• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Light Bulb Giants Hope U.N. Will Guarantee Their Market Share

    A pair of major light bulb manufacturers is teaming up with the United Nations in an attempt to pressure countries into participating in “a global transition” to more energy-efficient light bulbs. The two companies are both major manufacturers of the types of bulbs that would replace incandescents under the plan.

    A presentation (embedded below) by Rudy Provoost and Martin Goetzeler, CEO of Philips and COO of OSRAM, respectively, calls on the UN’s Environmental Programme to “lead the engagement required with developing and emerging countries, governments and the private sector to achieve a global market transformation” to the types of bulbs that their two companies manufacture.

    Those bulbs include compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Both companies are seeing large portions of their growth in the LED market. LED sales accounted for 18 percent of Philips Lighting’s total sales in 2011. Twenty percent of OSRAM’s 2010 turnover came from its LED products, and CEO Wolfgang Dehen said the company would look to “increase this considerably by 2015.”

    A partnership with the United Nations could certainly help advance that goal. With emerging economies adopting more advanced technologies, government-mandated footholds in developing nations would be a windfall for both companies.

    And government action will be required, Provoost and Goetzeler claim. “Market forces are not sufficient to achieve the rapid transformation needed in the lighting market to respond to the climate change challenge,” they write. “Instead, a multi-stakeholder global partnership is required to support countries as they embark upon efficient lighting transformation programmes.”

    “Global partnership” in this context means governments partnering with private companies to mandate or otherwise incentivize the products that those companies create.

    “With its unparalleled global network,” Provoost and Goetzeler continue, “UNEP can provide leadership by inspiring and enabling nations to prioritise efficient lighting and reap the benefits of lowered energy costs.” Philips and OSRAM would of course reap their own benefits as well.

    Philips and OSRAM are both part of the “en.lighten initiative,” an organization that promotes policies in developing countries that encourage or require the use of fluorescent and LED lighting products. The group is slated to release a full set of policy recommendations for leaders in developing countries, but their website offers a preview of their general policy approach:

    Policy and regulation – offers practical information on the development of policy and regulatory approaches to promote efficient lighting. This section will include best practice examples of countries which have developed successful regulatory frameworks.

    The transition to energy efficient light bulbs, in other words, requires policies and regulations that promote their use. It does not rely on market forces.

    Philips and OSRAM’s strategy, then, is to use an international political organization to pressure developing countries into securing the two companies a lucrative market share for their products. LEDs and CFLs tend to me more expensive than incandescent bulbs, so consumers would not likely make the transition of their own accord.

    So while the two light bulb companies will benefit economically, it’s not clear that the citizens of the countries they are targeting will. The companies tout the microeconomic benefits of more efficient light bulbs, but if consumers thought they were getting a better deal, government action wouldn’t be necessary – those consumers would choose to buy the more efficient bulbs.

    About 2.5 billion people, almost entirely in developing nations, live on about $2.00 per day or less. They are the ones who will be most impacted by a rise in the costs of their daily expenses. Philips and OSRAM discuss their work as a boon for emerging economies, but they are pushing a program that, while enriching their own portfolios, would likely raise the living costs of some of the world’s most economically distressed populations.

    Here is the flier from Philips and OSRAM promoting their U.N. “partnership” (h/t Light Bulb Freedom):

    UN-lightbulbs

    Posted in Energy, Featured, Scribe [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Light Bulb Giants Hope U.N. Will Guarantee Their Market Share

    1. Joe Stickney says:

      yes more mercury poisoning no cure

      • Bobbie says:

        Joe, stick to your own common sense. No one was ever told what amount of mercury is poisonous and a bulb in your home is alot more contained to poison than an industry manufacturing incandescent light bulbs that contain ZERO mercury!

        How do they manufacture cfl's with less mercury emission when mercury is in the bulb? Fisher is a tool.

    2. Fisher says:

      Joe> indeed, cfls are using mercury, but the amount used in the lamp is much lower than the amount of mercury which comes out of the powerplant to produce the electricity for the incandescent lamp (which uses at least 5 times more energy for the same light). And if you buy a decent brand, the amount of mercury is even less (than 5mg or so) and recycling issues are also solved. So the choice is up to you, as for everyone to use it or not. On the web you can calculate how much you financially could save using more efficient lightbulbs, but even than people prefer to give their money to the electricity companies.

      lets go to a more fact based discussion. I think we all agree that we use too much energy on this planet. One way to cut energy use is to use less light or use more efficient light sources. about 19% of our electrical energy goes into lighting. Of course we needs some light for economical activities, also in the undeveloped world. Note that kerosine lamps are much more costly than energy or battery powered lights. Again, the choice for the lightsource is up to everyone, but keep reminding that this also impacts the number of powerplants, powerlines and other infrastructure you need just for lighting up your room.

    3. LINDSEY says:

      SILVER LINING: AT LEAST THE PATH TO HELL WILL BE LIT WITH ENERGY SAVING LIGHT BULBS.
      GREEN ON THE OUTSIDE, RED ON THE INSIDE.

    4. Christina says:

      I sell light bulbs and I am also an economic journalist. Can any of you get back to me with more details on this. Also I have a large hoard of incandescent bulbs for sale.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×