What does the lighting industry say about this turnabout?
The lighting industry has been gearing up since 2007 -- when the standards were originally enacted -- to make light bulbs that meet the requirements.The opposition to the standards comes from the Tea Party right, but is supported by many Republicans and not too-strongly opposed by many Democrats. But even some Republicans object:
All five of the major light bulb manufacturers are already selling new incandescent bulbs that give off the same amount of light as a traditional 100-watt bulb using about 30 percent less energy. And while they are not planning to pull those bulbs from the shelves if the controversial language is enacted, they are faced with numerous questions moving forward.
"Eliminating funding for light bulb efficiency standards is especially poor policy as it would leave the policy in place but make it impossible to enforce, undercutting domestic manufacturers who have invested millions of dollars in U.S. plants to make new incandescent bulbs that meet the standards," a group of dozens of lighting manufacturers, efficiency groups and environmentalists said in a letter yesterday to senators.
"In the real world, outside talk radio's echo chamber, lighting manufacturers such as GE, Philips and Sylvania have tooled up to produce new incandescent light bulbs that look and operate exactly the same as old incandescent bulbs and give off just as much warm light," Republicans for Environmental Protection Policy Director Jim DiPeso said in a statement. "The only different is they produce less excess heat and are therefore 30 percent more efficient. What's not to like?"Republicans may think that they are making an important political statement about being anti-government, but in reality they are making a strong statement about being anti-innovation, anti-jobs and, ultimately, anti-growth.
Blocking the standards effectively serves as a slap in the face to light bulb manufacturers, who have been working since 2007 to produce the new bulbs.
***For more, see my op-ed from earlier this year on the role of efficiency standards (put in place by government, industry and the two working together) in stimulating innovation.
53 comments:
Boy, why have the light bulb manufacturers been so quiet? I had no idea they were coming out with a new incandescent bulb, and I'll bet I'm in the majority!!
Whatever, I think the market should decide these things, not the state.
If the new ones don't cost much more than the old ones, they will sell like wildfire, anyway. Of course, therein lies the rub; GE and the boys were probably counting on robbing the public in the name of green. Again. LOL.
"The only different is they produce less excess heat and contain mercury. They are therefore 30 percent more efficient and infinitely more toxic."
;)
Wow, "anti-innovation, anti-jobs and, ultimately, anti-growth?" They're not outlawing the new bulbs.
I'm somewhat disappointed in that statement, Roger, since it seems very similar to statements about various politicians being anti-science, a topic on which I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Also, you may want to review your Bastiat, and consider what was "the unseen" with respect to all of the super jobs and growth that came from making us all buy more expensive light bulbs.
Roger,
Your stance against freedom is unseemly. Why shouldn't people have the option of buying what they want?
And if the "innovation" is worthy, people will support it. If people aren't convinced to buy it, it's only innovative in the way that dictators think of the term.
Your conclusion demonstrates a profound ignorance about economics. Don't tell me you believe the nonsense about "green jobs". Creating one job for every 2+ jobs destroyed isn't the kind of innovation the American people are likely to support. Or intelligent people of any nationality.
-4-Stan
"... stance against freedom ... a profound ignorance"
I think you might be overdoing it a bit;-)
No, I don't believe the green jobs nonsense, and I don't think that I said anything about it here.
More generally, I support laws that say it is illegal to drive on the wrong side of the road, that regulate electrical currencies and appliances (so that my toaster I buy in Texas works in Oklahoma), and keep shoulder-fired missiles off of the shelves at Target.
More "stance against freedom" I suppose? ;-)
The bulb manufacturers were forced at the end of a federal gun barrel to tool up for a different product. Of course they don't want to be stuck with something that can't compete with their standard product. That has nothing to do with the wisdom of the original regulation - that's just trying to get their investment back.
And about that 'same amount of light' business? When the CFL bulbs first came out, we were told the exact same thing. I put on in my elderly mother's reading lamp (without her knowing it) and the next day she asked me what was wrong with the light. So much for the lies told about 'innovatative' light bulbs.
