http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704662604576202770757822548-lMyQjAxMTAxMDAwODEwNDgyWj.html
***************
"There is no such thing as a worthless conversation, provided you know what to listen for." (James Nathan Miller)
***************
According to today's Wall Street Journal (WSJ), as of 1/1/12 Washington will effectively ban the sale of conventional 100 watt incandescent light bulbs. Instead we will be required to buy compact fluorescent lights (CFLs). According to the WSJ, "The greens in the Obama Administration assert that the new light bulbs are good for the lumpen bourgeoisie because they will cut electricity use and save the average household $50 per year." Just conjecture here, but what would the average household save if we eliminated the EPA? Is this another, "Hi, we're the government, and we're here to help?"
But wait, it gets better. Aside from the fact that CFLs are not as bright as regular bulbs, fluorescent lights carry their own environmental risks: they contain small amounts of mercury and other toxic chemicals. The EPA website contains 3 pages of consumer directions on what to do if you break a CFL bulb in your home.
The WSJ asks an interesting question: if CFL bulbs are so clearly superior, why does the government have to force people to buy them? Classic economic theory says the better product (at a competitive price) wins anyway.
Did the Department of Energy really say outlawing incandescent bulbs will "empower consumers with lighting choices?" What choices?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ha! I couldn't agree more - the better product will win out over time, we don't need the government to tell us.
ReplyDeleteMost people I know are already switching to CFLs anyways, so thanks government, for spending our taxpayer dollars to make that decision for us. There's no way we're capable of it. I appreciate the protection!
While I do think this is somewhat big brotherish, this is also exactly the kind of policy that can cut energy usage in this country.
ReplyDeleteLast I checked, oil was one major source of our energy supply. The less we use of that the better, right?
This is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Obama gets blasted for not being aggressive enough on energy policy and then when they do try to do something to fix a complicated situation they get labeled fascists trying to take away our light bulbs.
Granted nationwide only about 4-5% of our electricity comes from oil, but still. Every little bit helps, no?
Plus honestly how much is this really going to cost us, as taxpayers?
Sometimes you just can't win for trying.
Ultimately we'll all be using LEDs soon enough, they're more energy efficient, produce less heat, and have no nasty chemicals in them. It's just a matter of the technology getting where it needs to be.
Craig: as always, you make sense but the type of bulb we're talking about causes problems if dropped/broken because of mercury contamination.
ReplyDelete