gas demand. Photo: PWGSC

EXCLUSIVE: Ontario Regulator Refuses New Pipeline, Tells Enbridge to Plan for Lower Gas Demand

May 30, 2022
5.2k
Jason Woodhead/Flickr

Trans Mountain Pipeline On Track to Lose $600 Million, Parliamentary Budget Officer Finds

June 24, 2022
341
Ben_Kerckx/Pixabay

Plastics Cited as ‘Fossil Industry’s Plan B’ as Guilbeault Announces Partial Ban

June 24, 2022
219
Bruce Reeve/Flickr

Opinion: Ontario’s New ‘Carbon Tax’ Looks Like the One Doug Ford Fought

June 7, 2022
1.6k
eloialferez66/pixnio

Toronto’s New Backyard Homes Will Help Fight Sprawl

June 24, 2022
70
Greg Goebel/Wikimedia Commons

Canadian Pension Board Invests $141M in Chinese Coal Projects, Undercutting Federal Phaseout Policy

July 29, 2020
2.3k

Recent Posts

David/flickr

U.S. Supreme Court Expected to Gut Emission Controls as Climate Scientists Petition for Plan B

June 26, 2022
1
pxhere

Environmental Racism Bill Passes Second Reading in House of Commons

June 26, 2022
1
Graco/Facebook

Soaring Fertilizer Prices Could Deliver ‘Silver Lining’ For Emissions, But Farmers Struggle to Limit Use

June 26, 2022
2
stockvault

Animal Agriculture Could Reduce Future Pandemic Risk, UK Researchers Say

June 26, 2022
1
Gustavo Petro Urrego/flickr

Colombia’s President-Elect Has ‘Ambitious’ Plans to Halt Amazon Deforestation

June 26, 2022
1
Adam E. Moreira/wikimedia commons

Suspend Transit Fares, Not Gas Tax, Climate Advocates Urge Biden

June 26, 2022
1
Next Post
bhuman34/Pixabay

Violent Domestic Extremists Pose Threat to U.S. Grid: DHS

The Energy Mix

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Navigate Site

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Follow Us

No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}