RSAS made the award because replacing traditional lighting with LED lighting will "lead to a drastic reduction of electricity requirements for lighting." In support of its decision, RSAS cited some data:
- 20% of the world's electricity goes towards lighting
- LEDs is expected to reduce that figure to 4%.
Isn't RSAS ever so enlightened? It's now time for the UN to mandate the elimination of all light bulbs, especially those dangerous, mercury-laden CFL light bulbs the Environmental Protection Agency has handated for the United States. It's time for LED!
Even the stormy petrels' most vocal propaganda organ, the New York Times, had to admit that the RSAS' reasoning for awarding the Nobel Prize to those who developed LED lighting is flawed. Yes, LEDs may reduce energy consumption on an individual basis. But, global energy consumption increases as energy becomes more efficient.
Why so? Consider what economic history teaches:
- Since the 1800s, the cost of lighting in the United Kingdom dropped by 3,000%.
- As America's lighting became more efficient--moving from coal to whale oil to kerosene to the light bulb--demand for new, advanced energy technologies increased, raising overall energy consumption.
- Cheaper energy technology has also allowed developing economies to access these technologies which, in turn, has increased overall consumption.
- Affordable, efficient lighting options have also allowed people living in poor and emerging economies to light their homes, thus increasing demand.
In sum, lighting efficiency has been a major contributor to global economic development what is called the "rebound effect." It also has increased global social justice by making it possible for the poor to share in the progress made possible by new, advanced lighting technologies.
Considering what economic history teaches, LED lighting is a Trojan horse. It's time for those who worship at the altar of environmentalism to stop the celebrating. Far from turning the world back to the 1800s, LED lighting will enable more people across the globe to build the economy of the 22nd century that will consume more energy!
Let the discussion begin...
To read the New York Times article, click on the following link:
"The Problem With Energy Efficiency."