Application of LED Bulbs for Solving Climate Change - Essay Example

Evaluation of the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Application of LED Bulbs for Solving Climate Change 0 Introduction This essay evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of application of LED Bulbs as a mechanism for addressing climate change. In so doing the essay evaluates a range of examples which demonstrate how the behaviour of users relates to this technology and how economics plays a critical role in determining the successful adoption of this particular climate change initiative. Moreover by engaging with LED technology from the standpoint of climate change, it will be necessary to discuss the overall impact that LED technology has had within society; thereby measuring the overall rates of adoption and the success of plans instigated by the EU to affect this level of acceptance. Through such an engagement and analysis, it is the hope of this student that the reader will be able to gain a useful level of inference concerning LED technology and the future of how it will be accepted, utilized, and effect a gradual impact on green living within society. There are a range of regulatory frameworks which have been designed to encourage more awareness of energy consumption rates. Schemes such as ‘Smart Grids’ create greater efficiencies in energy consumption by monitoring consumer behaviour within electricity networks (Clastres, 2011). In a similar way the use of LED bulbs is now presented as part of the solution of reducing energy consumption (Humphreys, 2008). This is particularly important, not just as a single appliance saving energy, but as part of a wider shift in how users are adopting LED bulbs for in many respects, In man, it is behavioural changes which are the critical factor in tackling climate change, (Hobson, 2006). This view is supported by Paterson and Stripple (2010) who argue that individuals can contribute to the governing of climate change by undertaking specific actions to solve the problem. Hobson (2008) also notes that a gap currently exists between knowledge and action and that this has prevented the full realisation of a range of benefits from environmentally friendly initiatives. As a result, Hobson (2008) further asserts that policies relating to climate change should focus on removing such barriers through increased public education, infrastructural improvements and improving access to ‘green’ goods. Slocum (2004a) argues that climate change discourse should localize the effects of global warming in order that society has a better understanding about energy consumption and its effects on the local and global environment. With reference to wider issues of lighting, Slocum (2004a) further asserts that energy conservation efforts such as the implementation of light bulb policies by cites such as Minneapolis have failed to contextualize the reasons for energy conservation since they do not explicitly mention climate change in their policies. What Slocum is driving at is concentric upon the fact that maximizing energy efficiency in and of itself is not enough. Ultimately, the consumer and societal stakeholder must be reminded of the reasons behind the changes and the shifts that are being encouraged; so that these will have a spill over effect with regard to other aspects of consumer culture and their own lives. As has been noted in many other areas, engaging with the consumer based upon a “cost savings approach” does not have any direct correlation with the green movement or the desire to be careful stewards of the earth’s resources; instead, it merely engages the consumer from a personal gain standpoint. 2.0 The Place of LED Bulbs in Climate Change and Energy Consumption Discourse When exploring how to cut down on energy that goes into lighting, there have been various mechanisms that have been suggested including switching off lights when not in use and using light bulbs with low energy consumption (Hobson, 2006). The focus on LED bulbs in energy conservation has been informed by data such as that presented by Humphreys (2008) who stated that present electricity generation is the main source of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. Humphreys (2008) notes that lighting consumes one-fifth of generated electricity. The high level of energy consumption in lighting can be attributed to the use of lighting appliances that consume more energy and are therefore not energy efficient. Based on the research by Humphreys that posits that lighting using LED has a potential to reduce the overall energy consumption on lighting by at least 50 percent, the universal adoption of LED lighting would potentially result in a reduction of approximately 10 percent of fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions from power stations (Humphreys, 2008). Among the challenges that hinder the wider adoption of LED bulbs is the cost of purchasing them (Humphreys, 2008). However, even though the cost of purchasing and installing these new technology might be high, the overall cost of using older technologies such as fluorescent tubes and compact fluorescent lamps is, as Stern (2007) notes, much higher. Therefore, for a sustainable future, the adoption of LED bulbs becomes a cheaper than paying for climate change through extreme weather conditions. 