"The opposition to the standards comes from the Tea Party right,"
I'll play nice and say that statement is incorrect. I couldn't be further from the Tea Party right, and I oppose the standards. Time of come out of the college town cocoon and actually talk to the common people.
"but is supported by many Republicans and not too-strongly opposed by many Democrats"
I assume you're talking about politicians. If you forget about the pols and consider the people I think you'd find broad support for this effort. It's not an issue people will man the barricades about, but it's the kind of thing that irritates people, and makes them feel that government is just there to make their lives miserable.
Republicans are just correctly measuring the mood of the electorate, just as they did when they rejected cap and trade - correctly.
I want my light bulbs back!!!!
My biggest concern with these new bulbs-- the impact on people trying to sell their homes. In addition to the horrors of the markets we have to prove no mold even though there are no mold standards, septic "guidelines" that become defacto regulations, etc. Show me the regulations that will go along with these new bulbs that will protect homeowners from the nightmare of regulatory limbo concerning standards for the multiple interpretations of the "allowable" limit for in-home mercury and clean-up standards. We have sold the Public an absolute fear for decades about mercury-- how can this possibly not generate perverse consequences? There is little doubt in my opinion "did you ever break a light bulb?" would become one more step on the road to negative equity.
CFLs seems like rent seeking to me. I value the risk the risk of mercury hysteria greater than I value the projected cost saving differential. Your position seems to say I don't have that right.
Roger -
A man of your analytical skills should surely see your argument is riddled with a false equivalency. Government regulation that standardizes products or rules in the market place, such as uniform electrical outlets or driving on the same side of the road, is different than the government regulating/mandating products on the basis of energy conservation or human health. Is it not? I cannot think of a negative tradeoff in the former case. The latter case involves consumer/market choices, and gets to the basic question of whether we desire a price coordinated economy or one that is directed by technocrats. Conservatives are on solid ground to argue that a price coordinated economy produces better outcomes and is necessary for a free society. Perhaps they are making this statement, rather than an "anti-government" statement. Really, that is your best analysis? The choices between light bulbs may be so innocuous that this is a bad policy position by republicans in the particular, but in principle it is not. And your assertion that this position amounts to being anti-innovation, anti-jobs and anti-growth is just gobbledygook.
Roger -
A man of your analytical skills should surely see your argument is riddled with a false equivalency. Government regulation that standardizes products or rules in the market place, such as uniform electrical outlets or driving on the same side of the road, is different than the government regulating/mandating products on the basis of energy conservation or human health. Is it not? I cannot think of a negative tradeoff in the former case. The latter case involves consumer/market choices, and gets to the basic question of whether we desire a price coordinated economy or one that is directed by technocrats. Conservatives are on solid ground to argue that a price coordinated economy produces better outcomes and is necessary for a free society. Perhaps they are making this statement, rather than an "anti-government" statement. Really, that is your best analysis? The choices between light bulbs may be so innocuous that this is a bad policy position by republicans in the particular, but in principle it is not. And your assertion that this position amounts to being anti-innovation, anti-jobs and anti-growth is just gobbledygook.
Roger
I thought all the incandescent bulb's were being made in China? I don't think there is anything in it for US workers.
-9-The Wallaces
I'm confused -- aren't the light bulb regulations ones that "that standardize products or rules in the market place"?
And what is wrong with regulation with respect to human health or energy? I'm OK with drinking age laws and boiler efficiency regulations.
-10-Mike Mchenry
Do you mean CFLs?
I think both are. I know GE was going to move their incandescent bulbs to China a while ago.
Roger -
There is a difference between government creating rules that create a competitive 'marketplace' and government creating rules that regulate 'products' sold in the marketplace. Thus, driving laws are different than CAFE standards. Drinking age laws are different than nanny states banning 'sugary' drinks. Regulating power stations is different than regulating products that use electricity. I believe you are muddling the difference, and you argument is suffering. And the difference I describe is the real rub between conservative and liberal policy positions.
