Back to SoWal Lounge

CFLs - the bulb everyone except the government hates

30ashopper avatar
30ashopperSoWal Insider
2,244 views
Though anti-populist in the extreme, the bulb ban in fact evinces none of the polished wonkery you’d expect from sophisticated technocrats. For starters, it’s not clear what the point is. Why should the government try to make consumers use less electricity? There’s no foreign policy reason. Electricity comes mostly from coal, natural gas and nuclear plants, all domestic sources. So presumably the reason has something to do with air pollution or carbon-dioxide emissions.

But banning light bulbs is one of the least efficient ways imaginable to attack those problems. A lamp using power from a clean source is treated the same as a lamp using power from a dirty source. A ban gives electricity producers no incentive to reduce emissions.

Nor does it allow households to make choices about how best to conserve electricity. A well-designed policy would allow different people to make different tradeoffs among different uses to produce the most happiness (“utility” in econ-speak) for a given amount of power. Maybe I want to burn a lot of incandescent bulbs but dry my clothes outdoors and keep the air conditioner off. Maybe I want to read by warm golden light instead of watching a giant plasma TV.

What matters, from a public policy perspective, isn’t any given choice but the total amount of electricity I use (which is itself only a proxy for the total emissions caused by generating that electricity). If they’re really interested in environmental quality, policy makers shouldn’t care how households get to that total. They should just raise the price of electricity, through taxes or higher rates, to discourage using it.

Instead, the law raises the price of light bulbs, but not the price of using them. In fact, its supporters loudly proclaim that the new bulbs will cost less to use. If true, the savings could encourage people to keep the lights on longer.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ncle-sam-gets-to-choose-virginia-postrel.html

Crony capitalism at its best. Poorly designed, negatively impacting those that are most vulnerable the most, and accomplishing very little of the overarching goal it was supposed to address.

Edited

Replies

57
30ashopper avatar
30ashopperSoWal InsiderAuthor
#27
Originally, I thought Shopper's post was just typically anti-government in general.
Then, it appeared that his concern was "States Rights": the Feds have no authority to set certain standards, while lower-level governments do have the authority...But...setting efficiency standards for light bulbs is just a bad idea.
His orig post makes the point that setting efficiency standards for light bulbs is not perfect policy, nor does it solve all our energy problems. While these points are correct, setting efficiency standards for light bulbs saves energy just like mpg standards on cars or efficiency standards for air conditioners, refrigerators, etc. Now, I'm back to thinking that the orig post Was Indeed just one of his many anti-govt posts.

It's a mixture, there are many many things wrong with the federal light bulb ban. The discussion tends to meaner over all the reason why legislation like this shouldn't be implemented.
PearlSB4U avatar
PearlSB4UBeach Fanatic
#28
Another example that might hit a nerve - if I choose to smoke pot in my home, and lets say I don't drive under the influence after doing it and I don't give the stuff I'm smoking away or sell it, and there are no other people around who might be influenced by my action.. shouldn't such an act be legal? It's not of course - for the good of the overall group. I disagree with this approach - because in doing what's good for the group overall government restricts my right to do something that has no effect what-so-ever on the group! Government should not have the right to do that.

I think we're getting on the same wave length now: you want to debate where we should strike the balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of society as a whole.
Conservatives & Liberals are always debating where that balance should be for a whole range of issues: recreational drug use, motorcycle helmets, seat belts, public education, public health care, access to the legal system, minimum wage...etc., etc., etc.
I believe the govt Should set minimum efficiency standards for all appliances that use energy; you don't think so.
OK.
30ashopper avatar
30ashopperSoWal InsiderAuthor
#29
I think we're getting on the same wave length now: you want to debate where we should strike the balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of society as a whole.
Conservatives & Liberals are always debating where that balance should be for a whole range of issues: recreational drug use, motorcycle helmets, seat belts, public education, public health care, access to the legal system, minimum wage...etc., etc., etc.
I believe the govt Should set minimum efficiency standards for all appliances that use energy; you don't think so.
OK.

I don't have much of an issue with government standards as long as they aren't abused. I can think of a few examples of how voluntary standards have actually promoted commerce while not impugning anyone's individual rights. Banning light bulbs surreptitiously through energy standards doesn't fall into that category.

