Huh?
The necessity for this "light bulb legislation" comes from the very simple fact that at present there is no incentive for light bulb manufacturers to convert the majority of their manufacturing power to producing the more complex and more expensive to construct CFLs. Market forces weren't going to do it because while the long term benefits of the CFLs are well documented, when confronted with replacing a light bulb at Home Depot, the cheapest one on the shelf will garner the most sales and therefore the most shelf space. It was a self perpetuating system that needed the nudge that congress is going to give it. This would be authoritarianism if there were anyone out there who would actually argue that there is a benefit to producing and consuming traditional incandescent light bulbs. Since there isn't, and no one is, this is just good lawmaking, if not a little bit underwhelming lawmaking. I'll take what I can get these days.
7 comments:
Ah yes, so if people won't do the right thing because it makes sense for them, clearly this choice must be forced on them by their betters. It's great to see the left has such a rousing commitment to freedom and personal choice.
I have no problem with CF bulbs. I use them in a few applications around the home where they make sense, but they won't fit in all my fixtures, and it's expensive and time consuming to rewire for new fixtures that would accept them. Plus, the light produced is generally pretty harsh. I don't want to be forced to move to them until the manufacturers give me the product I'm looking for, which so far, they haven't. Perhaps the answer lies in LED technology. Either way, let the market place decide. It's not a choice I want government involved in. When the marketplace exclusively demand CF light bulbs, the manufacturers will provide them.
I agree with Milton Friedman
Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
If you truly think that it is the government's job to legislate this, then you do not value freedom. Freedom means making bad decisions too.
Apparently, the only people who would oppose this measure, which has the support of all enlightened, intelligent people everywhere, are backward, knuckle dragging, Neanderthals who can't properly pronounce "government". I feel so warm and tingly and safe when someone of your obvious intellectual prowess deigns to speak down to lowly little me and tell me of what sins I must repent to be able to approach your level of "goodness." Thank you massa! Thank you.
were anyone out there who would actually argue that there is a benefit to producing and consuming traditional incandescent light bulbs.
Some would argue that the distinct lack of mercury in incandescent light bulbs is a plus.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."
-- H.L. Mencken
"What does freedom mean? It means that hundreds of millions of ordinary human beings live their lives as they see fit -- regardless of what their betters think. That is fine, unless you see yourself as one of their betters."
--Thomas Sowell
I was going to mention the mercury thing, but Curt beat me to it.
That's another one of the advantages of letting the free market make these kinds of decisions. Forced changes accentuate the positives that the proponents perceive, and minimizes or ignores the bad effects (if they've even been discovered). Unintended consequences, indeed.
I never drive an inch without wearing my seatbelt, but it's not the government's job to force me to wear one (or punish me for not wearing one). Same thing here. Ignorance is driving the government to force things that aren't any of its business.
When someone builds a better light bulb the world will beat a path to their door. I use a variety of incandescent, florescent, CF & even LED. Its called task based lighting.
What's next in this intrusive government's agenda, are they going to provide a system of licensing and checks for ownership of certain types of lighting? With an EPA permit you can still purchase from a government licensed dealer some incandescent bulbs? I can see it now, there will be at least one congress critter from California decrying the continued sales of incandescent flood lights. "There is no reasonable use by the private citizen of such powerful items. I have heard that a person could shine one at an airplane causing it to crash by blinding the pilots."
Think I'm being absurd? I call this bill racist because it most directly harms poor black people that cannot afford the more expensive CF. And lets get AARP involved in this since it also descriminates against the aged on fixed incomes. And what does a person who may not live 4 more years care about the longterm benefits of CF?
How much is it going to cost to police the manufacturers and retailers to prevent the sales of these illegal bulbs? What will be the criminal penalties and will they apply to the merchant or the buyer? Oh, probably both. (Hey dude, got some bulbs? Yeah man, I've got some primo GE 100s from Brazil.) So does this mean that the EPA are going to get their own jack booted thugs trained by the ATF thugs?
Light bulb control is all about control.
Hey Ryan, go break a few of those bulbs in some carpet in your house, then after you get the cleaning bill, come back and tell me how they're more efficient.
Of the many and growing number of lighting sources available, they are all pretty much self exclusive.
Some are bright, some dim, some thrifty, some not so. So if I need the benefits provided only by incandescents, Congress knows better than I?
We the people can figure out our light sources. Maybe Congress could figure out how to do what they are mandated to do.
Post a Comment