3.0 Climate Change and the Behaviour-Technology Argument In many respects it can be considered that technology cannot guarantee a sustainable future – particularly when looking at previous technological developments that have resulted in industrialisation and the increased consumption of fossil fuel resources (Kellogg, 1987). Consequently, it is often technology itself that exposes the world to climate change by enabling the utilization of these fossil fuels, leading many observers to conclude that technology is the cause of the climate change rather than a solution (Dornburg et al., 2010). Szerszynski et al. (2013) have also argued that technological solutions to climate change, such as solar radiation management, are destined to fail due to a lack of support from citizens who are sceptical about their future use and the challenges, therefore, that their installation pose on the processes and institutions of liberal democracy. In contrast to these views Pielke et al., (2008) claim that current rate of climate change means there is a need for greater advances in energy technology. Strategies such as the development of renewable energy technologies are technological initiatives which can have lasting effects on the global atmosphere and can offer a sustainable alternative to fossil fuel resources. This has the potential to stabilise the level of greenhouse level in the atmosphere and reduce their effects on the climate system (Schneider and Mastrandrea, 2005; Allen, Frame, Huntingford, Jones, Lowe, Meinshausen, and Meinshausen, 2009). In addition, the introduction of LED bulbs offers a potential technological strategy which can target climate change mitigation within a framework of more general conservation efforts. Hobson, (2006) notes that human dependency on technology continues to reinforce behaviour which promotes resource waste. This research explores the role played by technology in climate change discourse based on the Eco-modernisation efforts in Australia which calls for voluntary adoption of home appliances that promote efficiency and desirability (Hobson, 2006). The European Commissioner of Energy had the following to say: “For this reason, inefficient lighting will be phased out over a number of years; to allow both consumers and companies to adapt to the change gradually” (Boosma & Steg, 2013). The need for gradual change as a means of creating a level of understanding for the relevance of energy savings in tandem with environmental issues is a core issue that must work together in order to inform the general populace concerning these dual needs. The use of technological solutions such as LED bulbs raises questions about behavioural change and whether implementing these technologies can bring about the changes required to make long-term solutions to climate change through a shift in consumer attitudes. It is considered that technologies such as LED bulbs that contribute to energy conservation do not necessarily encourage behavioural change as the consumers maintain their levels of consumption - often assuming that creating efficiency should be left to technology alone. Users of the LED bulbs often maintain or even increase levels of consumption due to the psychological effect of realizing that they are consuming less energy . This once again points to the need to leverage an understanding of cost savings in tandem with the need to conserve and protect the environment. As can be seen, the cost savings in and of themselves oftentimes do not encourage the levels of conservation that one might otherwise hope to expect. In contrast, Hobson (2006) notes the importance of technology in redirecting human actions even when they do not change their behaviour. As a result, the introduction of energy conservation technologies such as the LED bulbs may not require behavioural change but sustainable usage to be effective. The introduction of new technologies such as LED bulbs will not necessarily mean an immediate and marked behavioural change in society, but may offer a chance for users to reduce consumption levels with adjustments in behaviour at such a time as societal stakeholders can come to realize the environmental importance of LED technology alongside its inherent levels of cost savings. Examining the basis for the acceptance of rejection of technology is another key aspect of consumer behaviour and climate change as noted by Stephens et al. (2010). Solutions to climate change can be welcomed only when the consumer has made a full assessment of the consequences of implementing the technology based on their economical, political, and ethical views. It follows therefore, applying the arguments of Stephens et al (2011) with reference to consumer behaviour that the success of LED bulbs in climate change mitigation will depend on the public perception of this technology. An acceptance that can be achieved through the creation of a higher level of awareness generated through using the media t shape opinion (Thøgersen, 2006). Beginning in the early part of 2009, a general phase out of inefficient incandescent bulb technology was instituted throughout the European Union. However, rather than a complete and total ban, the phase out began with a ban of all incandescent bulbs of over 100W. Concurrently, offerings of halogen and LED technology continued to be exhibited on the market; in an even higher level. This was perpetrated as a means of gradually encouraging a switch to a more sustainable form of energy consumption throughout the EU; due in part to the fact that the energy patterns of usage within the European Union are quite different from those elsewhere throughout the world. For instance, individuals within the European Union typically expend a lion’s share of their electricity usage on lighting; due to the fact that natural gas is traditionally used for heating. The European Union further estimates that this gradual shift, instituted in 2009, will eventually save enough energy to power well over 11 million households each and every year. Moreover, keeping pace with inflation and other cost increases, the strategy is expected to save the average household electricity bill at least 25 Euros each and every year as well. Rather than making a directive to switch immediately, the gradual phase out is concentric on a degree of human psychological understanding. As people come to replace bulbs and consume products, they will see that the alternatives and technology that exists for them to choose from has shifted and changed. This will encourage a level of integration with