This whole issue of banning light bulbs is an outrageous example of central planning; the very system that has eventually brought economic ruin to every nation that has tried it. What is this strange rationale behind this drive to push incandescent light bulbs off the market and force compact fluorescent light bulbs onto an unwilling public?
First and foremost was the claim that we need to save energy because we were running out of energy sources. That has been shown to be completely false. There is more oil, coal and natural gas available than we can use in the next 200 years. As Alan Caruba notes….you can’t save energy. You either use it or you don’t use it. Not using it isn’t saving it. You may save dollars, but you aren’t saving energy. So other that saving dollars…which is no one’s business if you pay your bills….what is the reason for this totally inappropriate intrusion into the private lives of everyone in the western world?
Secondly was the claim that if we used more energy, we had to generate more energy. And if we were increasing our energy production it would exacerbate Anthropogenic Global Warming. Since the Earth seems to be cooling they changed that to Anthropogenic Climate Change. That has also been shown to be completely false. So, what now? Remember…. if you are a left/greenie….. facts and ideology can be problematic, not to mention consistency. Will they back down and say….”oops…..it seemed like a good idea at the time!” No, they won’t; because it was never about saving money or energy or conservation. It was then, and it is now, all about control.
If we really want energy efficiency we need to promote competition, which will encourage new technology. That will bring about levels of efficiency that regulation could never achieve. The reality is that punitive regulations and stifling taxes create a diametrically opposite effect than the one that is supposedly desired. We know that. We have seen that in every area of economic endeavor.
Yet we are still stuck with a light bulb that everyone, and I mean everyone, acknowledges will be more expensive, more dangerous, more difficult to dispose of, and may have long lasting toxic effects when broken in the home. Isn’t that the big beef with the greenies on everything else? Why is this different? As I said, cconsistency is problematic for the greenies.
Furthermore, because of the cost the overall energy savings is marginal; why couldn’t this be achieved in other ways? Quite frankly, knowing what we know now about the availability of so-called fossil fuels….who cares?
Well, I will tell you who cares! Those who manufacture the more expensive bulbs for one! And those who wish to control the lives of everyone on the planet. Those who believe that a small elite can make all the decisions on all aspects of life better than people can for themselves. That’s who. You can call them environmentalists or you can call them socialists. The key to understanding this issue is the effort of enforce central planning schemes through legislation, regulation and taxes. That is the common theme between all the socialist movements, whether it is fascism, communism or environmentalism; it is always about central planning.
One of the things we have to understand is that there are businesses and there are businesses. Big business does not have the same perception of regulation and taxes as do small businesses. The big boys love all of that stuff! Why so you ask? Because it prevents the small, more efficient businesses from competing! That has been going on since the Whisky Rebellion of 1792 and nothing has changed.
So will we work toward competition and innovation to generate efficient, effective and inexpensive energy for the world? No….we won’t! Not as long as the greenie/socialist movement have anything to say about it because capitalism, and the wonderful benefits capitalism brings to the world, is anathema to these people.
To be green is to be irrational and misanthropic.