-11- Roger,
Yes, it's enforcing a sort of standard, but not at all the sort of standard that ensures something like interoperability of electrical plugs, or that we all measure with the same inch. I'm having difficulty taking you serious at this point.
Suppose that someone did a study, and found that energy usage was correlated with altitude above sea level, and a new standard for energy efficiency declared that you couldn't have a house more than 4000ft above sea level. It's a standard! What are you, anti-government?!
Roger,
My point on the potential impacts on house sales is that the all the needed regulations are not standardized and as such rarely account for unintended consequences. You see no threat that broken light bulbs and the cultural fear of mercury are going to cause problems? There are scientists out there already saying that all the rugs, bedding, and fabric covered furniture in a room should be disposed of after a bulb break. The mercury issue has all the makings of a nightmare.
I think The Wallaces points are also spot on.
I drive a SUV (also a Miata and an old Ford truck). I will continue to vote AGAINST any politicians who think I don't have the right to make these choices. If I can't force my morality upon them, I don't think they have the right to force their "morality" on me.
Screw the statists!
A lot of this territory was well covered on an earlier thread:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/03/nyt-op-ed-on-technology-standards.html
I'm not much interested in theoretical arguments about what the government should or should not be doing -- the fact is that there are technology standards, lots and lots of them:
http://standards.gov/standards.cfm
The question I'd prefer to debate is which standards make sense and why -- clearly I think that light bulb standards make perfectly good sense (see earlier discussion).
I'll direct the debating points about the general role of government in society to the political philosophy department, not the policy analysis department ;-)
Thanks all ... happy holidays for now, back to grading!
Roger -
I realize you must be busy, but it seems like the normative case for whether a policy ought to exist is a good analytical starting point for whether the policy makes good sense! Seems to me as well that political philosophy and policy analysis ought to exist in the same 'department'. Happy holidays to you.
"In the real world, outside talk radio's echo chamber, lighting manufacturers such as GE, Philips and Sylvania have tooled up to produce new incandescent light bulbs that look and operate exactly the same as old incandescent bulbs and give off just as much warm light"
If that is the case...then why has my wife filled the attic with light bulbs?
Obviously, there has been a 'failure to communicate' as my wife doesn't listen to 'talk radio'.
Roger comments:
"the fact is that there are technology standards, lots and lots of them:"
Yeah, there are lots of them, but so what? Does that make them legitimate? Desireable? Helpful?
The most important standards in the world are VOLUNTARY STANDARDS, like ASTM and ANSI. These are mutually-agreed-upon standards put out by PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, not GOVERNMENTS. Sorry, Roger, but I don't see any logic in in your statement. It seems to go something like this: "there are lots of standards, so a lightbulb standard is OK." ???
I'm inclined to blame ham-handed PR for the light bulb debacle. The government failed to make a case for the change; it simply imposed it. That won't work in a democratic society.
But it's all empty symbolism. The federal government has far more intrusively controlled major appliance manufacture. You simply can't buy, or shortly won't be able to buy, inefficient refrigerators, air conditioners, washers or furnaces. The rules are expensive. But people don't notice, and by and large they don't object.
Light bulbs are insignificant to the big picture. FWIW, I like CFLs, and think the mercury worries border on hysteria.
One thing that is shocking to me is that Roger's link (purely gov't link, of course) doesn't even MENTION OR LINK to the most important standards in the world (ANSI and ASTM)! Why?
"FWIW, I like CFLs, and think the mercury worries border on hysteria."
Well, FWIW, I don't think you added anything but an empty statement. I would like to see some basis for your claim! I don't like CFLs, because they take a long time to provide decent light, they don't last any longer than a 130 watt incandescent bulb, and they cost twice as much. Now, can you please provide some facts to support your pap?
One of the things often lost in discussions on this is that the new bulbs often don't fit into old light fixtures. So you may produce a bulb that is considerably more efficient in a lab but that efficiency is reduced or even lost once one takes into account the costs of replacing light fixtures that are otherwise functional.
