Ed Are light bulb efficiency laws really a rights issue?

[RandyN]

We make incandescent in my home town here in PA. Our representatives have proposed laws making these lamps available for all in PA. Don’t know how that might affect the rest of the country. There was talk of converting to halogen but never CFB...ever try to read a book under this type of light?

OTOH....I suppose a design change from Edison days might be in order. The machines here pump out > than a million bulbs a shift. 3 shifts a day....lots of good paying jobs. I have friends who work there so I get all mine free....the watt stamp may be smeared or one bulb in a four pack is broken...I have enough for the rest of a couple of peoples lives....

 

[Lowpro]

Lol there's "what the people can and can't do" and then there's progressing past old technology. They aren't telling the people what they can and cannot buy, they're telling companies that they cannot manufacture dated technology for consumer use for practicality's sake.

Hardly an infringement on the people. I remember when Low-Flow toilet laws came around...

 

[Furcifer]

They aren't telling the people what they can and cannot buy, they're telling companies that they cannot manufacture dated technology for consumer use for practicality's sake.

That's just semantics, it's effectively the same thing. I've seen this argument before and I'm curious if limiting a companies "right" to build a light bulb is somehow better than saying you can't buy it? Is it better that the law only applies to 1 person? (or less people) It's like saying "Sure you can get an abortion, but doctors aren't allowed to perform them".

 

[LTC8K6]

I pay for the energy I use. If I like inefficient light bulbs, and a company wants to make them for me, it's nobody else's business, imo.

If the market kills inefficient light bulbs, fine.

CFLs get very hot at the ballast and still suffer when used in enclosed fixtures.

 

[Puppycow]

Every act of government is an infringement upon somebody's rights.

Every act of government should be carefully considered in that context, and tolerated only when the good of such infringement can be demonstrated to outweigh the harm.

All laws are really rights issues. It's actually kind of depressing--and disgusting--that some people don't--or won't--understand this.

I agree with you in principle.

As to this specific law, I think that the good outweighs the harm. There are externalities to energy consumption, which means that it's not just a matter of individual rights. When you consume energy, especially fossil fuel, that has an effect on everyone.

 

[Puppycow]

I haven't had that problem with fluorescents. Mine are actually rated to last about 6 times as long as a regular light bulb. What are you buying?

Those claims just don't seem to hold true though. Granted, I haven't run a controlled study, but my cfls seem to burn out (or get flickery) at about the same rate as my incandescents.

(BTW, I use energy efficient light bulbs where possible, but I have a decorative chandelier in my living room that takes those decorative pointy incandescent light bulbs (candelabra light bulbs?), and CFLs just don't look right on it).

 

[Puppycow]

I pay for the energy I use. If I like inefficient light bulbs, and a company wants to make them for me, it's nobody else's business, imo.

But do you also pay for the externalities, such as increased global warming?

 

[Fishstick]

Those claims just don't seem to hold true though. Granted, I haven't run a controlled study, but my cfls seem to burn out (or get flickery) at about the same rate as my incandescents.

(BTW, I use energy efficient light bulbs where possible, but I have a decorative chandelier in my living room that takes those decorative pointy incandescent light bulbs (candelabra light bulbs?), and CFLs just don't look right on it).

What about CFL's like this?

From my experience if it's going to be a room where the light is toggled often and short (Bathroom, hallway, closet, basement, ...) LED lights are a better choice. For long-lit rooms my CFL's have been going strong, but you really do get what you pay for. I've gotten cheapo CFL's before and had all of them die within the year, within weeks of eachother. The ones I have now I've had for 4 years.

 

[Furcifer]

But do you also pay for the externalities, such as increased global warming?

At least here in Canada, if I buy another couple kilowatt hours, both the utilities company and I pay taxes to the government, who in turn subsidize all kinds of alternative and renewable energy sources. So yes, I pay for externalities like increased global warming, unlike those CFL using hippies

 

[Roboramma]

At least here in Canada, if I buy another couple kilowatt hours, both the utilities company and I pay taxes to the government, who in turn subsidize all kinds of alternative and renewable energy sources. So yes, I pay for externalities like increased global warming, unlike those CFL using hippies

Sorry but that's not "paying for externalities". You aren't actually paying the people who are being negatively affected by your actions. For instance, when you pay for power, you pay the people who supply it. When you use electricity and contribute to global warming, paying a little more taxes doesn't pay money to, for instance, the farmers whose crops will be negatively affected.

