The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act.
Thank you, Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.
Via James Lileks, via Instapundit.
Give me freedom of choice on my light bulbs, or I will start a movement to ban your evil mercury fluorescent bulbs of death.
Via James Lileks, via Instapundit.
Give me freedom of choice on my light bulbs, or I will start a movement to ban your evil mercury fluorescent bulbs of death.
Labels: aesthetics, environmentalism, law
Stumble It! Facebook DiggIt! Del.icio.us
posted by Ann Althouse at 8:29 AM
186 Comments:
There's no reason why a well-informed marketplace can't be trusted to make appropriate decisions about these and competing products.
What's very troubling is the rush toward governmental inference with the market before the necessary information has even been gathered and distributed.
This post has been removed by the author.
When I moved into my home in July, after some extensive rehab and redecorating, I decided to use those nee high falootin, cute, curly cue light bulbs. Not out of any sense of altruism or concern over the environment, but because they last longer and are cheaper to use.
Big mistake. The light they emit- harsh white- brings out the yellows in the color of paint on my walls. It creates a very depressing atmosphere. I went back to those old fashioned light bulbs.
If they pass a law, I will be stocking up on incandescents. My next project- wood burning fireplace. I have to get it done before they outlaw them too.
Note, I love the phony claim that the bulbs save energy. If I want to dispose of them, I have to drive cross town to a state agency. I have to burn gas to save the environment.
This post has been removed by the author.
what...you...do...not...like...being...
told...how...to...live...
every...nanosecond...of...your...life...
how...odd...
There's no reason why a well-informed marketplace can't be trusted to make appropriate decisions about these and competing products.
Well the operative word there is 'well-informed'. Taking a look at the housing 'crisis', it would seem there were a lot less well informed people out there than we may want to give credit to. All that did was fuel the socialist argument that the consumer is simply too stupid to make intelligent choices on their, hence, the government will do it for you.
What's very troubling is the rush toward governmental inference with the market before the necessary information has even been gathered and distributed.
It's not troubling if you're an AlGore devotee who insists the debate is over on AGW.
You can have my incandescents when you pry them from my cold dead fingers!
Freedom of Choice, is what you want. Freedom from choice, is what you've got. Sorry Devo.
How can I mention devo and not link to the video?
All that did was fuel the socialist argument that the consumer is simply too stupid to make intelligent choices on their, hence, the government will do it for you.
Consumer? Considering the Fed's bailout of Bear Stearns and the need to print (or create) hundreds of billions of dollars in the last few weeks, it looks like the "geniuses" on Wall Street are simply too stupid to make intelligent choices on their own.
I heard Robert Rubin say on NPR that no one could have predicted the meltdown in the subprime mortgage market or the sharp downturn in real estate prices. He should have asked me. I predicted it years ago.
What is so earth shaking about efficiency standards for lightbulbs, we have them for a bunch of other household products (e.g. furnaces, air conditioners, refrigerators).
As for not liking the light these bulbs give off or the mercury content--the industry is working hard to rectify those problems and even better technolgies are in the pipline (e.g., LED bulbs).
So quit your bitchin' and do something unselfish for once.
Beldar wrote: "What's very troubling is the rush toward governmental inference with the market before the necessary information has even been gathered and distributed."
Beldar, if I may be so bold as to do a little editing, all in good fun and friendship mind you! I would have stuck with: "What's very troubling is the rush toward governmental inference."
Giving myself a little dose of my own medicine, I can further improve by more snippage! "What's very troubling is the government!"
Good point, thanks for letting me have a little fun.
Trey
I broke one of those fragile twisty bulbs and now I found out I should have cut out a big swath of the carpet. Do NOT vacuum. Have a glass mason jar at the ready to pick up the debris and seal it. I can only pray we do not end up mad as hatters.
It's not troubling if you're an AlGore devotee who insists the debate is over on AGW.
Regardless of AGW, conserving energy is a good in and of itself.
Beldar said...
"There's no reason why a well-informed marketplace can't be trusted to make appropriate decisions about these and competing products."
