How many Liberals does it take to change all of the Light Bulbs?
Legislator Wants Green Lights in California
A California lawmaker wants to ban the use of incandescent light bulbs in order to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gases which are linked to global warming. Instead, compact fluorescent light bulbs (COLS) would become the alternative for California residents.
This is a noble idea that responds to the fact that fluorescents consume far less energy and generate far less heat than incandescents. A significant percentage of US energy use is for lighting and by changing our bulbs we can offset the building of some power plants.
However it seems to me that this is a good example of how a progressive ambition could be better implemented with conservative methods. Instead of banning incandescents simply tax them to close the gap between their price and that of COLS. Let purchasers decide if they are willing to pay the premium in energy costs for the special quality of light that many attribute to Incandescents. Why use draconian methods when more flexible approaches achieve almost the same results?
26 Responses to “How many Liberals does it take to change all of the Light Bulbs?”
Um, users of incandescent light bulbs are already paying a premium in energy costs for using them. No taxation is necessary to accomplish that. Right now, competition is rapidly improving the quality of light put out by the CFs (COLS as you call them) and bringing their cost down. Putting artificial constraints on the market will slow further improvements to the bulbs and further cost reductions, making us worse off in the long run.
I believe that the challenge is that incandescents are substantially less expensive at the point of purchase. Most folks are apparently not factoring in the operating costs, or CF sales would be higher than incandescents.
Why not make it a policy that government use fluorescent bulbe?
Lead by example and save on governemtn lighting bills at the same time.
Pat, even if you put a tax on incandescents, there is still a competitive advantage to making your CF blub with better light and cheaper than your competition, so I don’t think a tax hurts the future prospect of lights very much.
domajot, i know that is at least a proposal if not already policy.
You forgot to include LED lights in flashlights and automobile lamps. Incandescents are extremely inefficient. But asking the Shrub to push this is a waste of time. The Rapture crowd is against anything to promote a ‘new world order’. But some Libertarians are also ‘new world order’ nuts. Rummy’s Disease LOL.
Why use draconian methods when more flexible approaches achieve almost the same results?
Gee, because people persist in making their own choices, instead of marching in lockstep to someone else’s perception of how they should behave? And must therefore be coerced under the threat of law into Doing The Politically Correct Thing?
Yeah, that pretty much covers it.
I have read that there are significant numbers of the Rapture Crowd who are enthusiastic environmentalists. Apparently they take seriously the parts of the Bible that say that man is a responsible custodian of the earth.
I have been gradually switching over to fluorescent bulbs for the selfish reason that some of the fixtures are difficult for this short person to reach.
I’m generally against legislating common sense.
Afaik COLS are already more economical than normal bulbs. The problem seems to be that US citizen aren’t aware of the fact. This seems to be a marketing problem, apparent in the idiotic name of the product. In Germany, they are called Energiesparlampen (energy saving lamps) and are common in all households. Since they have a large marketshare today, the prices have sunk to a level where they cost between 3 times to maybe 6 times of normal bulbs, while the energy saving bulbs have a ten time higher life expectancy and a fifth of the energy consumption. Buying them is a totally rational decision. I can’t really understand why the US is so slow in accepting these products.
“I’m generally against legislating common sense.”
Good point. But looking at the irrational behaviour of the average US costumer, I have to ask: What common sense???
I tried to use CF light bulbs but they only have limited applications in our house because so many of our lighting fixtures are combined with ceiling fans. The CF bulbs flicker and are irritating when you have a ceiling fan running. We also have several fixtures that use decorative bulbs the wrong size for CF bulbs. Sigh.
Would California prohibit Amazon and other on-line stores from shipping incandescent bulbs into the state? Could they simply possess the evil bulbs in-state for the purpose of shipping them elsewhere?
Even for California, this is pretty silly.
Rather than raising taxes or baning regular light bulbs, why not require lightbulb packaging or stores to highlight the cost of bulbs per hour/day/week/year?
My hope for a lot of this stuff is to build full costs more directly into the price of goods. So, there are enormous projected costs due to climate change. These are costs that we are going to have to pay at some point. The price of the consumer good should reflect this. Measure the cost of climate change as much as you can, measure the relative contribution that incandescents make towards climate change, and then build that cost into the item. If consumers want to buy the incandescents anyway, they can. But they can’t do it by having their great grandchildren pay for them. They have to pay the whole financial cost of their choice.
