Okay, so I'm not setting any records for exclusivity here, this is last weeks news, but the EU have pledged to phase out the use of traditional incandescent lightbulbs, to be replaced by the energy efficient type.

Apparently this follows similar decisions by the Australian government and the State of California in the US.

The switch to the new lightbulbs is estimated to mean a reduction in carbon emissions by about 20 million tonnes per year. Not only is this good news for the environment, but it makes good economic sense to make this switch. Indeed, a number of developing countries made this decision years ago, purely based on economic factors.

As I have written before, energy efficient lightbulbs make real monetary savings - this quite surprised me in fact. Each bulb saves about £7 per year on an average usage. Multiply this by the number of bulbs in your home (5 in my small apartment) and you have a noticeable saving (at least its noticeable if you are a student like me).

The construction of power stations, wind farms, hydro-electric dams etc is very costly, and even in a country where utilities have been privatised, the construction of these costs the tax payer a lot of money in grants. By reducing our energy demand this tax revenue can be spent on other things. Essentially carbon emissions represent inefficiency, which costs money and these costs are passed onto consumers, hopefully some of the economic benefits of the lightbulb switch should be passed onto the consumer as well. Hmmm?

Finally, by becoming the market leaders in this sort of energy efficient tchnology our economy can be strengthened. When other countries follow suit where will they buy their stocks from? Where will they get the expertise to develop energy efficient bulbs? From companies that have invested in developing and marketing these bulbs. German and Japanese industry has benefited from this philosophy for many years now.

There will be problems with this change over, the cost of switching manufacture over to the lightbulbs is likely to cancel out the benefit of lower electricity bills. However, with more investment and increased demand, the price of these bulbs should come down quickly. In fact some supermarkets already sell these bulbs for as little as 49p. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, pointed out that many energy efficient lightbulbs are somewhat dimmer than incandescent ones. This is true, but now that companies will be forced to invest in these bulbs this problem should be ironed out soon. In fact, some bulbs are already as bright as the old ones.

Hopefully this is a decision that both environmentalists and capitalists can harness effectively.

I'm off to build a lightbulb factory (an eco-factory of course, built entirely from recycled garbage).

The reluctance of UK government and industry to invest in "green" technology is rapidly becoming a major annoyance to me. Al Gore wrote as early as 1991 that Japan was leading the way in the development of energy efficient appliances that are rapidly taking over as leading sellers from competing products from the US and Europe. It seems to me that there are large profits to be made from creating energy efficient products, and that the marketting of such products would be greatly enhanced by their environmentally friendly credentials.

A list of the top 12 greenest cars (US market) on egm CarTech.com reveals that all are made by Asian companies, either Japanese or Korean. This rating includes emissions created in the manufacture of the vehicle as well as the fuel efficiency, and the much talked about Toyota Prius comes second to the Honda Civic GX which runs on natural gas.

Why does European and US industry not see that they can become world leaders in green technology if only they would invest in it.

Many economists argue against change for the good of the environment on the grounds of cost, what I cannot understand is why they don't see it as a new opportunity to do business.

Maybe that is why I'm not an economist?

Winter arrived in the UK a couple of days ago and it is freezing. In fact it feels colder in my flat than it does outside! I live in an old building that has been converted into a couple of flats and it seems to be almost completely uninsulated. Unfortunately, it is a rented flat and I don't expect to stay here much longer so there isn't much I can do about it, but how I wish that I could insulate the loft and walls and get rid of this freezing feeling.

How Much?

When I read about how much insulation can save on heating bills I almost cried. The Energy Savings Trust has estimated that if everyone in the UK that could install insulation did so, we would cut our carbon emissions by 8 million tonnes. In addition to this it is thought that insulation could save households £250 per year. Now, where I live is only a small 4 roomed flat, so I don't suppose my saving would be that much, but obviously my gas bill would be much reduced. *%!!*

Next time I look for somewhere to live I am going to make sure it is insulated in order to reduce my carbon footprint and also to save my hard earned money.

Energy saving lightbulbs have become much easier to find over the last few years and anyone with any green pretensions has probably at least got a few in their house. I have used them for some time now and recently replaced the remaining few normal bulbs still in use in my flat.

Much is made of their energy saving qualities, but I began to wonder how much energy they save and consequently what is the reduction in my "carbon footprint".

I found some information on this and it makes quite interesting reading. By replacing a 60W lightbulb that is used for 5 hours per day with a 15W energy saving bulb, you reduce your carbon output from 47kg per year, per bulb to about 12 kg per year, per bulb. Over the 5 year lifespan of the energy saving bulb, this equates to a carbon output of 60kg instead of 175kg per bulb. Multiply this by all the bulbs in your house and that is a large reduction in your annual carbon footprint.

Many people will say that the price of the energy saving bulbs are a deterrant to purchasing them, particularly for poorer people. Well, there's even more good news because over the lifetime of an energy saving bulb, the reduction in energy usage will result in a saving of £37 pounds over its 5 year lifespan. Multiply this by all the bulbs in your house and that is a decent reduction in the electricity bill.

For a student of conservation energy saving lightbulbs are wonderful - help the environment and save money!

My green resolutions got me thinking hard about what small things I can do to minimize my impact upon the environment without really having to make any significant changes to my lifestyle; there must be loads of things. Birdwatching close-by is one of those that I have already taken to (Birdwatching near Beverley).

Boiling the kettle this morning got me thinking about the energy used for my morning cup of tea. Obviously I only boil as much water as I need, but what about the method of boiling it? Is it more energy efficient to use the kettle or boil it on a gas ring? Well, apparently electric kettles use far less energy to heat any given amount of water than it does by using gas. This is good news for energy conservation as well as convenience!

However, when I thought more deeply about it I wondered if I really needed that cup of tea anyway, what are the options for a morning drink? I could go for water, but I find the taste pretty wierd first thing in the mroning. The obvios choice would be something like orange juice or apple juice, but the amount of water used in producing these is unsustainable, not to mention the pesticides that were probably used . Furthermore, these juices always come in a carton or a plastic bottle - not too good - think of the air miles too. On the other hand tea nor coffee exactly come from down the road do they? Tea and coffee plantations are major players in tropical deforestation too. This isn't at all easy.

Milk sounds like a good option, it's healthy, it doesn't run out, it can be bought locally and, if the milkman is used, the bottles get reused. That's REUSED, not recycled, but reused, wow! Still, dairy farmers use massive amounts of fertilizer to improve the grassland for cattle and there is often slurry run off into surrounding watercourses, sometimes resulting in the eutrophication of rivers and the elimination of fish from them. AAAAAArgh! It gets even worse too - flatulant cows are a major source of methane which is a potent greenhouse gas. Therefore, drinking milk melts the polar ice caps, poisons rivers, raises sea levels and contributes to the extinction of polar bears. Bloody cows.

So, drinking tea is not a green option, nor is coffee, fruit juice or milk, so what is left? I could lick the dew from the morning grass, but I don't have a garden, and anyway it might upset the delicate ecological balance of the lawn, if I had one. There is always beer. In the past people used to drink large amounts of beer. Producing beer can be done at home, reusing the containers required for the brewing process - excellent. The hops and barley (good for corn buntings) can be grown locally, reducing dramatically the travel miles involved and I'm sure I can find a yeast culture growing somewhere in the kitchen. The only other ingredients I need (I think) are water and molasses. Sadly I'll have to buy the molasses, but I can easily walk to the shops, and I can harvest enough rainwater for my needs.

It seems that the environmentally friendly alternative to a cup of tea is a pint of homebrewed beer. Hmmmm beer! This is one green resolution that I can easily stick to.