 

[Furcifer]

Sorry but that's not "paying for externalities". You aren't actually paying the people who are being negatively affected by your actions. For instance, when you pay for power, you pay the people who supply it. When you use electricity and contribute to global warming, paying a little more taxes doesn't pay money to, for instance, the farmers whose crops will be negatively affected.

Nonsense, my taxes go to subsidizing farmers as well. If some farmer goes broke because I used an incandescent light bulb the taxes I paid go towards his social assistance.

 

[Puppycow]

What about CFL's like this?
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/hEiwI.jpg[/qimg]

From my experience if it's going to be a room where the light is toggled often and short (Bathroom, hallway, closet, basement, ...) LED lights are a better choice. For long-lit rooms my CFL's have been going strong, but you really do get what you pay for. I've gotten cheapo CFL's before and had all of them die within the year, within weeks of eachother. The ones I have now I've had for 4 years.

I suppose those would work, although they weren't available at the store where I went shopping for light bulbs, and they really don't look as aesthetically pleasing as the incandescents.

As far as how the CFLs last, it could be that my incandescents actually last longer than whatever estimate is that they use as a baseline for the CFLs. They seem to be lasting 2 to 4 years or so. I compromise by only having half of them on at a time, although the light is a bit on the dim side.

 

[Roboramma]

Nonsense, my taxes go to subsidizing farmers as well. If some farmer goes broke because I used an incandescent light bulb the taxes I paid go towards his social assistance.

But proportional to the degree that your actions damage him? I don't see how you can know that.

ETA: To make myself clear, when you say you are paying for externalities, I take to mean the same that I mean when I say I paid for a sandwich. But when I buy a sandwich, I actually make a deal with the person selling it, we agree on a price. You are paying taxes that may or may not go to benefit the people who are negatively affected, and the degree of benefit may or may not be equal to the degree of harm. If you can show that the money both goes to all those who are harmed, and that it is equal to the degree of the harm, then I'm happy to agree that you've paid for those externalities.

 

[Furcifer]

But proportional to the degree that your actions damage him? I don't see how you can know that.

I don't think you can know that. There's no measuring how effective the change to CFL's is in the first place, let alone trying to project 20 or 50 years into the future. Not to mention you're overlooking the benefits of Global Warming and focusing on the bad. There's nothing to say climate change won't make for a bumper crop one year and then 2 years of crappy ones.

If you can show that the money both goes to all those who are harmed, and that it is equal to the degree of the harm, then I'm happy to agree that you've paid for those externalities.

You can't show changing to CFL's prevents any harm either. Global Warming is just a prediction of possible events. To properly account for externalties you need something like environmental insurance. Pay environmental fees to a fund so that when something happens that can be attributed to Global Warming the people harmed are paid directly.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't see this so much as a “rights” issue, but as a “government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong” issue.

There is no valid reason for government to be dictating to us what kind of light bulbs we can and cannot buy or use.

Government didn't force us to abandon slide rules in favor of electronic calculators. This happened on its own, once electronic technology developed to the point where one could easily buy a calculator that could do everything that a slide rule could do, for less than the price of a good slide rule.

Similarly, I see no reason at all why government should take any hand in trying to force the premature abandonment of incandescent lighting technology. When the point is reaches where some more modern form of lighting is able to perform as well as a classic incandescent light, for less than the price of an incandescent light, then the time will have come for incandescents to fade off into obsolescence.

I think we may be getting close, but we're not there yet.

As long as any significant market exists that finds old-style incandescents to be the most practical form of lighting for their needs, I don't think government has any business interfering with this market. Once the point is reached where some other lighting technology is universally more practical, there will be no need for any government action to send incandescents the way of the slide rule.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Pay environmental fees to a fund so that when something happens that can be attributed to Global Warming the people harmed are paid directly.