Well, sure. But the problem is, what's an "appropriate" decision? The market works fine when "appropriate" means the "best" product is - that is, the product that best balances price with utility. But the people who pushed the lightbulb ban have a different metric for "appropriate": they want consumers to pay more for a product that has no particular utility for them. That's something the market can never accmplish because it's antithetical to the concept of the market. The new bulbs had been on the market for years; the persistence of incandescent bulbs indicates that the market had already made a decision that was, in one sense, "appropriate": it decided that either the new lightbulbs weren't any more environmentally friendly, or being environmentally friendly wasn't worth the added cost. But that wasn't the "appropriate" result from the environmentalist perspective. if your starting point is the adoption of a particular product and the suppression of another, then it's obvious that the market has failed to achieve that goal and regulation is therefore necessary.
Such is the mantra of Hayek's planners, represented today by the group that now calls itself the "progressives": choice is absolute, sacrosanct, and inviolable, with the singular and sole exception that when people make the wrong choice, then we'll have to take the choice out of your hands for the common good.
conserving energy is a good in and of itself.
Then what are you doing on the computer, for heaven's sake? You're being immoral by even commenting!
I broke one of those fragile twisty bulbs and now I found out I should have cut out a big swath of the carpet. Do NOT vacuum. Have a glass mason jar at the ready to pick up the debris and seal it. I can only pray we do not end up mad as hatters.
I just love you conservatives. When it is mercury coming from coal power plants, there is absolutely nothing to worry about and it is just a big kerfluffle blown out of proportion by environmentalists and nanny-state liberals. Now that there is mercury in something you don't like we are all going to die.
Btw, there is a lot more mercury in a conventional fluorescent tube than the compact ones (and they break a lot more easily). Why is this suddenly the end of the world?
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C.S. Lewis
Smoking, light bulbs, dietary fat, speech codes.
Soon to follow: mandatory exercise, correct haircuts, one child per household and compulsory abortions.
Liberal fascism.
What is not compulsory is forbidden.
Because we know what's best for you.
Regardless of AGW, conserving energy is a good in and of itself.
I had a lengthy reply agreeing and then bemoaning the linkage of everything to AGW. Bleah. Blogger ate it. Blogger Gods like crisp posts.
Sell energy conservation as a means to stifle cash flow to corrupt nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
But the people who pushed the lightbulb ban have a different metric for "appropriate": they want consumers to pay more for a product that has no particular utility for them.
The problem with your argument Simon is that apparently you don't understand that the purchase price of a bulb is not its true cost. Simple economics tells you that when you buy something like a light bulb that a rational consumer should factor in the life cycle costs and there is no doubt that compact (and conventional) fluorescents have a much lower life cycle cost than incandescents because of their lower energy consumption and longer life.
So consumers are paying more, not less, to stick with a 130 year old technology.
No matter how you dress it up, this is more of the effort to claim a right to pollute.
There is no such right to pollute.
In other news, high efficiency bulbs without mercury are in the pipeline. But, of course, conservatives who love to waste, waste, waste will oppose those bulbs, also.
"Because we know what's best for you."
Even as they know nothing, they know that.
"There is no such right to pollute."
Says you.
Pastor_Jeff said...
"[If conserving energy is a good in and of itself, t]hen what are you doing on the computer, for heaven's sake? You're being immoral by even commenting!"
LOL. It's like the definition of pork - "pork" is any project that you think is a waste of money but that someone else thinks is a good investment. Energy is "wasted" when it's used in a way that you don't think is valuable but that someone else does.
Here's a nice soundbite typifying Democratic thought:
At a town meeting at the Brian Coyle Center in South Minneapolis on Saturday March 8, 2008, MN State Senator Larry Pogemiller(D) said this, ostensibly about roads and schools:
"I think it's simplistic and naive to say people can spend their money better than the government."
"The notion that everybody can individually spend their money better than government I, I just think is trite, wrongheaded and anti-democratic."
Listen for yourself.
Typical socialistic coercive liberal fascism.
Tim, are you saying there is a right to pollute?
It's really, genuinely sad to see conservatives rail against energy efficiency as they do when supporting gas guzzling cars and energy wasting light bulbs.
