Ban The Old Bulbs?

Here is an interesting proposal: ban incandescent light bulbs in the state of California and mandate the use of compact fluorescents.

I've never been a fan of using regulatory schemes to solve problems like Global Warming. The reason is because all modern societies are pathetically, laughably WEAK and ineffective about doing anything to limit fossil fuel consumption, which is we all HAVE to do to get a handle on carbon dioxide emissions. It doesn't matter what nation or political party tries to implement the limits. We are all addicted to fossil fuels, and addictions can't be fixed by credits, caps, limits, market schemes and all the other contrivances of government.

To slow the accumulation of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, the only thing that will work is the implementation of technical advances that promote efficiency, so that we don't even notice how green we've gotten as we go about our daily thoughtless, piggish ways.

During the 2001 California electricity crisis, despite SMUD's heroic efforts to keep the electrons flowing, I thought electricity rates might climb virtually without limit. I panicked, and replaced virtually all the bulbs in my house with compact fluorescents. A significant number of other Californians did the same. Shockingly, my electric bill instantly fell by 40 - 45%. The compact fluorescents really worked! And I didn't pay any real price in inconvenience either!

In 2001, people were mystified as to how Californians as a whole managed to reduce their consumption so quickly, a factor which helped solve the crisis. The compact fluorescents had a lot to do with that.

So, a ban on incandescent light bulbs seems attractive at first glance. I suspect there might be problems with a ban, however. One reason is that the compact fluorescents are larger than incandescent bulbs, and won't fit in some lamps. A second reason is that the brightness and color rendering of compact fluorescents is not as good as possible with incandescent light bulbs. For most people, for most daily purposes, that won't matter, but some people might have a problem - the operators of art galleries or photo studios, for example, where brightness and color rendering really do matter, might not like the new bulbs.

I think the solution is to make incandescents considerably more expensive than compact fluorescents, 25% higher, or more, perhaps with a tax. So, for special purposes, people would still be able to buy incandescents, but cost would discourage them. I argue for a penalty against incandescents, and not an incentive for compact fluorescents, because what's keeping compact fluorescent prices high right now is the small volume of sales. Prices will come down as sales increase, making incentives unnecessary. Plus, a penalty will be easier for the state to manage as incandescent sales shrink.

The argument is made that this kind of law is an excess of a nannyish government. I would argue against that. Government is at its most effective when it imposes uniform standards on everyone. Mandating the use of seat belts in automobiles, for example, is nannyish government at its best. Heck, even George Will supports seat belts (he witnessed unbelted people get slaughtered in an automobile accident, and as conservative as he is, even he sees the point of the mandate). A suitably-amended compact fluorescents mandate would also be government at its best, and infinitely more-effective than some stupid Kyoto Protocol:

Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, said he plans to call his bill the "How Many Legislators Does It Take to Change a Light Bulb?" act.

But Levine said the intent of his bill is very serious -- to phase out the standard, incandescent bulb in favor of a more energy-efficient model.

"They're cheaper for the consumer, they save the state money and they're better for the environment," Levine said of energy-efficient bulbs.

Legislation is needed because many consumers, faced with a much cheaper retail price for a traditional bulb, don't realize that an energy-efficient model can burn 10 times longer and save perhaps $55 per bulb in the long run, Levine said.

... Runner, a Lancaster Republican, said banning incandescent light bulbs would amount to "nanny government" in which lawmakers dictate how people should live their lives.

Runner said the state should create incentives for buying energy-efficient light bulbs, perhaps, but not prohibit particular models.

"People will do what they think is right for their economics," he said.

Levine said his proposal would ban the sale of incandescent bulbs by 2012.

Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, announced Tuesday that he has created a separate bill to ban incandescent bulbs by 2018, thus providing a 10-year phaseout period.

Huffman and Levine said late Tuesday that they will work together on merging the two measures, but they have not yet agreed on specifics.

Huffman said he hopes to create an energy-efficiency standard for light bulbs, setting the bar too high for incandescent bulbs but allowing for introduction of new technologies in coming years.

The current alternative to a traditional incandescent bulb is a compact fluorescent lamp, which retails for up to $9 apiece but is available in the Sacramento area for about $1 through subsidies from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

... Max Lofing, one of the owners of Lofing's Lighting in Sacramento, said the vast majority of energy-efficient, compact fluorescent bulbs provide substandard quality.

"They aren't quite up to par as far as color rendering," he said.

"They don't make them up to a standard where they provide the highest quality for decorative fixtures."

...Several Sacramentans interviewed Tuesday were skeptical of the proposed ban.

"I think government's going too far on that," said Martin Piceno, 22.

Gloria Dellavedova, 51, said she considers energy-efficient bulbs a good value but doesn't want to see government dictate the market.

"I personally would prefer to have the choice," said Beth Jensen, 27.