PDA

View Full Version : Bridging the efficient light bulb gender gap



stephanie
05-06-2007, 06:21 PM
:coffee:

Staff/news services
One of the dimly lighted truths of the global warming era is that compact fluorescent light bulbs still seem to be flunking out in most American homes -- often, market research suggests -- because women are less likely to accept the light they throw off.


"There is still a big hurdle in convincing Americans that lighting purchase decisions make a big difference in individual electricity bills and collectively for the environment," said Wendy Reed, director of the federal government's Energy Star campaign, which labels products that save energy and has been working with retailers to market CFL bulbs.

"I have heard time and again that a husband goes out and puts the bulb into the house, thinking he is doing a good thing," Reed said. "Then, the CFL bulb is changed back out by the women. It seems that women are much more concerned with how things look. We are the nesters."

Madison couples appear more enlightened, according to an informal sampling of some environmentally minded couples. The only domestic arguments appear to be over how many fluorescent light bulbs they can cram into their homes.

Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and her husband, Peter Bock, say they have no squabbles over the bulbs -- only a shared frustration that they can't be put into every socket and fixture.

Meteorologist Brian Olson said, "If anything, these bulbs have decreased fights in our house."

"Now, if my wife leaves the lights on, I don't get mad. For a guy who pays the light bills, I have more peace of mind," he said.

The current market share of CFL bulbs in the United States is about 6 percent, up from less than 1 percent before 2001. But that compares dismally with CFL adoption rates in other wealthy countries such as Japan (80 percent), Germany (50 percent) and the United Kingdom (20 percent). Australia has announced a phaseout of incandescent bulbs by 2009, and the Canadian province of Ontario decided last week to ban them by 2012.

A key to the abiding grass-roots resistance to CFLs, Reed and other experts said, is indelible consumer memories of the hideous looks and poor quality of earlier generations of fluorescent lights. They were bulky. They were expensive, as much as $25 each. They had an annoying flicker and hum. They cast an icky, cold-white light that made people look pale, wrinkly and old.

"People remember them from 20 years ago and they are not going to forgive," said Dave Shiller, vice president of new business development for MaxLite, a Fairfield, N.J., company that manufactures CFL bulbs.

A new breed of bulbs solves most, if not all, of the old gripes. The bulbs are smaller and much cheaper -- often selling for as little as $1.50 each at big-box stores. Most bulbs pay for themselves in reduced power consumption within six months. They last seven to 10 years longer than incandescent bulbs. The hum and flicker are long gone, and many bulbs are designed to mimic the soothing, yellowish warmth of incandescent bulbs. (Most, though, still do not work on dimmers.)

"The new fluorescent bulbs aren't just better for both your wallet and the environment -- they produce better light," declares the May issue of Popular Mechanics, in an exhaustive comparison test of the new breed of CFLs against incandescents.

Still, many consumers -- especially women -- do not seem to be buying in.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week showed that while women are more likely than men to say they are "very willing" to change behavior to help the environment, they are less likely to have CFL bulbs at home.

Men have been aware of CFLs longer than women, have bought them earlier and have installed more of them in the house than women, according to surveys that the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance has been conducting since 2004.

In groceries and drugstores, where 70 percent to 90 percent of light bulbs historically have been sold and where women usually have been the ones doing the buying, CFLs have not taken off nearly as fast as they have in home-improvement stores such as Home Depot and Lowe's, where men do much of the shopping.

"My gut feeling is that the last remaining factor that we have not cracked in selling these bulbs is the wife test,' " said My Ton, a senior manager at Ecos Consulting, a company in Portland, Ore., that does market research on energy efficiency. :poke:
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=132180&ntpid=2

goober
05-07-2007, 09:31 AM
The other side of CFLs is that they contain mercury.
So there is an environmental disaster that accompanies their widespread adoption.
White LEDs are expensive, but in the long run make much more sense.

Hobbit
05-07-2007, 12:21 PM
The other side of CFLs is that they contain mercury.
So there is an environmental disaster that accompanies their widespread adoption.
White LEDs are expensive, but in the long run make much more sense.

It's not much mercury. If you break one, just open a window and you'll be fine.

Yes, I know some woman paid $2000 for a hazmat team to clean one up, but it's unnecessary.

I do like the CFLs if for nothing other than their very long life. Problem is they're just not quite bright enough for me, and cheaper LEDs could fix that.

KarlMarx
05-07-2007, 12:37 PM
My brother was going to replace all of his, but my sister in law doesn't like the looks of them, so my brother had to leave bulbs alone.

Hagbard Celine
05-07-2007, 12:57 PM
Since I started renovating my house I installed all CFLs. I've been there a year and haven't replaced one yet. I think people are worried that there will be a massive mercury build-up in our landfills or something but won't that only happen if we pile nothing but CFLs on top of each other? They'll be spread out so it seems to me that the mercury concentrations will be nominal. I think this is just another instance of alarmism.

Hobbit
05-07-2007, 01:04 PM
Since I started renovating my house I installed all CFLs. I've been there a year and haven't replaced one yet. I think people are worried that there will be a massive mercury build-up in our landfills or something but won't that only happen if we pile nothing but CFLs on top of each other? They'll be spread out so it seems to me that the mercury concentrations will be nominal. I think this is just another instance of alarmism.

Yeah, it'd take a huge box of those suckers just to fill up a thermometor. It's sound technology that has its uses, I just think people make WAY too big a deal about them. They're not going to save the planet, nor are they going to destroy it. They're just light bulbs that last a REALLY long time.

Hagbard Celine
05-07-2007, 01:09 PM
Yeah, it'd take a huge box of those suckers just to fill up a thermometor. It's sound technology that has its uses, I just think people make WAY too big a deal about them. They're not going to save the planet, nor are they going to destroy it. They're just light bulbs that last a REALLY long time.

Supposedly they use less electricity. I switched to them because I wanted to save on my energy bills. I'm sure the difference is tiny, but I also get a little bit of satisfaction from being "green" in that respect. So I guess it evens out. Plus I don't have to worry about changing lightbulbs every couple of months. :dunno: