European Diary:The College of Commissioners held their first meeting following the traditional four-week summer break in Brussels last week. The devastating forest fires in Greece and ongoing turbulence in financial markets dominated the agenda. But it was the future of the humble incandescent light bulb that provoked the most controversial debate.
The carbon filament light bulb, which was perfected for mass production by American inventor Thomas Edison in the late 19th century, still accounts for 85 per cent of the bulbs used in Europe's homes. But with concerns over global warming environmental NGOs are lobbying the EU to phase them out altogether.
Energy-efficient bulbs use four to five times less electricity than traditional light bulbs and manufacturers such as Philips estimate that switching from incandescent bulbs in the home would increase energy efficiency in the EU by 70 per cent.
"This would produce a cost saving of €10 billion a year, which equates to 25 million tonnes of CO2, consumption of 105 million barrels of oil per year, or the annual output of 35 power stations," says Jeannet Harpe, spokeswoman for Philips.
In March EU leaders asked the commission to review whether Europe should follow Australia's lead and ban incandescent bulbs. Last week's EU debate focused on one of the biggest ironies surrounding Europe's promotion of low energy bulbs: the 66 per cent anti-dumping tariff imposed on low energy bulbs imported from China to the EU.
Three of the big four EU lighting firms, including Philips, want the tariffs lifted while consumer groups and environmentalists have also been lobbying to scrap the taxes.
"Duties are in effect an unwanted tax on the products that energy-conscious consumers want to buy and limit the choice of the European consumer, restraining the wider adoption of energy-saving bulbs," says Harpe, who adds that Philips already imports about 50 per cent of its European stock of low-energy bulbs from China.
EU factories can only produce a quarter of the current demand (400 million units per year) for the energy-efficient bulbs, leaving China the producer of choice. This leaves EU consumers paying 66 per cent more for bulbs that cut back on CO2 emissions.
So when Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson arrived at last week's college meeting with a proposal to scrap anti-dumping duties on Chinese-made energy-efficient bulbs, most observers expected the measure to be well received. But Industry Commissioner Günter Verheugen, who has become a thorn in the side of the environmentalist movement in this commission, had other ideas.
Sensitive to the concerns of the one big company that opposed scrapping the duties, the German firm Osram, the German Commissioner deployed a range of arguments about the need to retain the duties.
He warned about the environmental impact of the additional mercury content of energy-efficient bulbs and the additional CO2 produced by transporting bulbs from China. The negative impact on employment at Osram of allowing more cheap Chinese imports into Europe was also highlighted as a reason why the commission should propose retaining the duties for two years.
Osram still manufactures two-thirds of its low-energy bulbs in European plants and would be proportionately more affected by the scrapping of duties than its rivals.
At the meeting commission president José Manuel Barroso sponsored a compromise deal whereby the commission will propose to member states that the anti-dumping duties should remain for one more year rather than the two sought by Verheugen.
"We have to balance environmental interests with the interest of fair trade," said commission spokesman Johannes Laitenberger, who announced the deal to the media.
Green NGOs such as WWF described the proposal as "disappointing and unfair" because consumers will continue to pay more for low-energy bulbs and this would undermine demand.
The result was also a disappointment for Peter Mandelson, who will next month unveil a major shake-up of EU anti-dumping strategy to take account of China's recent emergence as Europe and the world's primary manufacturing hub.
"Imposing punitive measures raises a cheer for politicians," he said yesterday. "But if it is inhibiting European companies from pursuing rational production strategies - or as in the lightbulbs case, flying in the face of our stated policy on energy conservation and the realities of production in Europe - it can also be counterproductive."
In the meantime European consumers must pay more to emit less.