So much for the pro-efficiency conservative. Another myth bites the dust.
And, please, the idea that the energy industry reflects a working free marketplace is a very bad and very costly joke. Deregulation has resulted in consumers being ripped off across the country. (To our conservative friends, that would be a bad thing).
By the way, if people are ticked off at high gas prices, you should direct your ire toward gas guzzlers.
Our high gas prices are driven by high demand. And the millions of wasteful gas guzzlers on the roads today are driving up gas prices.
Pogo, indeed. "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Sell energy conservation as a means to stifle cash flow to corrupt nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Ah, now that's energy conservation I can get behind.
Energy conservation is a relative good, not an absolute one. We could reduce energy consumption to zero by living in caves and not lighting fires.
The simplistic cry of "conserve energy" is meant to stifle debate and give the impression that there are simple solutions which selfish people don't want to adopt out of pure malevolence. Who's going to be the first to move into the cave, though? Not Al Gore, obviously.
There is no such right to pollute.
There is no life on earth without pollution of some kind. There's a good debate to be had about how much and what kind, looking at various economic and quality of life trade-offs, but that debate is shut down by absoloutists who live in a fantasy world where magic ponies poop free, clean, and unlimited energy -- and lollipops.
Freder Frederson said...
As for not liking the light these bulbs give off or the mercury content--the industry is working hard to rectify those problems and even better technolgies are in the pipline (e.g., LED bulbs).
Then maybe the government should wait until the industry is finished "rectify[ing] those problems" or the "even better technologies in the pipeline" are ready before legislating. Why force everyone to buy immature technology? Especially when it's also dangerous?
"There is no such right to pollute."
I'm exhaling carbon dioxide; I've got my lights on; I've used the toilet and the shower; I've eaten breakfast and thrown away the yogurt container; my coffee grounds are in the garbage (don't even begin to talk about composting...); I've run two loads of laundry going AND my computer is on.
I have yet to be arrested by Algore's Kyoto-Compliance "There is no such right to pollute" Police for, well, it should be obvious by now - polluting.
So shove that sh*t-for-brains nonsense up your tailpipe, pal.
AlphaLiberal said...
"But, of course, conservatives who love to waste, waste, waste will oppose those bulbs, also."
No one likes to "waste, waste, waste." Some of us do resent government telling us what's "waste," however, and resent even more being asked to waste our money on the latest liberal fad. Me, I use the weirdo twisty bulbs. I don't care about some nebulous mercury content, and I don't care about spending a few extra bucks. But I can afford to do so, and to my eyes, they're not especially worse than the normal bulbs. Other people may disagree about the quality of the light, or not have the money to spare, however, and that makes their choice to stick with regular bulbs a rational choice in the market. It's a choice that progressives want to preempt in the name of progress (we are told).
"By the way, if people are ticked off at high gas prices, you should direct your ire toward gas guzzlers."
This is only slightly right.
The lessor value of the dollar AND the extreme growth in demand for oil by China and India explains most of the increasing prices for oil.
But you'd have to access the super-secret business news reports on the TOP SECRET Internet to find that out.
So sorry you don't have access.
MadisonMan, if you get an error page, sometimes hitting refresh will prompt you to resend the POSTDATA and the comment will go through.
The fact that Bachmann has enough time to focus on something as miniscule as light bulbs shows that she has no place being an elected rep from suburban Minnesota beyond her current term. As for properly recycling the CFL bulbs without expending extra fuel, combine your trips, think ahead and stuff the burned out ones (every 8 or so years) in a closet and as people become more energy conscious, recycling programs will become more readily available. Fluorescent is the norm in office settings and they have no problem recycling the bulbs, why can't homeowners do the same?
Pogo:
Please report for your guvmint issued haircut which will be provided while you run the guvmint mandated 3 miles on a treadmill.
fluorescents have a much lower life cycle cost than incandescents because of their lower energy consumption and longer life.
So consumers are paying more, not less, to stick with a 130 year old technology.
And your point is ...? That people shouldn't have the right to buy more expensive products which they happen to prefer?
