Registered user login:

Seven reasons why your lightbulb matters

Lynne Featherstone

Published 21 May 2007

Lib Dem international development spokeswoman Lynne Featherstone explains why she thinks everyone can make a difference on the environment

In recent times there's been an interesting and welcome shift in the debate about the environment.

The global warming sceptics have shifted their argument from saying 'you shouldn't take action' to you can't do anything about it even if there is a problem'.

It goes something like this: "Changing your light bulbs isn't going to do any good given how many new power stations China is building."

Although this argument is normally presented as a matter-of-fact, 100% watertight, no doubts entertained, copper-bottomed case, it is deeply flawed. Here are seven reasons why:

1. Perhaps the biggest obstacle we face to getting more green policies in place in developing countries is the tag of hypocrisy and greediness.

We in the developed world did all sorts of environmental damage when getting rich and industrialised - so why should we then turn round and stop others doing the same? That's why showing that we too are taking action is important. Imagine if George W Bush came over to the UK and lectured us on reducing fuel consumption - would his lectures sound more persuasive if he was telling Americans to do the same or if he was telling American they don't need to do anything?

2. Small actions add up. Just as the old joke goes - you eat a big elephant in small mouthfuls. Changing one light bulb at home today won't do much to save the world, but changing more light bulbs at home over time and having more and more people change their light bulbs too - that does add up. And it's not just in area you can take small actions but across a whole range of areas. Done the light bulb? Now how about making sure your tyres are at optimum pressure? And maybe next month start recycling your glass jars? And perhaps something else a few months after that? All those little steps add up as little step follows little step.


3. Air travel. The basic argument rolled out against taking action of the environmental damage caused by flights is that they make up only around one in twenty parts of the UK's CO2 emissions. True - but this will grow to one in four by 2050 at current rates. So small actions now with only small immediate effects can have a massive long-term impact if they help head off huge growth.

4. It's good for our economy to take action now. The more that we do and the sooner that we do it, the greater the boost to the British economy and British firms who produce environmentally friendly goods and services. Greater support for tidal power is a good example - it won't just help the environment but it will also help ensure that UK jobs are gained by getting a bigger share of the international market for such technology.

There is an example for us to follow in Denmark, which is now a world leader in wind turbine technology and reaping the jobs and profits that go with that. The UK could easily have been - we have just as much wind as they do - but chose instead to stand on the sidelines whilst others developed that industry.

5. Cutting down consumption is good for your wallet. Change cars, switching to a more economical one and you will save money on petrol bills. So you don't have to like the planet - you can just hate petrol taxes! It's a win for you even if you don't worry about pollution.

6. It's right in principle. All my previous points are about pragmatic decisions. But sometimes it's right to do the right thing just because it is the right thing, regardless of what impact it may or may not have.

Living our own lives in as considerate and caring way as possible is the right thing to do - even if there are others who aren't doing that.

7. And finally - as you might expect a politician to say! - politics matters. Governments set thousands of law, tens of thousands of regulations and spend billions of pounds. That all adds up to a massive amount of influence and power, and it is under the control of politicians. But even this is amenable to the collective voice of many people all taking small actions themselves - both in the ballot box (putting a cross on a piece of paper once every few years is a pretty minimal degree of effort for having a say in how billions of pounds are spent!) and in their own lives. Because the more individuals are seen as taking action in their own lives, however small, the more politicians will be convinced that people do care about the issue and will react and change.

So next time you are sat there staring at your light bulb - don't worry about the Chinese power station that is out of your control, but remember all the power that lies with you.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

7 comments from readers

Jgeorge
22 May 2007 at 09:24

For every low energy light bulb you put into landfill, you have saved 12 ordinary ones being buried in the ground. Even if people don't buy the climate change argument, they must agree that no one wants to live near a rubbish dump!

Dr Richard Wellings, Institute of Economic Affairs
22 May 2007 at 12:11

Whilst there may be a case for taking action to reduce carbon emissions, the notion that subsidising environmentally-friendly technologies benefits the economy is highly questionable. Additional subsidies require extra taxation, which raises business costs.

Furthermore, forcing the power industry to use renewable energy will tend to increase energy prices, raising production costs and decreasing economic growth.

The author should also consider the ‘second round’ effects of such policies. If UK energy prices rise, heavy industry is likely to be displaced from the UK to lower-cost countries such as China, where power production is likely to be less efficient. It is therefore far from clear that a significant global reduction in carbon emissions would result.

Fortunately, there are effective ways to reduce carbon emissions whilst actually improving the efficiency of the economy. These include raising VAT on domestic fuel (with compensatory tax cuts elsewhere), reducing power consumption within the public sector, ending subsidies to poorly-used public transport services and reducing foreign aid when it facilitates deforestation.

mitchy
22 May 2007 at 12:45

Putting a cross on a piece of paper once every few years has a pretty minimal degree of influence on how billions of pounds are spent - hence we are in the pickle we are in now, or hadnt you noticed?

Dr Johnson
22 May 2007 at 15:12

I can't help but feel this debate is being hijacked for political advantage - both by those with their heads in the sand (Ruth Lea) and those who wish to spread panic with their tales of armageddon. I would really appreciate some basic truths (if such a thing is possible) about carbon offsetting and the like. For Example, your talk of low energy lightbulbs is all very well, but what does their production contribute to climate change in comparison to their ordinary counterparts? I would like to see more honest information about products - in the way that we are now able to find out the truth about our food (where it really comes from, how it was produced, salt content, food miles etc etc).

Alexandra Smith
22 May 2007 at 17:06

Very nice Lynne, but is it really an international development issue? If you're banging on about lightbulbs, is Chris Huhne writing passionate pieces about Darfur? Or is he just too with his leadership ambitions to bother with his day job? All very strange if you ask me.

Douglas Chalmers
22 May 2007 at 17:41

How about mining giant Rio Tinto being forced to leave the uranium in the ground....and cover it over? It just happened - http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/rio-nt-bid-backfiring... -

One woman - and a few others - made a difference. By choosing well and standing for what she believed in, Yvonne Margarula forced a retreat by an Anglo-Australian mining giant over the development of the Jabiluka uranium mine in Northern Australia. See http://www.anawa.org.au/nt/jabiluka.html

Rio could be forced to backtrack on uranium production projections it made in a presentation to London investors on Monday:-

“RIO Tinto’s hard sell this week on its rising hopes for a near-term clearance from the Mirarr people to develop the $50 billion Jabiluka uranium deposit in the Northern Territory has backfired on the Anglo-Australian mining giant.

The Mirarr (native Australian tribe) continue to say no, despite the multimillion-dollar royalty stream Jabiluka would secure them.

“We stopped the mining here,” Ms Margarula told BusinessDay, referring to an eight-month blockade of the mine by 5000 people in 1998.

“Now they have put the ore back in the ground … it will never again come out. The country is at peace and I am very happy."......"

Michael Wiseman, Climate Change Speaker
25 May 2007 at 20:53

Every thing matters even light bulbs, we must try and get the public involved and to become aware of the damage, we, as a species have done. Although climate change is inevetable on a Geological time scale, the time for massive change has to arrive sometime, perhaps that time has come.

Don't forget the future is locked up in the past so we know the change is possible.

If we as a species have exacerbated the rate of the change then maybe changing a light bulb is somewhere to start.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Lynne Featherstone is LibDem MP for Hornsey & Wood Green and is her party's spokeswoman on International Development.

Read More

Vote!

Is this the worst economic situation for 60 years?