If they’re so good, why do we need a law?
Bookworm on Jan 31 2007 at 9:00 am | Filed under: Climate change, Democrats, Government
Although I find the light they give too sterile and cool to be appealing, we have a bunch of the new compact fluorescent bulbs in our house, both because they are cheap to operate and they are long lasting. Being no fools, Mr. Bookworm and I like to save money and appreciate not having to run to the store on a regular basis to buy bulbs. Apparently we’re not the only wise consumers:
Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) use about 25 percent of the energy of conventional lightbulbs.
Many CFLs have a spiral shape, which was introduced in 1980. By 2005, about 100 million CFLs were sold in the United States, or about 5 percent of the 2-billion-lightbulb market, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
That number could more than double this year. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alone wants to sell 100 million CFLs at its stores by the end of 2007, the world’s biggest retailer said in November.
What the above tells me is that the marketplace is responding appropriately to the advent of a product that reasonably competes with the traditional incandescent bulb. That being the case, I just hate it that one California legislator (a Democrat, natch) wants to one-up the marketplace by banning incandescent bulbs altogether:
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.
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.
I foresee only irritation if this happens. Some old fixtures handle fluorescent blulbs badly. Some don’t handle them at all. Do I have to throw out all my old fixtures? Some rooms look hideous with that harsh fluorescent light. Do I have to redecorate my house? Will I have to start buying incandescent bulbs on a luminescent black market?
As it is, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine’s bill strikes me as unnecessary and costly, insofar as it will require expensive government oversight over something that’s happening naturally and without any government effort at all.
Email This Post To A Friend
9 Responses to “If they’re so good, why do we need a law?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I love California. It’s the most reliable place in the universe.
Wouldn’t live there on a bet, of course; but, like the rest of the country, I get a lot of innocent fun out of hearing/reading what you guys will be up to next. You never disappoint.
Hey BW, will the spiral bulbs work OK in a lamp whose shade uses those two-loop wires to grasp the bulb? It’s something I asked last Friday on my blog — but nobody has offered an answer. Sounds like you may have it: “Some don’t handle them at all.”
As it is, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine’s bill strikes me as unnecessary and costly, insofar as it will require expensive government oversight over something that’s happening naturally and without any government effort at all.
The Big Business pays is costs, so… he has to vote the way he is paid to. Nothing too complex there.
What is it about California’s obsession to cultivate peoples’ inner nanny?
I’m not sure, Larry. I have old lights, though, that take only chandelier bulbs, and I’ve never found that a decent fit with the fluorescents.
Good point, Book. It would be an interesting exercise to calculate how much it would cost California taxpayers to make the switch. I am sure that someone could challenge this under the Interstate Commerce clause, however.
I think there are exceptions to that, though, Danny. or less there exists a way around it. California has had a separate standard for car emissions for years, I believe, have they not?
“Or less.” Geez… Meant to say: “Or else…”
That’s OK, JJ, my own posts here have been rather dyslexic of-late, and you know how Book hates poor spelling.