-24, 25-jae
I recognize that policy issues get people worked up, but when posting comments here please refrain from the shouting and the rudeness. Otherwise, please take it elsewhere. Thanks.
In response to your question, you are incorrect, standards.gov takes you here:
http://gsi.nist.gov/global/index.cfm/L1-1
"More generally, I support laws that say it is illegal to drive on the wrong side of the road, that regulate electrical currencies and appliances (so that my toaster I buy in Texas works in Oklahoma), and keep shoulder-fired missiles off of the shelves at Target."
It would appear that your definition of "innovation" differs substantially from mine.
"I'm not much interested in theoretical arguments about what the government should or should not be doing -- the fact is that there are technology standards, lots and lots of them:"
There's lots of robbery and murder, too.
"The question I'd prefer to debate is which standards make sense and why..."
The ones that are immoral and illegal don't make sense...because they are immoral and illegal. Like regulations that tell people what light bulbs they can and cannot buy.
"All five of the major light bulb manufacturers are already selling new incandescent bulbs that give off the same amount of light as a traditional 100-watt bulb using about 30 percent less energy."
If the bulbs give off exactly the same light, but use 30 percent less energy, then it should be easy to sell them. No force is necessary.
I just can't agree with you on this one, Roger.
A man's home is his castle. Governments should be very wary of telling people what to do in their own homes.
The ban on incandescent bulbs was either to save people money, or to save the planet from GHG meltdown.
If it was to save people money, then there was no need to pass a law on it. People could have opted for the new bulbs if they wanted to. It's an economic decision for each household - and something governments should not interfere with. A neat comparison could be insulation. It's not mandated for every home in the UK, but you'd have to be foolish or rich not to insulate your home.
If it's to save the world from GHG meltdown, then there was no need for governments to tackle this. There are much much bigger fish to fry on this point. The choice of people's lightbulbs should have been the last thing governments attacked in their mission to save the world.
As I said previously on this site, it's like banning smoking in your backyard - on the spurious basis that your neighbour might breathe in the second-hand smoke and thereby get cancer.
The link between the two, whilst apparently 'proven', is so faint as to be almost meaningless. There are far greater risks in everyday life would completely drown out the signal from this activity in one's own home.
So, no, I don't think the overturn was a bad thing. It takes an important stand on the issue which is at the heart of what people across the world hate about modern governments: the way in which they interfere needlessly in people's lives.
Let them tackle other things. And if they want to interfere in our personal lives and start policing our homes, they should obtain a democratic mandate for it. Make in an election platform, and let the people vote on it.
Otherwise they should stay out of our homes.
RE what you say
"What does the lighting industry say about this turnabout?"
Anyone who knows the lighting industry also knows how they sought and welcomed these standards.
Why would anyone welcome being told what they can or can't make?
The industrial profit-motive behind achieving a ban on simple cheap regular incandescents,
is covered on http://ceolas.net/#li1ax and onwards, with documentation and communication copies.
It is hardly surprising, in relation to product standards, since the "1000 hour" lifespan standard is a legacy of the Phoebus Cartel of all major light bulb manufacturers, as covered here
http://ceolas.net/#phoebuspol
-with timely recent revelations both by German
and American investigators.
Much easier to ban unprofitable products at the stroke of a pen via Government standards,
than to actually have to go out and market an otherwise insufficently popular product...
RE energy usage standards on light bulbs:
Whatever about the relevance of saving energy and emissions,
banning popular and safe-to-use products, whether buildings, cars, washing machines or light bulbs, is a rather odd way to do it.
If using electricity was such a big deal,
it, or say coal, could simply be taxed
(The government income of which could help pay for insulation of poorer affected homes - or whatever. Bans give no such income!)
Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas.
Power plants might - and they might not.
If there is a problem - deal with the problem.
