Recently there has been a bit of news about Congress and their actions in banning and making incandescent light bulbs illegal. Yes, in case you missed that, in a few years it will be illegal to use certain light bulbs. It’s not quite clear yet if they’ll throw you in jail for using them, or only if you sell them. Yesterday I read a letter that was written in response to Joseph Farah’s commentary about light bulbs and freedom.
The response was quite interesting. It did indeed take the position that government has absolutely no business regulating the light bulb. As Mr. Farah says, it’s more about freedom than light bulbs or the global warming hoax. But Robert Dickman, writing in response, makes various claims explaining why the CFL light bulb is so much “better” than the currently popular incandescent bulb. But he only looks at one side: the “benefits” of the bulb.
He first makes the point that the CFL can save a large company money because they won’t have to replace or stock so many incandescent bulbs. I have to wonder how many large companies Mr. Dickman has been in recently — ALL the large buildings and companies I’ve been in already use fluorescent bulbs — the big, long ones you see in various fixtures — perhaps for that very reason. So I’m not sure you’re convincing anyone there, they’re already convinced (for the most part).
Next, he addresses the “danger” of the mercury content of the bulbs. He claims that there really is no danger because the amount of mercury is so small. On this part, we certainly agree, Mr. Dickman — but it’s the government that has made rules that are claiming that the CFL has dangerous levels of mercury — not the people who support using incandescent bulbs! Yes, the very same government that is forcing people to use them claims they are dangerous.
Finally, Mr Dickman gets to the part that inspired me to write this response. He goes on about the amount of energy that might be saved if everyone used the CFR bulbs in the summer (never mind the idea that switching to CFRs will INCREASE actual carbon emissions). He says that since the CFR bulbs don’t generate heat, cooling bills will be lower and utilities will have an easier load on them.
There’s two MAJOR unintended consequences of that action.
First, what about the rest of the year? While demands for cooling may be less in the summer, without incandescent bulbs, demand for heating will go WAY up. We’re already having major problems with heating oil in the Northeastern US. Forcing people to buy more expensive bulbs AND buy more heating oil just puts an even bigger load on individuals — never mind the companies that need to buy, produce, and distribute heating oil. Then there’s the increased demand that’s going to be put on all other electrical generating plants all winter long. Which is worse — a blackout in the summer or a blackout in the dead of winter?
Second, as has been recently witnessed in Charlotte, NC, if the utility doesn’t bring in the money they expect, they will raise the rates. In other words, if people switch to using CFRs and they don’t purchase as much electricity, the utilities will use government to increase their rates, ensuring they get the same amount of money they had before — resulting in a net savings of zero to customers (and actually a net increase in expense to the consumer because those increased rates will apply to other uses of electricity as well).
So let’s debate the CFRs — but let’s make sure we include all the facts and ramifications. And most of all, let’s get government out of the way. If consumers choose the CFRs, let them use them. If consumers choose the incandescent bulb, let them have that option. It’s how things would be in a free country.
Popularity: 12% [?]
Tags: Environmentalists, Freedom, Government by Ogre
10 Comments »