I happen to use both CFLs and incandescents. But CFLs really produce harsh, ugly light. Maybe after working all day in offices with flourescent light, people want to go home to a warm, inviting incandescent glow.
Why should they not be allowed to?
Other people may disagree about the quality of the light, or not have the money to spare, however, and that makes their choice to stick with regular bulbs a rational choice in the market.
I know you're not reading my posts, but you are simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Buying incandescent bulbs is an irrational choice if you are concerned about cost.
This post has been removed by the author.
Interesting response from "conservatives*" on the "right to pollute."
A) They embrace pollution as a necessary fact of life which should not be opposed, and,
B) They insult anyone disagreeing with A.
Not much of a thinking process occurring there. Pretty rudimentary skills at reasoning and logic. No wonder "conservatives*" hate science so much.
* - Modern conservatives, ironically, hate conservation of nature or energy and oppose same at every chance. Hence, this dip's bill and the vitriol against efficiency and for waste.
Sornie:
Hello!!! In case you were not paying attention, Bachmann's proposal is a response to a bill that was passed already by Congress banning regular light bulbs. I suspect Congress already wasted many many many hours to pass that dictatorial piece of feelgood tree-hugging crap.
And your point is ...? That people shouldn't have the right to buy more expensive products which they happen to prefer?
Simon's point was that rational consumers choose incandescent bulbs based on price. My point is that he apparently doesn't understand basic economic concepts even though he worships a bunch of economists.
I guess it just goes to show that even people who claim to be "rational" consumers can't even be trusted to understand the most elementary economic concepts (like life cycle costs).
Buying incandescent bulbs is an irrational choice if you are concerned about cost.
Again, so what? Buying a Cadillac is an irrational choice if you're concerned about cost. Cost isn't the only factor in a purchasing decision. That's where there are ... brands! Choice! Markets! All the things that government planners want to take away in the name of efficiency.
I've got news for you -- humans don't like being told what to do or forced into uniformity, especially in the name of what someone else thinks makes sense. Government is supposed to exist for the sake of people, and not the other way around.
Finally, before I reapply nose to grindstone, let's remember Michelle Bachmann is just doing her best to fill Katherine Harris' clown shoes.
"I think it's simplistic and naive to say people can spend their money better than the government."
"The notion that everybody can individually spend their money better than government I, I just think is trite, wrongheaded and anti-democratic."
Schmuck
This is the same rabidly anti-gay Michelle Bachman who said that God told her to run for Congress, and who hid behind Bush's to spy on a perfectly legal GLBT rally.
Ann has some strange friends these days.
Bachman thinks that the government shouldn't be able to choose our lightbulbs, but that they can prevent us from choosing who we want to marry.
I have a word for people like Michelle. It's four letters, starts with C, and rhymes with runt.
Regardless of AGW, conserving energy is a good in and of itself.
fred would sacrifice his infants and toddlers to the energy gods. Those who feel differently should follow the state of Maine's clean up recommendations:
http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/cflbreakcleanup.htm
Regarding electric power plant emissions: Those are diluted by the Earth's atmosphere, not concentrated in my living room. Note that allowing thorough ventilation is the first step to reduce the hazard of a shattered compact fluorescent.
Regarding four-foot fluorescent tubes: Those are thicker-walled and much sturdier than the little twisty tubes. Brushing the end of a fluorescent tube against a hard surface will merely scrape the steel electrode pins, not shatter the tube. Further, not living in a factory or supermarket, I have no fluorescent tubes in the living quarters of my home.
I would gladly wait for the LED lamp, even though it uses large quantities of arsenic in its production.
Hoosier Daddy…
It's not troubling if you're an AlGore devotee who insists the debate is over on AGW.
Especially since Al Gore stands to make a few billion dollars out of it.
Fred Frederson…
I heard Robert Rubin say on NPR that no one could have predicted the meltdown in the subprime mortgage market or the sharp downturn in real estate prices. He should have asked me. I predicted it years ago.