The lighting switchover savings,
even on US Dept of Energy, Canadian and EU institutional figures, as referenced, is only 1-2% of total grid electricity.
http://ceolas.net/#li171x
Much more relevant savings in dealing with electricity generation efficiency, grids, and alternative wasteful consumption, as described,
than to tell people how they can use the electricity that they pay for.
Saving justification are normally based on shortages, which hardly applies with all the renewable sources for electricity around,
and any shortage of say coal for electricity or gas for cars, raises price and reduces use anyway - and leads to higher demand for relevant energy saving products.
No need to legislate for it.
All lighting has advantages.
Unfortunately, the US EISA standards (like the EU standards) will progressively ban all known general service incandescents, including touted halogens, - whatever the regulatory propponents say. EISA has 45 lumen per Watt end-regulation.
Banning the simplest way to make bright lighting,
to make broad spectrum lighting,
to make it also in attractive clear bulbs, and at a remarkably low price,
such that the bulbs are so popular that they have to be banned
(no point in banning unpopular products!)
is about as dumb as you can get.
In my humble opinion.
RE Standards on Products
Certainly,
Government should set standards that ban unsafe-to-use products or practices
(eg driving on one side of the road etc)
But that is not the case here.
Regulation proponents then keep saying
“Standards are everywhere,
manufacturers set them too,
you can’t buy vacuum tube radios now, incandescents are old and obsolescent” etc,
But
1. Manufacturer voluntary standards
are different from government enforced standards.
Anyone who wants can still make and buy vacuum tube gear (any guitarists out there?)
Welcoming new technology,
does not mean having to ban old technology,
and even if such old technology is little used, it can always have appreciated niche uses.
2. “Old” means “well known” means “safe”.
Normally, products are banned from being unsafe to use, as said.
The irony in the case of light bulbs becomes complete,
when complex questionably safe expensive unpopular products forcibly replace simple cheap safe popular ones.
No point in banning what people don't want to buy.
Moreover:
It keeps being said
"Standards that make products use less energy is not the same as banning them!"
Of course, setting a standard that does not allow certain products, or product versions, is the same as banning them - and as said incandescent technology will itself effectively be banned from the defined specifications.
However,
in the broader context of your post,
it should also be noted that energy usage
(and other) standards also change product characteristics - and not necessarily in consumer-friendly directions:
Buildings sealed up, cars slower or lighter then they might have been,
washing machines without practically top-loading varieties, plasma screens with low cost high contrast advantages disappear, etc...
In short, Energy saving is not the ONLY reason for liking a product :-)
Even if bulbs really had to be targeted,
they could be taxed,
and help subsidise cheaper energy saving alternatives
- so people are "not just hit by taxes".
Govmt income, equilibrated markets, lowered incandescent sales, and consumer choice all achieved
- same could be done with all other
energy efficiency regulations
(buildings, cars, washing machines..) that today reduce consumer choice.
Not least by bankrupt ban-happy California Govmt, not forgetting the Federal Budget Deficit.
That said, competition stimulation is better not just to save energy, but also to encourage Innovation, which was you other main issue....
more on which follows.
RE Stimulating Innovation
You seem to subscribe to the notion that Government set Standards stimulate Innovation.
Of course, if no other products can be made,
one might hail the technology that can be made
- and lobbying profit-seeking makers of "Green" often patented expensive products that noone would otherwise buy, would rush to agree with you.
However, note that CFLs, LEDs, Halogens were all invented in the presence - not the absence - of cheap competing incandescent alternatives.
Throughout history,
mankind has always invented energy saving products, without having to prohibit the alternatives.
On the contrary,
I would argue that the very presence of popular cheap competition is much better at stimulating great and useful innovation,
than to remove such competition.
In fact,
it is arguably also better to save energy, the supposed main objective here:
More competing electricity companies in grids,
and more competing light bulb manufacturers, will strive to keep down their own energy costs,
while manufacturers are also pushed to
make energy saving products that people actually want to buy
(and have always wanted, since savings are a marketable advantage
"Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run" - look at Energizer battery rabbit commercials!)