this change that might not otherwise be realized in the event that a rapid or sudden shift were demanded. Moreover, by engaging in an aggressive promotional campaign, the EU was able to present the consumer with the many additional advantages that LED technology afforded to them. By leveraging green technology, pointing to the fact that the incandescent ban actually created more choice within the market, leveraging an understanding of cost savings, and pointing to the need for being a responsible citizen of an increasingly energy strapped space, the plan of engagement was largely successful in promoting the change and encouraging stakeholders to integrate with the new technology. Although the plan also focused upon the technological aspects of LED being able to provide the user with a brighter and longer lasting bulb, it was in fact the cost savings that proved to resonate the greatest with the consumers. 4.0 Climate Change and the Economics-Behaviour-Technology The introduction of LED bulbs as a solution to climate change can follow the perspective noted by Slocum (2004b) where consumers are encouraged to adopt the practice as a means to cut down on their consumption levels. Encouraging users to shift to the LED bulbs on the basis of reducing their energy bill is an effective measure to tackle climate change as it introduces the economic benefits of this shift. As a means of understanding the actual hanges that have taken place, the reader can point to the fact that energy usage within the European sector is reliant upon state participation with these goals. State participation in climate change can also be in from of subsidies to both the consumer and the industries. The introduction of LED bulbs to solve the problem of climate change has a chance to be successful given the readiness of states to fund such programmes. Jaffe et al., (2005) noted this link and suggest that governments would rather take part in funding projects that are aimed at cutting down green gases than impose costs on industry activities that emit the gases. By encouraging promotional campaigns and seeking to encourage a shift away from the old technology, government stakeholders, as well as their partners in the EU, were able to effectively motivate consumers away from incandescent bulbs towards LED (Howarth & Rosenow, 2014). Subsidization of the cost by elements within the EU also effectively provided the consumer with an even lower cost alternative to the older technology. Other stakeholders within Europe did not ultimately rely upon EU regulation as a means of shifting focus away from incandescent lighting. Germany for instance was on the very cusp of the change as consumers were presented with incandescent technology alongside LED technology in the early 2000’s. The level of engagement that the government and environmentalist sought was predicated upon the fact that the consumer would act not only upon self interest in savings but would realize the longevity of the bulbs themselves in tandem with the savings would promote a level of conservation which would ultimately reduce the level of dependence upon the traditional incandescent technology that had thus far pervaded the market. Local authorities also have a key role in climate change discourse due to the high impact of energy consumption in municipality or cities. Slocum (2004a) looked at local authorities in Salt Lake City and Los Angeles and their role in presenting solutions for climate change. In addition, within the UK municipalities have placed a high focus upon shifting away from incandescent technology and other inefficient means of electric utilization. As such, replacing street lamps with LED technology and focusing upon making certain that government and public sector organizations are in compliance with the EU standards has been a primal focus in the intervening 5 years since this change was initially announced. Instead of mere compliance, it helps to engage societal stakeholders within the United Kingdom that the local and regional governments are seriously integrating with the proposed changes; thereby encouraging the private citizen to do the same. Despite this evidence, Wapner and Willoughby (2005) warn that environmental conservation at the consumer level is bound to fail. They argue that reducing consumption at one level can often make resources available to other areas resulting in no overall net benefit. Thus the introduction of LED light bulbs is not, of itself, sufficient to solve the climate change problem. According to Wapner and Willoughby (2005) when people reduce consumption through conservation, the resources conserved are then redirected to other sectors - providing no overall reduction. This is true of LED bulbs, which base their technological capabilities on their ability to conserve energy in households that use them. Consequently, if the use of LED bulbs as a solution to climate change is not accompanied by other supporting frameworks of conservation, energy saved through this technology will still be used at other levels of consumption – for example through the heating large quantities of water for various domestic uses (Strang, 2005). Therefore, an important element in tackling the economic-behaviour argument surrounding climate change is concentric upon noting that each of the players (government, industries and consumers) will act in accordance with their own interests; and often with a view of incurring the lowest possible cost (Stripple, 2010). Despite this, central government will continue to mediate all underlying interests due to its cohesive power and this can result in compliance to agreed upon limits and implemented systems as discussed by (Held et al., 2011). The role of government in ensuring public compliance with LED usage is thus of pivotal importance for only the government can ensure a balance between the economic needs of consumers and the industries with sustainable development principles