This is from Artforum, I found it via C-Monster.
Come September 1, the European Union has banned the sale of incandescent lightbulbs. As the Süddeutsche Zeitung’s Till Briegleb reports, the ban will have an impact on art, specifically works that use lightbulbs for either functional, aesthetic, or historical effects. A case in point is the work of the Russian artist Ilya Kabakov, who often hangs a bare lightbulb in his installations as a melancholic homage to the Soviet-era ideal of electricity, which was not always available to the citizens.
“Unfortunately, there are no exceptions to [the law] 2005/32/EG” writes Briegleb. “And thus artists, restorers, and museum technicians find themselves faced with the bizarre necessity of small-time criminality.” Kabakov is not the only artist to use bulbs. There are 140 in László Moholy-Nagy’s Light-Space-Modulator; the German post–Word War II “Zero” Group was fond of lightbulbs. There’s a host of contemporary artists, including Olafur Eliasson, Carsten Höller, Jorge Pardo, Valie Export, Stephan Huber, Isa Genzken, Mike Kelley, and Adrian Paci. Even artists who did not work explicitly with lightbulbs have used them: Rauschenberg, Kienholz, Tinguely, and Beuys.
As Briegleb notes, the illegal sale of lightbulbs—even to museums—comes with a hefty fine: $70,000. Even if the existing bulbs could be saved, it’s clear that the supply will eventually be exhausted. To keep a lightbulb work by Felix Gonzalez-Torres or Höller shining bright, museums and collectors will need more than one thousand bulbs, since the traditional ones tend to last on average sixty to eighty days under the kind of constant use that is typical for such installations.
RE "As the Süddeutsche Zeitung’s Till Briegleb reports, the ban will have an impact on art, specifically works that use lightbulbs for either functional, aesthetic, or historical effects."
Unfortunately, not only is the USA also banning the ordinary light bulb, affecting such installations – but the recent June 2009 Energy Bill (now before the Senate) specifically regulates what lights can or can't illuminate artworks
See the Bill p 284-285
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090515/hr2454.pdf
(sorry for mess – thats the way its written!)
‘‘(3) ART WORK LIGHT FIXTURES.
—Art work
21 light fixtures manufactured on or after January 1,
22 2012, shall—
23 ‘‘(A) comply with paragraph (1);
[my note: paragraph 1 is very long and detailed, starts on page 280]
or
24 ‘‘(B)(i) contain only ANSI-designated E12
25 screw-based line-voltage sockets;
1 ‘‘(ii) have not more than 3 sockets;
2 ‘‘(iii) be controlled with an integral high/
3 low switch;
4 ‘‘(iv) be rated for not more than 25 watts
5 if fitted with 1 socket; and
6 ‘‘(v) be rated for not more than 15 watts
7 per socket if fitted with 2 or 3 sockets.
More re light bulb ban, and what lights are banned in EU, USA, Canada, Australia
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1xhttp://www.ceolas.net/#li1x">http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x> onwards
Last link bit messed up
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x
Bans make no sense – from any perspective…
Americans (like Europeans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people WANT gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product!
If new LED lights -or improved CFLs- are good,
people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point)!
The arrival of the transistor didn't mean that more energy using radio tubes had to be banned… they were bought less anyway.
All lights have advantages….
The ordinary simple light bulb has for many people a pleasing appearance, it responds quickly with bright broad spectrum light, is easy to use with dimmers and other equipment, can come in small sizes, and has safely been used for over 100 years.
100 W+ equivalent brightness is a particular issue – difficult and expensive with both fluorescents and LEDS – yet such incandescent bulbs are first in line for banning in both USA and the EU.
Energy?
Since when does America need to save on electricity?
There is no energy shortage.
Note that if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would make people buy more efficient products anyway – no need to legislate for it.
Energy security?
There are usually plenty of local energy sources,
Middle East oil is not used for electricity generation, 1/2 world uranium exports are from Canada and Australia.
Consumers – not politicians – pay for the energy used.
Certainly it is good to let people know how they can save energy and money – but why force them to do it?
Emissions?
Most cars have emissions.
But does your light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
In Washington state practically all electricity is emission-free, while around half of it is in states like New York and California.
Why should emission-free Seattle, New York and Los Angeles households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology or energy substitution.
Also, the supposed savings can be questioned for many reasons:
For example, official research (Energy Star, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Berkeley University and other institutions) question the lifespans, brightness, energy usage, and overall usage savings with CFLs
see http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x
onwards
Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce consumption makes more sense, since government can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
A 1 dollar tax that reduces the current 2 billion ordinary incandescent bulb sales per annum, still raises future billions, and retains consumer choice.
Taxation in itself is hardly needed, and wrong for similar reasons to bans – it's just preferable to bans.