New start-up ideas, energy efficient or otherwise, can always be helped to the market,
though they should not continuosly be supported.
I should add on standards,
that everyone can agree that standards makes trade and shopping easier when you know what you are getting,
but that is then different from
defining them so that they prohibit safe alternatives that do not meet those standards.
When I decided that I needed to add a high-capacity dehumidifier to my crawlspace (here in the South we prefer dirt crawlspaces to basements on a slab), I searched the InterTubes for additional info and found a DOE website that rated the efficiency of dehumidifies of varying capacities. I used those data, as well as information on price and availability in my purchase.
If the government has a role in energy efficiency, something like those ratings seems the way to go. The incandescent kerfuffle is a great example of the government going a step too far. Don’t ban incandescent lighting, simply publish info on the efficiency of all lighting resources.
In a comment to an earlier entry on this blog I noted several of the difficulties with the energy-efficient bulbs, the primary one being, in my case, the incompatibility of the newer lights with existing dimmer switches. In fact each alternative type of energy-efficient bulb requires a different type of dimmer switch. It’s expensive (and screwy) to have to purchase and install the switch that handles incandescents quite suitably to handle “dimmable” CFLs, and then do the same when switching from CFLs to LED or whatever.
I am paying for the energy, the bulbs, the switches, and whatever else, so let me do what my wife tells me. Incandescents have a place. As soon as the bureaucrats put CFLs into their own ovens and refrigerators, I’ll follow suit. Until then let me choose what technology is use to light my abode.
To those making this poorly thought-out and equally poorly explained argument concerning what the government should and should not allow people to buy, you are missing the entire point of this post and this series of posts on innovation.
The government is not regulating what you can or cannot purchase. The government is driving innovation and consistency in terms of what is PRODUCED for consumers. No one is stopping you at Walmart or Target from putting whatever you'd like in your cart and taking it home, assuming you can afford it. In fact, I'd imagine that all levels of government would love for you to take much more home with you given that such a situation would be a indicator of economic growth of the US economy.
And that's the difference. If there were no government-driven incentives for innovation, you'd be yelling all of these arguments over your fence to your neighbor because there would not be large tele-communication networks let alone personal computers for your use. You'd also likely be dead if you were over the age of 50 years old.
If one is really truly against government driven technological innovation, then, in essence, you are for a world that looks much more like the US of 100 years ago. With no rights for workers, children, women or minorities. When the average age at death was less than 60 and the vast majority of people lived very poor lives on farms across a much more rural nation.
I have a hard time believing that anyone who is making these nonsensical arguments would really want to put themselves, much less their family members, in such a situation. Then again, ideology is pretty irrational.
-37- maxwell,
If I wanted to go to Walmart and get some 100W incandescents, under the law being discussed, I would have been prevented from putting them in my cart due to the inability of people who wanted to sell them to me from being able to sell them to me.
You can rationalize about this any way you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the government just prevented me from buying what I wanted to buy.
Like Roger, you can pretend that this was a similar act to deciding that we'll all drive on the right side of the road, or that it's justified because there's a possibility something desired will come from it, but don't think that your argument is making any sense, please.
Matt,
'...it doesn't change the fact that the government just prevented me from buying what I wanted to buy.
wait a second. You explicitly want to buy bulbs that are less energy efficient and cost you more money to use just to prove a point?
'...but don't think that your argument is making any sense, please.'
Point duly taken Matt. The next time I want to make an argument, I'll make sure those around me aren't willing to waste resources to preserve their worldview. A rational point of view won't make sense to them, as you have explicitly stated.
-39- maxwell,
I like to use inexpensive bulbs that put out nice light instantaneously when they are activated. In my experience the lifetime of each type of bulb is pretty similar.
Are you saying that I should prefer to pay more for an inferior product in order to reduce my monthly electric bill by a trivial amount?
Clearly we have different ideas about what the word "rational" means. Based on your posts this thread, it seems that #37 was more projection than observation.
"The government is not regulating what you can or cannot purchase."