through climate change initiatives such as the installation of LED bulbs to reduce energy consumption (Paterson, and Stripple, 2010) 5.0 Conclusion From the information that has thus far been presented, it is clear that a new direction has been proposed and set out upon by the EU and its member states concerning the application of a new and increasingly efficient form of light bulb. However, there are still a litany of drawbacks with respect to the way in which consumers are integrating with this new technology. Instead of placing a primary emphasis on sustaining resources, consumers have denoted an approach that more often is concentric upon their own best interests of lower energy bills; while consumption levels of electricity of lighting and the overall usage of lighting with the new bulbs has increased in some cases. As a function of this, the work of engaging with stakeholders and seeking to shift focus away from individual savings towards a more green and sustainable level of engagement is paramount over the next several years. Notwithstanding this drawback, the slow and phased implementation of LED bulbs throughout Europe creates a situation in which stakeholders in the EU and regional government can seek to change and optimize their approach towards the new technology and the consumer as a means of effecting all of the goals that have thus far been mentioned. 6.0 References Allen, M. R., Frame, D. J., Huntingford, C., Jones, C. D., Lowe, J. A., Meinshausen, M., & Meinshausen, N. (2009) Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature, 458(7242), 1163-1166. Bäckstrand, K., Meadowcroft, J., & Oppenheimer, M. (2011) The politics and policy of carbon capture and storage: framing an emergent technology. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 275-281. Boomsma, C., & Steg, L. (2013). The effect of information and values on acceptability of reduced street lighting. Journal Of Environmental Psychology, doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.004 Dornburg, V., van Vuuren, D., van de Ven, G., Langeveld, H., Meeusen, M., Banse, M., ... & Faaij, A. (2010) Bioenergy revisited: key factors in global potentials of bioenergy. Energy & Environmental Science, 3(3), 258-267. Doyle, J (2007) Mediating Climate Change: London, Ashgate Publishing Fleming, J. R. (2006) The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 37(1), 3-25. Galaz, V. (2012) Geo-engineering, Governance, and Social-Ecological Systems: Critical Issues and Joint Research Needs. Ecology & Society, 17(1). Gibbins, J., & Chalmers, H. (2008) Carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy, 36(12), 4317-4322. Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G., & Stavins, R. N. (2005) A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 54(2), 164-174. Held, D, Fane-Hervey, A and Theros, M (2011) The Governance of Climate Change – Science, Politics and Ethics: Cambridge, Polity Press Hale, B., & Dilling, L. (2011) Geoengineering, ocean fertilization, and the problem of permissible pollution. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36(2), 190-212. Hobson, K. (2006) Bins, bulbs, and shower timers: on the ‘techno-ethics’ of sustainable living. Ethics Place and Environment, 9(3), 317-336. Hobson, K. (2008) Reasons to be cheerful: thinking sustainably in a (climate) changing world. Geography Compass, 2(1), 199-214. Howarth, N. A., & Rosenow, J. (2014). Banning the bulb: Institutional evolution and the phased ban of incandescent lighting in Germany. Energy Policy, 67737-746. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.060 Kellogg, W. W. (1987) Mankinds impact on climate: The evolution of an awareness. Climatic Change, 10(2), 113-136. Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2004) Market strategies for climate change. European Management Journal, 22(3), 304-314. Levidow, L. (2013) EU criteria for sustainable biofuels: accounting for carbon, depoliticising plunder. Geoforum, 44, 211-223. Matthews, H. D., & Caldeira, K. (2007) Transient climate–carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(24), 9949-9954. Paterson, M., & Stripple, J. (2010) My space: governing individuals’ carbon emissions. Environment and planning. D, Society and space, 28(2), 341. Pielke, R., Wigley, T., & Green, C. (2008) Dangerous assumptions. Nature, 452(7187), 531-532. Sentance, A. (2009) Developing transport infrastructure for the Low Carbon Society. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25(3), 391-410. Slocum, R. (2004a) Polar bears and energy-efficient lightbulbs: strategies to bring climate change home. Environment and Planning D, 22, 413-438. Slocum, R. (2004b) Consumer citizens and the Cities for Climate Protection campaign. Environment and Planning A, 36(5), 763-782. Schneider, S. H., & Mastrandrea, M. D. (2005) Probabilistic assessment of “dangerous” climate change and emissions pathways. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(44), 15728-15735. Strang, V. (2005) Common Senses Water, Sensory Experience and the Generation of Meaning. Journal of Material Culture, 10(1), 92-120. Szerszynski, B., Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P., Owen, R., & Stilgoe, J. (2013) Why solar radiation management geoengineering and democracy won’t mix. Environment and Planning A, 45(12), 2809-2816. Thøgersen, J. (2006) Media attention and the market for ‘green’consumer products. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(3), 145-156. Wapner, P., & Willoughby, J. (2005) The irony of environmentalism: the ecological futility but political necessity of lifestyle change. Ethics & International Affairs, 19(3), 77-89. Von Storch, H., & Stehr, N. (2006) Anthropogenic climate change: a reason for concern since the 18th century and earlier. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, 88(2), 107-113. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008) Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Read More