California Dim Bulb Proposes Incandescent Light Ban
California's War on Reasonableness continues:
Some hasty stitches:
--To the extent that there is a global warming problem, light bulbs aren't it. In fact, electricity isn't it. And if electricity were the problem, then the solution would be nuclear power plants, not warm-fuzzy-feeling light bulb bans.
--Even if old-fashioned light bulbs were the problem, then the solution would be a Pigou tax on them, not a ban.
--People have a right to be myopic. The new "compact fluorescent lightbulbs" are indeed more energy efficient and longer-lasting (and, net-net, less expensive over time) than old-fashioned incandescent bulbs. But they are vastly more expensive at the cashier. It's easy for nanny-staters to declare "they save money in the long run." But not everyone lives in the long run -- the student buying a light bulb for her dorm lamp; the senior citizen on a fixed income, etc. People have a right to think about the short run rather than the long run and to make their purchases accordingly.
--People have a right to be wasteful. All tastes and preferences are subjective. That includes each person's definition of "wasteful." What's "wasteful" to me may not be "wasteful" to you, and vice versa. If I want, at my own expense, to run my air conditioner with the window open, or to buy Neopolitan ice cream and throw away the strawberry part, or to buy a gym membership and never go, or to discard an old Xbox 360 game rather than sell it on eBay, or to pay for an expensive medical test that I probably don't need, then that's my prerogative. It's your prerogative to think me foolish. It's not your prerogative to try to stop me -- whether to save my checkbook or to save the planet.
Of course, in the long run, supply and demand will solve this "problem" with no catalysis from politicians -- one example here. So by the time 2012 rolls around, the market may have made the politicians' grandstanding moot (which won't stop them from taking credit, naturally).
---
Meanwhile, the U.K. Green Party has declared Windows Vista wasteful and harmful to the environment. To which my response is: So is the Monarchy. Perhaps Green Britons should address that pollutant first. (Via Slashdot.)
---
Also meanwhile, some "socially conscious" New Yorker has declared grocery deliveries wasteful and harmful to the environment. My response: Don't ban the delivery truck; ban the ice cream that it's delivering. Either approach "saves the planet," so why prefer one solution over the other?
A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.I concur fully: This is indeed a joke. Except I'm not laughing.
The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
Some hasty stitches:
--To the extent that there is a global warming problem, light bulbs aren't it. In fact, electricity isn't it. And if electricity were the problem, then the solution would be nuclear power plants, not warm-fuzzy-feeling light bulb bans.
--Even if old-fashioned light bulbs were the problem, then the solution would be a Pigou tax on them, not a ban.
--People have a right to be myopic. The new "compact fluorescent lightbulbs" are indeed more energy efficient and longer-lasting (and, net-net, less expensive over time) than old-fashioned incandescent bulbs. But they are vastly more expensive at the cashier. It's easy for nanny-staters to declare "they save money in the long run." But not everyone lives in the long run -- the student buying a light bulb for her dorm lamp; the senior citizen on a fixed income, etc. People have a right to think about the short run rather than the long run and to make their purchases accordingly.
--People have a right to be wasteful. All tastes and preferences are subjective. That includes each person's definition of "wasteful." What's "wasteful" to me may not be "wasteful" to you, and vice versa. If I want, at my own expense, to run my air conditioner with the window open, or to buy Neopolitan ice cream and throw away the strawberry part, or to buy a gym membership and never go, or to discard an old Xbox 360 game rather than sell it on eBay, or to pay for an expensive medical test that I probably don't need, then that's my prerogative. It's your prerogative to think me foolish. It's not your prerogative to try to stop me -- whether to save my checkbook or to save the planet.
Of course, in the long run, supply and demand will solve this "problem" with no catalysis from politicians -- one example here. So by the time 2012 rolls around, the market may have made the politicians' grandstanding moot (which won't stop them from taking credit, naturally).
---
Meanwhile, the U.K. Green Party has declared Windows Vista wasteful and harmful to the environment. To which my response is: So is the Monarchy. Perhaps Green Britons should address that pollutant first. (Via Slashdot.)
---
Also meanwhile, some "socially conscious" New Yorker has declared grocery deliveries wasteful and harmful to the environment. My response: Don't ban the delivery truck; ban the ice cream that it's delivering. Either approach "saves the planet," so why prefer one solution over the other?
Related Posts (on one page):
- Australia: That's Not a Light Bulb Ban...
- California Dim Bulb Proposes Incandescent Light Ban
Posted by Kip on
31 January 2007.