Read the law. Or read any informed description of the law. It obviously *does* regulate what one "can or cannot purchase."
"No one is stopping you at Walmart or Target from putting whatever you'd like in your cart and taking it home,..."
The law prohibits bulbs of less than a certain energy efficiency (in lumens per watt) from being manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S. after a certain date. This means that Walmart or Target won't be able to sell those less-efficient bulbs, because they won't be able to purchase them from any manufacturers, domestic or foreign.
Perhaps you should learn what the law actually requires before you comment...especially if you are accusing other commenters of having "poorly thought-out" arguments. The law is called, "EISA" (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007
And it most certainly does regulate what one "can or cannot purchase."
-41-Mark Bahner
Is there any product at Wal-Mart or Target that is _not_ affected by standards or regulations?
Once again, you can argue that the standards in this case are bad policy, but arguing whether product standards should exist or not seems like a bit of a wasted effort, no?
-42- Roger,
I doubt there is anything anywhere in this country that is unaffected by some law.
Of course, Mark wasn't arguing about the validity one way or another, but was responding to the obviously false claim that this law would not affect what one could or could not buy in the US.
But still, I think you're probably correct. Trying to convince someone over the internet that they're wrong, even about basic and obvious facts, is generally wasted effort in my experience. :-)
Hi Roger,
"Is there any product at Wal-Mart or Target that is _not_ affected by standards or regulations?"
I'm not sure what that question has to do with the price of tea in China. Or lightbulbs in Walmart, as the case is here.
I was responding to Maxwell's comment #37, in which he wrote:
"The government is not regulating what you can or cannot purchase."
In the case of lightbulbs and EISA 2007, that is clearly wrong. You agree that's clearly wrong, don't you?
"Once again, you can argue that the standards in this case are bad policy,..."
I can. And did...based on two criteria: 1) Are the moral, and 2) are they legal?
"...but arguing whether product standards should exist or not seems like a bit of a wasted effort, no?"
No, I don't agree at all. Returning to the two criteria:
1) Is it moral? Libertarians (of which I'm either one, or sympathetic to them) think that the only moral laws are laws that protect people from unwanted physical harm caused by others (e.g. murder, assault, rape, etc.) and fraud.
Very few people in the country agree with this moral viewpoint, but that doesn't mean that constant attempts shouldn't be made to persuade people. The followers of Christ and Mohammed were once but a handful of people. And at one time, slavery was pretty generally accepted around the world.
Non-violence as preached by Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were considered pretty "out there" when those men were alive. Fortunately, those ideas are less so because those men so promoted them so eloquently by both word and deed.
So, absolutely not. I don't care that 99 percent of the U.S. population doesn't agree that the only moral laws are those that protect people from force and fraud, or conversely, that laws that do not protect people from force or fraud are immoral. I'll continue
2) Is it legal? It is absolutely mind-boggling to me how little virtually everyone in the U.S. knows about the Constitution. I don't think it takes much reading of history at all to see that the view of the commerce clause that is almost universally held (even by intelligent and generally knowledgeable people such as you) is laughably ahistorical.
There is virtually no question that, when the Founding Fathers wrote that Congress would have the power, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"...
...that they were intending to correct a flaw in the Articles of Conferation whereby the "several states" could erect protectionist trade barriers, to shelter industries within their states from competition from other states.
The commerce clause was emphatically not intended to allow regulation of things as diverse and completely unrelated to commerce as the efficiency of a lightbulb or the amount of water used to flush a toilet.
Again, the vast majority of U.S. citizens are ridiculously ignorant about this matter. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be constantly reminded of the historical facts, and constantly reminded that the federal government is in fact massively violating the "supreme law of the land."
Mark and Matt,
Your ideology is clouding simple logic.
Your claims are that you are less 'free' because the government makes decisions about regulating products in the marketplace. But you have not meaningfully demonstrated this idea in any way.
Saying that you're being stopped from buying a 100 W light bulb (or any other kind of light bulb for that matter) is not an undue burden that your freedoms are being stripped.