HA HA HA HA HA! You really cannot be serious! Robert Rubin? Who oversaw the near melt down of Citi-Bank due to its poor credit practices? That Robert Rubin? Citi had to be bailed out a wealthy Arabian who owns a piece of it. If he had not stepped in, the government would have had to bail them out. Man, you are a comedian. Robert Rubin- expert banker. HA HA HA HA HA!!!
BTW, I also predicted the melt down around five years ago. You cannot artificially inflate any market to keep it going with out it crashing. That is what all those ridiculous mortgages did.
Fred Frederson…
So quit your bitchin' and do something unselfish for once.
Not just no, but hell no!
downtownlad said...
[Michelle Bachman] hid behind Bush's to spy on a perfectly legal GLBT rally.
Hid behind Bush's what?
Simon's point was that rational consumers choose incandescent bulbs based on price.
Really? Where did he say that? What Simon wrote was:
Other people may disagree about the quality of the light, or not have the money to spare, however, and that makes their choice to stick with regular bulbs a rational choice in the market.
Simon said (heh - Simon said) that people come to different conclusions about the value of products based on various factors, and that their decisions are rational based on their own valuation. Cost is only one factor. Why is that so hard to understand?
Geez, do you want me to make your argument for you? Here: "The market cost of incandescent bulbs doesn't relfect their true cost because of environmental impact and energy use. Government should put an energy inefficiency tax on them to reflect their true cost to all consumers."
That's at least an argument we can debate. Simply saying "People shouldn't be allowed to make decisions I don't find reasonable" is rather pointless. And stupid. And megalomaniacal.
Consumer? Considering the Fed's bailout of Bear Stearns and the need to print (or create) hundreds of billions of dollars in the last few weeks, it looks like the "geniuses" on Wall Street are simply too stupid to make intelligent choices on their own.
Yes Freder the consumer. That is the person that actually has to make the final decision on buying a service or product. I can offer an attractive variable rate loan on a truckload of dogshit but it inevitably boils down to the consumer to determine if its a good purchase.
People who were purchased truly deceptive loans, yes, help them out. People who bought homes in excess of 4-5x their annual income on a variable loan, interest only loan or other dumbass scheme, screw them. Trust me, I saw a lot of that crap going on. Oh I only make $100K a year but I can purchase a $450K home with ZERO down with a lovely 5.45% variable interest rate. I'm no Rainman but even I can do that math.
And I missed where I was defending the geniuses on Wall Street. Or are you just showing your ass by making a wrongheaded assumption as usual?
“It’s part of Satan I think to say that this is “gay.” It’s anything but gay.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.
“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.
“You have a teacher talking about his gayness. (The elementary school student) goes home then and says “Mom! What’s gayness? We had a teacher talking about this today.” The mother says “Well, that’s when a man likes other men, and they don’t like girls.” The boy’s eight. He’s thinking, “Hmm. I don’t like girls. I like boys. Maybe I’m gay.” And you think, “Oh, that’s, that’s way out there. The kid isn’t gonna think that.” Are you kidding? That happens all the time. You don’t think that this is intentional, the message that’s being given to these kids? That’s child abuse.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.
“(He) also fails to acknowledge other psychological factors that could contribute to homosexual youth committing suicide, like family problems or abuse or maybe the fact of what they’re doing.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.
“This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.
Interviewer: “Answer the question, do you hate homos?” MB: “No, but ask my kids! (laughter)” — Senator Michele Bachmann, Tom Barnard Morning Show, KQRS, broadcast May 12, 2005.
Justin - She hid behind a bush.
downtownlad said...
This is the same rabidly anti-gay Michelle Bachman who said that God told her to run for Congress, and who hid behind Bush's to spy on a perfectly legal GLBT rally.
Oh Christ,
Give the gay stuff a rest already. Man, you are a narrow minded, one issue, deranged puppy.
I'll give it a rest middle class guy when I get my rights.
As long as people like you and Michelle Bachman are going to discriminate me and turn your life's agenda into making gays second class citizens, I will NOT give it a rest.
Pogo said...
"I think it's simplistic and naive to say people can spend their money better than the government."
"The notion that everybody can individually spend their money better than government I, I just think is trite, wrongheaded and anti-democratic."
