026
DETAILS [letters] Correspondence from the lighting design community.
A BAN TOO FAR Since 2007 when our federal government first announced the incandescent light bulb ban, I’ve been speaking in defense of Thomas Edison’s tried and true bulb for home use. While there are many reasons to abolish the light bulb ban, my primary concerns are, and always have been, the health, well-being and freedom of choice for millions of American households. Our home is our castle. Light shines within our castle making our lives safe and sound. It is unconscionable that our government trespasses on our castles by banning the incandescent bulb without ensuring similar quality of illumination and consumer cost. What’s more, our government provides no plan to upgrade the millions of fixtures and lighting controls in existing residences to safely and effectively utilise the new light sources being forced upon us. How will this process occur and how will citizens pay for upgrading their homes? Hundreds of concerned and health conscious people regularly reach out to me as a lighting professional and ask why is all this happening? And I, in turn, ask how can our great government turn its back on the essential fabric of America? I suspect our government officials do this in the same manner they exempt themselves from Obama care and insider trading. Unfortunately for American citizens, to date our government has prioritised corporate and personal profits far ahead of citizens’ quality of life. As consumers complain about the bulb ban over the past several years, the big three
FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH After 30 years in and around the lighting manufacturing and design I’ve decided not to pursue any architectural lighting projects. The abuses are wide and varied with expectations of free consultation after projects have been completed. Clients, architects and interior designers who add scope but do not want to be charged additional fees have little understanding of the process. There seems to be an attitude that what lighting designers do is easily replaceable.
One of my projects was given to a landscape architect without provocation even though a
lamp manufacturers respond that the government’s new energy efficiency regulations eliminated their production of the incandescent lamp. No surprise they neglect to point out that they themselves were the biggest lobbyists for those regulations. It’s simple… there is no profit in a $0.75 light bulb. Adding fuel to this flame are the uninformed green/ environmental advocates that ignore harmful effects warnings of CFLs, the leading alternative to incandescents. In 2014, the incandescent bulb will be relegated to the dustbin of history unless consumers continue to really pressure their legislators to repeal the ban. While we’re faced with numerous big political issues today, lighting might be comparatively viewed as small. But, don’t ignore it. This ban has major consequences for our daily quality of life. Sadly, there is no help from professional lighting societies and advocates that have chosen to relinquish to the government their traditional role of establishing lighting standards. And, there is no help from misinformed government consumer protection groups that are protecting the ill-conceived US government mandate. There are lingering unanswered issues plus new concerns about alternative lighting including a long list of home use problems for CFLs and insignificant energy savings.
The use of new lighting products may make important lighting and energy savings contributions in commercial and institutional projects where such products
are professionally maintained and do not pose hazards for building occupants. This is significantly different from home lighting needs for millions of American households. I look back at my lighting design experience of more than 3,000 projects over 60 years, and there is no way I can, in good conscience, specify today’s CFLs, LEDs, and other alternatives for the majority of American homes. Residential lighting is a tiny fraction of overall energy consumption with limited potential for energy savings. There are far better ways to save energy and reduce the world’s carbon footprint. The same questions I asked several years ago remain unanswered.
Why ban the incandescent lamp in American households when alternative lighting sources are not adequate relative to energy savings, cost savings, safety, and impacts on quality of life? Where are our leaders – the federal government, consumer advocates, and lighting industry professionals? Manufacturers must produce proven, cost efficient home lighting alternatives, and our leaders should hold them responsible to do so. It’s time to help millions of citizens protect their lives and castles. Please repeal the ban of the incandescent lamp.
Howard M. Brandston, (FIES, Hon. FCIBSE & FSLL, FIALD, PLDA) USA
The full version of this letter is available online
http://www.mondoarc.com/ comment/guest_articles/
contract for these services had been signed by the architect and lighting designer. The project architect said, “We like some of the catalog sheets they showed us and that the lighting is included in their fee.” No further explanation has been received from the architectural firm to date regarding this issue.
What I do understand is that lighting designers are about 2% of the total budget for most projects. We charge hourly fees and supply specific information garnered over the years through evaluation, calculations on real installations. We do
not receive fees for specifying a particular manufacturer nor do we receive a commission on sales from suppliers. All of which is spelled out in contract if anyone cares to read it.
In closing I would like to thank mondo*arc for publishing past projects and look forward to submitting new independent projects as they come available. James Long, USA
See one of James Long’s ongoing independent projects in Drawing Board on page 30.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174