What happens when the damage is so great that there isn't enough money in the fund to compensate for it? Prevention is better than cure. In the long run it will be far cheaper to start cutting CO2 emissions now, rather than trying to fix up the damage later.

But you can't expect individuals to make the right decisions when they don't see an immediate personal benefit. That's why the government has to step in. There are many things the government can do to get people making the right choices, including giving them a better choice to make. Setting efficiency standards gives manufacturers an incentive to improve their products, therefore increasing the choices available to consumers.

I don't approve of an outright ban on the sale of incandescents, because it has a negative psychological effect. Greater emphasis should be placed on informing the public so that they can appreciate why they should change (did you know that a conventional incandescent bulb is less then 3% efficient? More then 97% of the power it uses is wasted!).

 

[Oystein]

Nonsense. Many acts of government involve the creation of rights. To pretend otherwise is entirely dishonest.

This is debatable and depends on the philosophy of law that you subscribe to.

When the then new German constitution (Grundgestz) was debated after WW2, they seriously considered the following wording for Article 2, iirc:

Every person is free to do and don't whatever they please.​

And all the rest of the constitution would have been a description of the limits to restrict that fundamental freedom.

It could well be said that the constitution's foundation, thusly expressed, does not create rights andf freedoms ex nihilo, but rather makes expressive a condition found to be the natural state of man's legal status.

In other words: All rights and freedoms already exist before any legal order, and all laws either restrict those freedoms, or describe limits to such restrictions.

 

[stokes234]

In other words: All rights and freedoms already exist before any legal order, and all laws either restrict those freedoms, or describe limits to such restrictions.

How about anti-discrimination rights? Without laws, in the uk, it is entirely plausible that certain bars or restaurants would restrict, for example, ethnic minorities. The anti-discrimination laws grant ethnic minorities the right to access.

 

[Roboramma]

I don't think you can know that. There's no measuring how effective the change to CFL's is in the first place, let alone trying to project 20 or 50 years into the future. Not to mention you're overlooking the benefits of Global Warming and focusing on the bad. There's nothing to say climate change won't make for a bumper crop one year and then 2 years of crappy ones.




You can't show changing to CFL's prevents any harm either. Global Warming is just a prediction of possible events. To properly account for externalties you need something like environmental insurance. Pay environmental fees to a fund so that when something happens that can be attributed to Global Warming the people harmed are paid directly.

In other words, you can't say that you are paying for the externalities. You agree to that, correct?

 

[Furcifer]

What happens when the damage is so great that there isn't enough money in the fund to compensate for it? Prevention is better than cure. In the long run it will be far cheaper to start cutting CO2 emissions now, rather than trying to fix up the damage later.

True. But do you realize you can rationalize just about any cockamamie scheme based on "Global Warming" like this? Let's tax bean growers because of the methane from burritos. Methane is 24 times more powerful than CO2. Every burrito you eat contributes to destroying the very farms that produce the beans. It's just horrible what we're doing to the planet.

Doesn't there need to be more than unsubstantiated claims of a brighter tomorrow to warrant the government getting involved in regulating the production of products?

But you can't expect individuals to make the right decisions when they don't see an immediate personal benefit.

You mean like saving money by switching from incandescent to CFL's?

There are many things the government can do to get people making the right choices, including giving them a better choice to make. Setting efficiency standards gives manufacturers an incentive to improve their products, therefore increasing the choices available to consumers.

I think that's the point, they weren't given the choice. I don't see why levying an environmental fee wasn't considered instead of an outright ban. It's seems like the more responsible approach for a government to take.

I don't approve of an outright ban on the sale of incandescents, because it has a negative psychological effect. Greater emphasis should be placed on informing the public so that they can appreciate why they should change (did you know that a conventional incandescent bulb is less then 3% efficient? More then 97% of the power it uses is wasted!).

I think it's closer to 5%, but yes they are very inefficient, so are CFL's for that matter. However, they are 97% efficient as long as you have the heat on.

I agree the government needs to step in at times, but I think they need more evidence that their stepping is necessary. Fuel efficiency for example is a clear cut case of where the government needs to step in a set standards for the benefit of society. Light bulbs not so much.