Reminds you of anyone Pogo? Someone who raised taxes on the Middle Class while he lied and said he was raising taxes on the wealthy? Someone who said that people are not responsible enough to spend, save, or invest their own money wisely so the government has to step in and spend their money for them? Then he raised our taxes? Took money out of our pockets when it was unnecessary?
Guy’s name was Bill Clinton, the former Liar in Chief.
But CFLs really produce harsh, ugly light.
When I made my first purchase, I bought a both 'day light' quality and normal.
The 'day light' is harsh and too bright with a slight bluish tone while the normal gives a warm tone not unlike the incandescents.
Sornie said...
"The fact that Bachmann has enough time to focus on something as miniscule as light bulbs shows that she has no place being an elected rep from suburban Minnesota beyond her current term."
The issue isn't lightbulbs. The issue is to what extent the federal government can reach into our lives and homes and make decisions for us. This is merely one iteration of the larger problem with the progessive's command-and-control mindset.
Please do furnish us with a list of appropriate topics for a member of Congress' concerns.
Pastor_Jeff said...
"Buying a Cadillac is an irrational choice if you're concerned about cost. Cost isn't the only factor in a purchasing decision."
Exactly.
downtownlad said...
I'll give it a rest middle class guy when I get my rights.
As long as people like you and Michelle Bachman are going to discriminate me and turn your life's agenda into making gays second class citizens, I will NOT give it a rest.
Boyo, I have never discriminated against gays. I do not care about gays, one way or the other. But you sound like a two year old.
I'll be happy to use CFLs when they produce a pleasing, warm light. Until then, I'm hoarding incandescents.
Fluorescent is the norm in office settings and they have no problem recycling the bulbs, why can't homeowners do the same?
Until now, I had thought only Republicans thought that individuals and big corporations had the same powers, abilities, and resources. Good to know that whatever Trammell-Crow can do, an individual can do.
pastor Jeff, you were close. I will improve on your post:
The market cost of incandescent bulbs doesn't reflect their true cost because of costs their use impose on others that are not reflected n the market price. Incandescents seem cheaper because the costs of their pollution are shifted onto other people external to the transactions.
Hence, the economists term "externalties." It's an example of market failures by which the market falls far short of the perfection it's so often claimed to have.
Personally, I think a carbon tax is the best and most elegant policy, that would actually use market mechanisms for something useful. But it's a tax and, so, cons will turn red in the face.
--------
All of which leaves us with that age-old question. What are conservatives conserving, anyway? Not much!
Really? Where did he say that? What Simon wrote was:
This is where he said that:
"But the people who pushed the lightbulb ban have a different metric for "appropriate": they want consumers to pay more for a product that has no particular utility for them."
He later changed his tune a little without acknowledging my post (because he is a petulent child) and said there were other factors why people wouldn't buy CFLs. But his original post stated clearly that "consumers pay more" for CFLs. This of course is untrue. The initial capital cost of CFLs may be higher, but because of lower energy consumption and longer life, the cost of CFLs is much less than that of incandescents. This is a basic economic principle.
You've aligned yourself with Michelle Bachman. Therefore you are responsible for everything she has ever said. Guilty by association. The exact same rules you've used against Obama and his association with Wright.
Our high gas prices are driven by high demand. And the millions of wasteful gas guzzlers on the roads today are driving up gas prices.
Yes and it has nothing to do with the fact that we have ample supplies right here in the US of KKKA and get, lefty enviros don't want to disturb some flea in ANWAR when we could add those supplies to the world market and drive down prices. And provide some good paying jobs you Dems always say are being outsourced.
By the way, my MAZDA SUV gets better mileage than the 73 Chevy I drove in high school. But I suppose anyting other than a Prius is a gas guzzler to you.
For the lightbulbs, they should just have a (large) tax on incandescent lights. If you still want them, you can get them, but you should have to pay extra for them.
I should also add that those who use incandescent lights are supporting the terrorists. It causes America to use more foreign oil, which causes Arabs to have more money, which they give to terrorists, which goes to kill Americans. And that is the truth.
The initial capital cost of CFLs may be higher, but because of lower energy consumption and longer life, the cost of CFLs is much less than that of incandescents. This is a basic economic principle.
