Thanks John,

As said, energy efficiency is only one advantage a product can have,
products using more energy have other advantages as mentioned
- Cheapness indeed often being one of them.

The notion you mention is a common one used to excuse the bans:
“Market forces fail, people only buy cheap inefficient products,
they won’t buy expensive energy efficent products even if they would save money by doing it, so banning is the next logical step”

Banning what people want to buy is odd in itself
- as said, we are not talking about banning lead paint here
and energy and emissions can be dealt with directly

Put it this way:

1.
You don’t keep buying cheap products if they don’t satisfy what you want from them.
This can therefore relate to many other properties apart from energy efficiency.
It also means that people may be happy to pay more for electricity use if – for example – they feel that the light quality from ordinary light bulbs warrants it.

2.
Nor do you avoid buying expensive alternatives just because they cost more to buy:
Otherwise no expensive alternative products anywhere would ever be bought.
“Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run”:
In normal advertising manufacturers themselves highlight such a possible advantage of their products.

Think of long-lasting batteries and Duracell/Energizer rabbits, think of washing up liquids that wash piles of dishes.

CFL/LED manufacturers wrongly rely on public campaigns and bans to make sales.
Of course, if people don’t like the products, the products won’t sell well anyway.

3.
You may not want all your product purchases to be of one type.
For example, different lights have different advantages.
The idea to “Switch all your lights and save lots of money”
is like saying “Eat only bananas and save lots of money”

As it happens, many households already have at least 1 CFL (the UK is typical, 1/2 of households there and in most countries have at least 1 CFL and the average UK and European household has around 2 CFLs and 20 light bulbs, Commission research).
So maybe they feel that is enough:
There is no reason to only use CFLs or any other type of light, all lights having usage possibilities.
Of course, maybe people simply don’t like CFLs enough to use more of them, however good the marketing might be.

As said, energy efficiency is only one advantage a product can have,
products using more energy have other advantages as mentioned
- Cheapness indeed often being one of them.

The notion you mention is a common one used to excuse the bans:
“Market forces fail, people only buy cheap inefficient products,
they won’t buy expensive energy efficent products even if they would save money by doing it, so banning is the next logical step”

Banning what people want to buy is odd in itself
- as said, we are not talking about banning lead paint here
and energy and emissions can be dealt with directly

Put it this way:

1.
You don’t keep buying a cheap product if it doesn’t satisfy what you want from it.
This can therefore relate to many other properties apart from efficiency
It also means that people may be happy to pay more for electricity use if – for example – they feel that the light quality from ordinary light bulbs warrants it.

2.
Nor do you avoid buying expensive alternatives just because they cost more to buy:
Otherwise no expensive alternative products anywhere would ever be bought.
“Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run”:
In normal advertising manufacturers themselves highlight such a possible advantageous feature of their products.

Think of long-lasting batteries and Duracell/Energizer rabbits, think of washing up liquids that wash piles of dishes.

CFL/LED manufacturers wrongly rely on public campaigns and bans to make sales.
Of course, if people don’t like the products, the products won’t sell well anyway.

3.
You may not want all your product purchases to be of one type.
For example, different lights have different advantages.
The idea to “Switch all your lights and save lots of money”
is like saying “Eat only bananas and save lots of money”.

As it happens, many households already have at least 1 CFL (the UK is typical, 1/2 of households there and in most countries have at least 1 CFL and the average UK and European household has around 2 CFLs and 20 light bulbs, Commission research).
So maybe they feel that is enough:
There is no reason to only use CFLs or any other type of light, all lights have their own advantages and different uses.
Of course, maybe people simply don’t like CFLs enough to use more of them, however good the marketing might be.

The light bulb ban is only the start.

Refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, dishwashers, boilers, heaters, TV-sets, plasma screens, computers and much else are up for efficiency based bans.

A natural reply might be
“Well isn’t it good to only have efficient products?”
But efficiency is only one advantage a product can have.
Inefficent products have advantages too – or noone would buy them.
Whether TV sets or dishwashers or other products,
performance, appearance , construction, cost and indeed savings can all be negatively affected by
imposing efficiency standards on them.
Anyone who wants an understanding of this
can read http://ceolas.net/#cc2x onwards.
Energy or emission problems can and should be addressed directly,
there is no need to ban what people want to buy.

See Commissioner Piebalgs announcement of most of the above mentioned bans – and the comments:
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/piebalgs/switching-on-to-energy-efficiency/

Yes, there is something rather strange about forcibly replacing a cheap, simple, safe, popular and easily bright product,
with an expensive, complex, mercury-releasing, unpopular and more difficultly bright product as the main suggested replacement.

Many say wait some years until better LEDs are available,
but of course the ban is wrong in itself,
whatever the suggested replacement
– inefficient products have advantages too, or noone would buy them
– suggested savings don’t hold up, for many reasons as given
– the fundamental need to force (rather than advice on) the saving energy that people themselves want to pay for and use can be questioned, as there is no shortage, many new energy sources are developed, and with any fossil fuel shortage the price rise would lead both to a renewable energy switch, and to an increased desire to buy efficient products anyway – without the need for legislation
– emissions don’t come from light bulbs, and can be dealt with directly
– if all else was wrong, taxation is still more logical,
since the objective is just to lower electricity consumption,
not to ban a dangerous product.