The average American cannot go through each and every product conceivable on the market to decide whether it could do harm. In order to provide important information on safety and cost effectiveness, THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS have set up avenues to do this for them, thus streamlining the information gathering processes. Empirically, this has provided a safer, healthier and more resourceful populace and economy.
Empirically.
So while climate models that do not fit the observed data are not good enough, somehow an economic model that does not fit the data is good enough. Another example of excellent standards on the blogosphere.
-44-Mark Bahner
Thanks, I see the flow of the conversation ...
If the law is illegal, then sue;-) Issues of morality are resolved politically, as this issue is being resolved. I don't find either approach (legality or morality) to shed much light (pardon) on this issue.
Thanks!
-45- maxwell,
That's a double plus good argument you have there. You may believe that the amount of freedom is trivial or worth the trade off, but that doesn't mean that you can imagine that a law says something it doesn't and expect the rest of the world to share your delusion.
I have no idea what an "economic model" has to do with light bulbs that produce inferior light at higher cost, or why I should be happy about it or feel safer. I'm getting the impression that you would be supporting the politicians pushing for dihydrogen monoxide bans.
You may give blind trust to YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, but I prefer to hold mine accountable when they act like idiots.
-45- Maxwell,
"Saying that you're being stopped from buying a 100 W light bulb (or any other kind of light bulb for that matter) is not an undue burden that your freedoms are being stripped."
So can I take this statement to be an acknowledgment on your part that your previous statement, "No one is stopping you at Walmart or Target from putting whatever you'd like in your cart and taking it home,..."
...was, as a simple matter of fact, incorrect?
-46- Roger,
I'll try to comment on the legalities later, but I'm very curious about this remarkable statement, "Issues of morality are resolved politically, as this issue is being resolved."
"Issues of morality are resolved politically?"
Are you saying, for example, that slavery in the United States was morally right until the passage of the 13th amendment, at which time it became morally wrong?
-49-Mark Bahner
Nope, all I am saying is that -- for instance -- slavery was legal until it was made illegal. The political process (in this case a war) is what changed its legal status, not its inherent morality. If you want a state where moral judgments are the equivalent of law I suggest Saudi Arabia or Iran ;-)
Maxwell,
I agree on having government energy and emission saving policies - but the standards are a bad way to achieve them.
Aside from freedom of choice issues,
re Govmt is best deciding on safety and cost effectiveness...
on safety,
ordinary simple bulbs as being older and well known are arguably at least as safe, if not more so, than newer complex mercury containing etc replacements,
while on cost effectiveness
"expensive to buy but cheap in the long run"
hardly saves money with the many little used lamps in average 45-light American households, aside from breakages, losses, temporary stay situations and the like.
The general issue of energy efficiency standards and money savings is covered here
ceolas.net/#cc214x
Regardless of savings,
Those who favor Govmt energy efficiency standards always think that energy saving is the ONLY quality that defines a good product for the citizens (and define "efficiency" as "energy efficiency")!
Incandescents are the most efficient way to make bright and broad spectrum lighting...
I am with Roger Senior (guest blogger) on this one
;-)
Govmt mandate on favoring innovation,
is about favoring new expensive technology that would otherwise not be bought,
or the mandates would not be required:
The standards are always defined in terms of already invented but not sufficiently purchased technology,
as with the lighting example here,
or consumers risk literally to be left in the dark!
Since new technology also means patented technology,
that again means favoring some corporations over others, corporations which - as seen in the linked example here - actively seek such standards to be implemented:
Of course, always with the intention to "Save the Earth", and duped politicians happily play along, waving funny bulbs around to show that they are "actually doing something" about it.
Aside from the idea that increasing rather than reducing competition stimulates innovation,
the object of any technology, new or otherwise,
is to fulfil a need, and the idea that people are too stupid to buy a light bulb that suits their needs, is always going to be open to question.
.
The manufacturers were all in favor of forcing consumers to buy new expensive bulbs. What a surprise!
.
Post a Comment