In general I think if you apply a core set of principals independent of context, you do less damage overall.
30ashopper avatar
30ashopperSoWal InsiderAuthor
#30


..and if you fail to succeed in convincing the group you're right, civil disobedience is always an option. :cool:
PearlSB4U avatar
PearlSB4UBeach Fanatic
#31


..and if you fail to succeed in convincing the group you're right, civil disobedience is always an option. :cool:

For any given wattage incandescent bulb, you can get more light intensity (# of lumens) from fewer watts via CFLs, LEDs & several other lighting options. By insisting on using incandescents, you are costing yourself more $...but...good for you...I guess.
You're also using more than your fair share of energy, but we disagree on where the balance should be struck between your individual rights & the rights of society.
You're like those moms who drive their kids to soccer practice in a Hummer---even though they're using way more than their fair share of energy, they are proudly exercising their individual rights!
30ashopper avatar
30ashopperSoWal InsiderAuthor
#32
For any given wattage incandescent bulb, you can get more light intensity (# of lumens) from fewer watts via CFLs, LEDs & several other lighting options. By insisting on using incandescents, you are costing yourself more $...but...good for you...I guess.

I've run the numbers with CFLs, the savings isn't that compelling. Plus, the light quality (in my view) is far superior with incandescent. It's a personal choice.

You're also using more than your fair share of energy, but we disagree on where the balance should be struck between your individual rights & the rights of society.
You're like those moms who drive their kids to soccer practice in a Hummer---even though they're using way more than their fair share of energy, they are proudly exercising their individual rights!

My fair share? :roll:

Edited

idlewindBeach Fanatic
#33
For any given wattage incandescent bulb, you can get more light intensity (# of lumens) from fewer watts via CFLs, LEDs & several other lighting options. By insisting on using incandescents, you are costing yourself more $...but...good for you...I guess.
You're also using more than your fair share of energy, but we disagree on where the balance should be struck between your individual rights & the rights of society.
You're like those moms who drive their kids to soccer practice in a Hummer---even though they're using way more than their fair share of energy, they are proudly exercising their individual rights!

If I am paying for the energy I use then what business is it of anyone including the government as to how much energy I use?
poppyBanned
#34
me, me, me, me, me, me, it's all about me
idlewindBeach Fanatic
#35
me, me, me, me, me, me, it's all about me

No it is about individual rights and liberty.
PearlSB4U avatar
PearlSB4UBeach Fanatic
#36
If I am paying for the energy I use then what business is it of anyone including the government as to how much energy I use?

It's Society's business. If we humans as a group have limited resources, it's not fair for the rich & powerful to overuse, leaving less (or none) for the rest of us.

As I said in an earlier post: the CFL debate is a specific instance of the more general debate about where to strike the balance between rights/responsibilities of the individual vs. the rights/responsibilities of society as a whole. I hope you agree that it should be a balance & not totally one-sided. ?
Gidget avatar
GidgetBeach Fanatic
#37
What right does the federal government have that allows it to tell me what kind of light bulb I can buy? I think the arguments stand on their own.

I can't speak for you, but there are many who don't want the government involved regarding lightbulbs but are pretty cool with the government involved regarding a woman's right to choose and same sex marriage.
30ashopper avatar
30ashopperSoWal InsiderAuthor
#38
I can't speak for you, but there are many who don't want the government involved regarding lightbulbs but are pretty cool with the government involved regarding a woman's right to choose and same sex marriage.

I agree to a point on same sex couples. Government should not be involved deciding what is or isn't a valid marriage, that's up to the church or individual. But you still have to solve all the legal rights issues somehow. Legal civil unions as defined by the states seem the best solution there, with states being required to respect other states decisions via Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution.

On abortion I also agree, as long as you're not dealing with a situation where the pregnancy is past the point of viability. After that point, it makes sense to me that the child should be entitled to some protections under the law. (I'd be interested to know how you feel about that Gidget.) These are edge cases though in the overall debate on abortion. Generally I agree people should have the right to control their own bodies.

Edited

30ashopper avatar
30ashopperSoWal InsiderAuthor
#40
If the nation converted entirely to solid-state lighting, it would save enough electricity to power the entire country for 18 months, according to the Department of Energy.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-clean-energy-led-bulbs

Support for basic research is one of the few useful roles of government. Using efficiency standards to force unproven and in some cases potentially dangerous new technologies on consumers is wrong. There's no need to force anything on consumers if solutions available are compelling to people. When government has to force something upon a populace it serves as proof positive the solution they are pushing is not compelling enough. This almost always results in market distortions that often hinder true innovation in the field and hurt individual groups in ways proponents can't possibly predict.

Efficiency through choice, not force.

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts