You’d better go snatch up all the incandescent light bulbs you can get before the end of the year. After the new year comes, it will be illegal to have them produced or imported.
The ban isn’t for all incandescent bulbs – at least, not yet. For now, the ban is for 100-watt bulbs only. Others will be phased out over the next couple of years.
If you’re thinking that the government shouldn’t be telling people what light bulbs they can produce or purchase, you’re absolutely right.
This law, designed to promote innovation with more efficient light bulbs, is, like most limitations on freedom, well intentioned. But like we have seen so many times before, good intentions don’t always make for good ideas.
On top of not being able to buy the incandescent bulbs, the new CF bulbs contain harmful chemicals and must be disposed of differently than the incandescent bulbs. Plus, there are the nagging facts that CF bulbs don’t last as long as they’re supposed to, get dimmer with age, and don’t produce warm light.
I’m completely in favor of encouraging innovation that uses less energy and saves people money, but the way to encourage that innovation is not to have government step in, make the purchase decision for everyone, and ban the old solution.
The right solution is, ironically enough, the exact opposite. Get Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers in this market and let consumers make their own choices about what products they want to use. Conservation is a good thing. This forced conservation, however, is an assault on freedom and innovation.
This light bulb issue is minor, I know. The world won’t end on January 2nd because we can’t buy a 100-watt bulb at Wal-Mart. But keep in mind that freedom is rarely taken from America in large chunks. Instead, it’s eroded little by little be bureaucrats who think they know better than we do.
There is no assault on liberty so small that it’s not worth standing up against. If we let the little issues slip past us without noticing, we’ll find that over time the little issues will bring us far more government intervention that we ever thought we’d be willing to tolerate.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
The ban actually makes no sense – from any perspective
Apart from affecting people’s product choice,
the actual switchover savings are not that great anyway =
less than 1% of overall energy use, and 1-2% grid electricity is saved,
as shown by USA Dept of Energy EU statistics and other official information
http://ceolas.net/#li171x
with alternative and more meaningful ways to save energy in
generation, distribution or consumption.
The site also extensively lists why the supposed consumer savings aren’t there
(and how their electricity is made more expensive, from reduced sales, if they are, either by direct rate rises or by govmt/local subsidies, as referenced)
Light bulbs don’t burn coal or release CO2.
Power plants might!
If there’s a problem – deal with the problem,
rather than a token ban on simple safe light bulbs that people
like to buy (which ironically is why there is a “need” to ban them)
There is the political angle too…
I certainly agree on individual liberty
but, given your political interest,
notice how it’s wrong whatever the ideology!
So, apart from Libertarians….
Liberal – Democrat?
= Tax and Subsidies instead
Think of bankrupt California Government,
banning everything in sight (buildings, cars, TV sets etc based on
energy consumption)
- and getting nothing for it.
The ban on some bulbs is all about lowering electricity use.
To lower electricity use, if seen as relevant,
then coal, electricity from coal, all electricity,
or the bulbs themselves could simply be taxed, and
cross-subsidize lower prices on energy saving alternatives,
so people are “not just hit by taxes”
equilibrating the market and keeping consumer choice.
1 1/2 – 2 billion annual pre-ban USA sales of relevant bulbs
show the income potential at federal as well as state level
(while a very high tax zeroing sales is the same as the desired ban
= win-win for pro-ban liberal Governments, either way)
Conservative – Republican?
= Stimulated Free Market Competition instead
Free market competition stimulation is better in my view,
if any policy at all is needed (which I doubt)
Competition is better also to lower energy consumption,
since electricity producers and manufacturers are then more keen to keep down their energy costs,
and manufacturers deliver energy and cost saving products that the
public actually want.
New energy saving inventions can be helped to the market.
More on this: http://ceolas.net/#li23x
Of course, as already covered,
Light bulbs don’t burn coal or release CO2,
and lighting switchover savings are small anyway, in overall terms.
A way out is Canada and maybe Texas
Delay in Canada 2 years, legal to manufacture in Texas since June…
6 other states have repeal bills.
blog posts
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com
regulations and bills, updates
http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
includes Georgia, as you may know…
@peterdub – Great info. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks Ron
RE about the blog
” less government involvement in peoples’ lives. Give the people their life and liberty, and let them pursue happiness without the government getting in the way.”
Exactly
Or to put it in appropriate words on the topic here…
How many politicians should it take to change a light bulb?
None
How many citizens should be allowed to choose?
Everyone!