Fluorescent light bulbs and the "wife test."
I've noted here previously (
1,
2) the benefits of
compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs): they dramatically lower energy consumption, helping to reduce greenhouses gases and eventually more than paying for their higher initial cost. So
why aren't they catching on more?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.
The relatively glacial adoption rate of CFLs in most of the United States suggests continued stiff resistance on the home front, despite dramatically lower prices for the bulbs and impressive improvements in their quality.
"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." ...
"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.
After a decade as a researcher in residential lighting, Ton said he has concluded that a major part of the CFL problem in penetrating the American home "is a lack of communication between the sexes."
"The guy typically brings a CFL home and just screws it into a lamp in the bedroom, without discussing it with his wife," Ton said. "She walks in, turns on the light and boom -- there is trouble. That is where the negative impressions begin, especially when the guy puts it into the bedroom or the bathroom, the two most sacred areas of the home."
Ton advises husbands and wives "to talk about it before the light bulb is screwed in."
Labels: environment, Light bulbs, men and women, money
posted by Paul Murray at 12:52 PM | permanent link | 
You never give me your money.
Good heavens. Paul McCartney is only the
third richest musician in the world? Even weirder: I've never even heard of #1.
LONDON (AP) - Paul McCartney is ranked third in an annual list of Britain's richest musical figures, with a fortune estimated at $1.4 billion.
The Sunday Times' annual Rich List, released Friday, said the former Beatle's fortune was down $200 million from last year, due to the estimated cost of his upcoming divorce from Heather Mills.
Clive Calder, the former Zomba records label boss whose acts included Britney Spears and 'N Sync, was at the top of the music list, with a fortune estimated at $2.6 billion.
Andrew Lloyd Webber was in second place at $1.5 billion. The composer has had a good year thanks to his role as producer of a West End revival of "The Sound of Music," whose star was chosen by a reality TV program.
The list also includes: theater producer Cameron Mackintosh; "American Idol" impresario Simon Fuller; pop queen Madonna and her husband, Guy Ritchie; Elton John; Mick Jagger; entertainment entrepreneur Robert Stigwood; crooner Tom Jones; and Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards.
Labels: Beatles, money, music, wealth
posted by Paul Murray at 12:53 PM | permanent link | 