“Even for California, this is pretty silly.”
Imho silly is too harsh a word, but I agree that criminalizing regular light bulbs seems like a huge overreaction. Again, in Germany, a marketing campaign for energy saving bulbs, supported by federal agencies, had great results. The heavy handed approach is totally unnecessary. Authorities should start by making energy saving lighting obligatory for public buildings. And they should start a task force with the industry for finding a catchy name. Customers won’t buy stuff when they can’t understand what its good for.
CF, COLS, really! How about the iLight?
“why not require lightbulb packaging or stores to highlight the cost of bulbs per hour/day/week/year?”
Indeed! The marketing campaign here focused on the point of total costs of lighting. Simple (yet correct) calculations where presented in the stores, showing price, life expectancy, and electricity costs for both kinds of bulbs. Themessage to be relayed was, in the medium run, the small investment in the modern products pays off. For convincing customers, the combination of showing cost advantages plus the good feeling of doing the ecologically right thing did the trick.
Chris, that would be a fine idea. We already use the Energy Star rating system on major appliances to encourage/enable consumers to consider energy efficiency in their purchases. And for incandescents it would be really easy, since the normal rating for such bulbs is how many watts they use, a direct measure of their energy consumption. Multiply that times a standard average number of hours in use and an average price of electricity, and you’re in business.
Great headline, Paul!
Wow, I actually agree with Pat on something. It is silly. Encouraging people to replace their regular bulbs is one thing. Banning them is something entirely different.
The point of my post was that often social engineers want to ban behavior they don’t agree with. This is where Liberals and Conservatives can come together to craft policies that encourage behaviors rather than mandating them.
If people are wasting water then raise the rates on high levels of water use.
If people are wasting energy then raise the rates on high levels of energy use.
If people are wasting health care resources then raise the deductible for conditions that are caused by their personal choices.
If people want to smoke with their friends then let businesses decide if they want to cater to that crowd or take the risk of excluding all smokers
It seems to me that this is the essence of a Centrist approach to public policy.
“It seems to me that this is the essence of a Centrist approach to public policy.”
It’s also the essence of the German economical system, the ‘sotiale Marktwirtschaft’. The idea is to couple the dynamic of capitalism with a legal framework that ensures that the economy is enhancing the welfare of the nation. Laws shall give incentives for the preferred behaviour. In many instances, subsidies or tax reductuions aren’t necessary to achieve this, an obligation for producers to present more informations about their goods is enough. For instance regarding the contents of food products or the actual rates of life insurance policies. Outright banning something should be only the ‘ultima ratio’.
Paul, in some instances, I would agree with that approach. And, compared to an outright ban, a tax would be preferable. But that doesn’t mean the tax is preferred or a good thing, looked at alone or compared to just doing nothing and maintaining the status quo.
Your post is an example one of the reasons, I think, many conservatives are very wary of “moderates” and “centrists”. Somebody proposes a ban, which has no chance of passing. Conservatives scream about the market, to make sure to kill the idea before it gains traction. Then a moderate says “hey, instead of banning, let’s just tax it!” Compared to banning, this sounds almost kind of reasonable, so more people jump on board, even people who never would have supported a ban to begin with. This is frustrating because, had the subject come up originally as a proposal to tax, and the two options were “tax” or “leave alone”, again “leave alone” would have prevailed.
In other words, just offering “tax” as a compromise acquiesces in the idea that something must be done. The discussion is no longer, “should the government intervene in this problem”, it becomes “how should the government intervene in this problem”. Once the debate is framed in those terms, the market-based solution which involves no government intervention is going to lose, because it’s not even on the table.
“This is frustrating because, had the subject come up originally as a proposal to tax, and the two options were “taxâ€? or “leave aloneâ€?, again “leave aloneâ€? would have prevailed.”
Sure this is a crooked strategy. But “leave alone” is unacceptable, too.
“Do what we say, OR give us your money!”
Social engineering is social engineering, whichever flag you do it under.
LOL…..Im definitely in the company of Liberals. Only they can discuss taxing Light bulbs with a serious and straight face.