OK, Mr. Economist, what is the discounted payback period for a 20 W compact fluorescent? State all your assumptions.
Incandescents seem cheaper because the costs of their pollution are shifted onto other people external to the transactions.
It's more than that, incandescents only seem cheaper because they are cheaper to buy. Even without the externalities, they use more electricity and burn out quicker, so the individual consumer ends up paying more in electricity and bulbs by using incandescents. CFLs now run less than $4 a piece--an incandescent you can pick up for about .50 each. But the CFL will last at least four times as long and save you a lot more than $2 in electricity over its lifetime.
For the lightbulbs, they should just have a (large) tax on incandescent lights. If you still want them, you can get them, but you should have to pay extra for them.
I happen to agree with you. I also think that rather than setting fuel efficiency standards for cars we should just increase the gas tax.
But you and I both know that new federal taxes are a non-starter.
All of which leaves us with that age-old question. What are conservatives conserving, anyway?
The right to be left alone? The right not to have well-meaning nannies use government power to intrude into every aspect of our lives? The idea that government is best which governs least? The freedom for others to make choices which I don't like?
Not much.
I remember a difficulty trying to get Buildings and Grounds to come up and clean up some construction debris before a false floor was laid over it.
``We don't do that kind of work. We just clean up mercury spills and stuff like that.''
``How big a spill do you need?''
``We'll be right up.''
they use more electricity and burn out quicker
Bullshit. Those supposedly long-lived compact flouro bulbs seem to knock out at the same time as every other damn bulb in my house. Not cheaper at all.
And I toss them in my garbage. If forced to 'recycle' them, I'll toss them in Freder's garbage.
his original post stated clearly that "consumers pay more" for CFLs. This of course is untrue.
Well, I think you're nitpicking over words to try to find fault. It's "of course" true that incandescents do cost less than CFLs. CFLs have a lower lifetime cost (except mine, which seem to die after far fewer than 10,000 hours).
It's a bit like saying that a Taurus with a lower sticker price costs more than a Camry because of lifetime maintenance costs. The person buying the Taurus is paying less at the dealership, however, which is certainly not an irrational decision (well, in the case of a Taurus, maybe).
In any case, Simon's larger point stands -- people make their own valuation of cost and benefit, and should be allowed to do so without the government telling them the "right" choice is.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SJ4wtwcrybM&feature=related
Pogo said: Bullshit. Those supposedly long-lived compact flouro bulbs seem to knock out at the same time as every other damn bulb in my house.
I've been hearing that more and more. Is the long life of CFLs a myth?
OK, Mr. Economist, what is the discounted payback period for a 20 W compact fluorescent? State all your assumptions.
5.6 months, assuming you are replacing a 75 watt bulb and .08 per Kwh. I didn't use an interest rate to get a true discounted rate because the calculator I found here didn't and I was too lazy to modify the xcel spreadsheet (and it wouldn't change much since the payback period is so short). Your annual savings would be about $9.73
The right not to have well-meaning nannies use government power to intrude into every aspect of our lives?
The "liberal" dogooder can't resist nannyism even when it does nothing to further his goals. Compare San Jose, California, and Ann Arbor Michigan. For years, San Jose has had curbside recycling, with only economic incentives to do so. For a base amount, households could recycle as much as they wanted while only being able to throw out a certain amount of stuff. People who generated more waste had to pay more for a bigger garbage can. Buying garbage bag tags allowed disposal of unusual amounts of garbage. The scheme worked, and the amount of the waste stream going to the landfill dropped precipitously.
In contrast, when curbside recycling was proposed for Ann Arbor, it was immediately coupled with a garbage inspection plan, with mandatory fines for residents who inadvertently put recyclables in the trash. Establishing a garbage police represents the worst kind of nannyist thinking.
Well, I think you're nitpicking over words to try to find fault.
Gee, not like anyone ever does that to me!
But Simon pretends to be a legal expert. He should know the importance of precise language. He made a statement that was patently untrue and modified only when I called him on it. (Eventhough he claims not to read my posts.)
