TODAY is the last official day for protests against the proposal to ban light bulbs starting March 2009.

This is an unprecedented ban on a product since it is not out of any safety concerns with the product itself.

Ironically, fluorescent "energy saving" lights do have safety concerns. The British Government Health Protection Agency has recommended that all such lights in close use be encapsulated, while a review is undertaken.

On the contrary, light bulbs have a long track record of safety. They are also cheap, versatile, easy to use with other equipment, respond quickly in the cold and can come in small sizes.

No, the ban is simply because they are judged to be inefficient, something consumers can surely decide for themselves, and pay for as they wish.

Specifically, light bulbs are said to waste energy as heat.

Turn it around! Light bulbs do not waste heat. Light bulbs "waste" light. Ninety-five per cent heat, 5pc light, more or less. The efficiency labelling could therefore specify a recommendation for dual purpose winter use.

HEATING

As it happens, recent research at the University of Toronto and elsewhere shows that light bulbs can be more economical than fluorescent lights once any room heating is needed, lowering heating bills in accordance with their much smaller energy use than ordinary heaters (20 100W light bulbs equal 2KW).

Remember that room heat rises to the ceiling and spreads downwards from there.

Ironically, the first bulbs up for banning are the high wattage bulbs (100W and similar) that are particularly good in heating effect as well as in brightness and light quality, at the same low price as other bulbs.

If carbon emissions from electricity generating power stations are the real problem, then carbon emissions should be dealt with in the first place.

New cheap carbon emissions filtering and processing exists (as alternative to expensive sinks), were developed in Wyoming and California USA.

Since it is electricity use -- not any bulb -- that is supposed to be so environmentally bad, then of course the electricity use itself can be temporarily taxed to fund ESB putting in the filters, rather than rummaging around people's homes to find out what they can or can't be allowed to use. Direct taxes on inefficiency can also be put in place.

untaxed

Are inefficient types of electric heaters, cookers, fridges or indeed any cars banned, regardless of any useful features they may have, and regardless of often causing much more carbon emissions than any light bulbs? No.

All electrical products could have efficiency labelling and be taxed accordingly, just like cars already are. Class A products could be left untaxed. VAT could also be redistributed in a few bands, again with class A products like fluorescent lights zero rated to encourage uptake, and with bands at the top end rated higher than the current 21pc.

The Government can fund new (green) Budget projects of greater relevance, while the freedom of consumers is kept, rewarding them for green choices (like fluorescent lights). Happy Christmas, everybody.

If light bulbs are so bad, then given 30 million ordinary light bulbs in Ireland, a tax on them alone could cover much of the Budget Home Energy Scheme.

Remember, Irish people prefer the warm glow of light bulbs despite all the campaigns against them, choosing to buy them nearly nine times out of 10 (EU statistics 2008). Maybe people know or suspect, that light bulbs are particularly useful in winter. You can't fool people to keep buying a product because it is cheap. However, their preference is said to justify a ban. Does their preference not, in fact, justify the exact opposite?

Allowing people, if at all possible, to continue using what they obviously want. People spend half their lives under ordinary lights. The reality of a ban will only hit them when it arrives.

If the Government so needlessly stop people from using the lights they are used to, it will hardly be forgotten at election time. Considerate politicians work with -- not against -- the people.

- Peter Thornes