Your annual savings would be about $9.73
Those are nice assumptions they built into the model -- $7.50/hour labor cost and 15 minutes to replace every bulb. So incandescents really "cost" almost $2 each just to change them.
What is this, a no-bid government contract?
Those are nice assumptions they built into the model -- $7.50/hour labor cost and 15 minutes to replace every bulb. So incandescents really "cost" almost $2 each just to change them.
I actually zeroed those out in my estimates. I thought those were pretty ridiculous too.
It's also worth pointing out that more evidence of global warming dropped into the ocean this week. The costs of pollution are skyrocketing!
Antarctic Ice Shelf Disintegration Underscores a Warming World.
And, for pastor_jeff, you might want to check out the Interfaith Power and Light movement. (There's a pun in there...)
He made a statement that was patently untrue
Again, Freder, I think you're nitpicking. It is not "patently untrue" that incandescents cost more than CFLs. They cost less, but have higher lifetime costs. Getting a TV at a rent-to-own store costs less than buying it, but also costs more in the long run. But it's not "patently untrue" to say you pay more for a TV at Best Buy than at Aaron's.
CFLs don't save energy if you heat your house with resistive heat, as most around me do.
Every watt the CFL saves runs the furnace an extra watt in compensation.
In the summer it's another matter. But in the winter, there's no energy savings at all.
So incandescents really "cost" almost $2 each just to change them.
LOL. I stopped believing the cost estimates I read in the press long ago. An imaginative fellow with an agenda can get any number he wants.
Every watt the CFL saves runs the furnace an extra watt in compensation.
Wrong! Just like you don't light your house with your resistive heat radiators or furnace, you can't heat your house with light bulbs. Most of the wattage in lightbulbs goes into the creation of light, most in resistive heating to the creation of heat. It is far from a one for one trade off.
AL - Thanks for the link. I do believe that Christians have a responsibility to be good stewards of creation.
I'm not so sure about our ability to "reduce the effects of global warming" on any meaningful level, though, since the major determinant of climate change seems to be that giant yellow fusion reactor in the sky.
Most of the wattage in lightbulbs goes into the creation of light...
Way, way wrong Freder. The reason incandescents are so inefficient is exactly because most of the energy goes into heat. Learn some physics.
I've been hearing that more and more. Is the long life of CFLs a myth?
I've not found that to be true. When we changed houses 8 years ago, we put in some CFLs, and we've had to replace just one -- last fall. The incandescents have all been replaced in that time.
For some reason CFL advocates underestimate the environmental benefits. In particular, they don't mention that living in that awful, depressing CFL "light" should significantly increase the incidence of suicide, and of course committing suicide greatly reduces one's carbon footprint.
"There is no right to pollute" is a principle that can be extended well beyond CFLs, however. For example, nothing contributes more to pollution than having children--not only do they continue to pollute after one's death, but they have children of their own, and so on forever. The environmental damage is infinite. When is government going to address this problem?
Popular Mechanics
"CFLs don't save energy if you heat your house with resistive heat, as most around me do."
Yeah, not so much. This is a very inefficient way to heat.
And you just know there's a link to elaborate!
Also, pastor_jeff, the only way the sun is responsible for global warming is for it's energy millions of years ago now being released through the today's massive combustion of fossil fuels . As well as terraforming by humans reducing the planet's ability to capture CO2.
Please check our more from the Interfaith Power & Light links. (I agree, Christians have an obligation to be good stewards).
Pastor_Jeff said...
"In any case, Simon's larger point stands -- people make their own valuation of cost and benefit, and should be allowed to do so without the government telling them the 'right' choice is."
That - coupled with your earlier observation about cost not being the sole determinant of market value - was indeed my point, with or without nitpicking over the wording. I'm sure that my comment could be misread by anyone with sufficient desire to misrepresent the point, but that's not something I'm especially concerned about. :)
When is government going to address this problem?
Already has. It's called Roe v. Wade.
(Sorry. Couldn't resist)
Every light in my house is CFL and it's just fine by me. Indeed, the correlation among "CFL light haters" with the dislike for environmental stewardship makes me wonder if there's not more to the story.