Behind a smokescreen of environmental concern

Nothing beats Baby Cakes backlit by the sun. All majesty and splendor and pink ears.

"But why worry about making a product so good people feel they have to have it, when you can instead get the government to tell them they have no choice?" asks WSJ editorial board member Brian M. Carney rhetorically in his must-read "Bye Bye Lightbulb," a window into the way Congress and the president run mercantilistic interference for chosen clients behind a smokescreen of environmental concern:

OK, they did not exactly ban them. But the energy bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush [blogged here] sets energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs that traditional incandescent bulbs cannot meet.

Spiral-type compact fluorescent lamp. "Many CFLs are designed to replace an incandescent lamp and can fit in the existing light fixtures formerly used for incandescents," according to Wikipedia.

As we blogged last April on what we called "the spectacle of our fellow Americans congratulating themselves for replacing light bulbs":

Glenn Reynolds had the last word on the virtues of CFLs [compact fluorescent lamps] months ago when he noted that low-energy bulbs were already making inroads driven by market forces.

It appears, however, that the powers that be and the lobbyists who enable them can't wait for the invisible hand to deliver the goods. Carney continues cynically:

Now, I'm sure that Philips and GE and Sylvania all want to make the world a better place and so on. But if they can do so while at the same time getting the government to force their customers to pay 10 times as much for their products, well . . . did they mention that they're making the world a better place? The light bulb that costs 10 times as much does, it is true, last four times as long. But if you're a lightbulb maker, that's a pretty good trade.

If you're a consumer, you have to decide that for yourself. Except that, after the ban, you won't be allowed to any more. You just got traded up, forcibly, to a "better" product.

The halogen spotlight in the kitchen combines with late-afternoon light streaming in the window to bring out the peaches-and-cream loveliness of all that is Tiny.

Creeping nanny statism and cryptic subsidization of major manufacturers -- a marriage made in Beltway Hell.

Update: Major species subsidization under way at Friday Ark #172 at Modulator.

Update II: Goomp in the comments:

I think Brian Carney misses the real force behind the move to CFL light bulbs. While I have no doubt the manufacturers are pleased with the laws mandating their use, the real driving force is the "I want to feel important and noble" urges of environmental nutcakes whom lawmakers wish to accommodate.

Exactly. That would be Schopenhauer's informational and reputational "cascades" of sheeplike belief formation that cause flat-earthers to crowd the cultural ether in every era.

Update: Maggie's Farm links.

Comments

[goomp]

I think Brian Carney misses the real force behind the move to CFL light bulbs. While I have no doubt the manufacturers are pleased with the laws mandating their use, the real driving force is the "I want to feel important and noble" urges of enivonmental nutcakes whom lawmakers wish to accommodate.

[pam]

If I am forced to walk into a salon and have my post-menopausal hair cut under fluorescent lighting again, things might get ugly.

[Gayle Miller]

I'm 65 damned years old - I do NOT need a nanny and I'm really tired of people thinking that I do.

All other considerations aside, I think these environmentally correct bulbs make women look as though they've been rode hard and put up wet and that's NOT a good thing. If you belong to a big box store like Sam's or Costco or the like, I highly recommend a trip to stock up on the "real thing" before they aren't available any longer!

[Teresa]

I still say, there will be repercussions from this act, which will be very unpalatable. Legislating particular items like this will come back to haunt us.

Mark my words. There will either be problems with the CF bulbs themselves of which we are currently unaware or it will do economic damage, not easily be undone, that we are not expecting. Or both.

[david foster]

I'm not sure it's correct that the manufacturers are thrilled about this. Probably depends on the manufacturer. If you have tremendous expertise in making incandescents, the world probably looks very different than if you are the leader in CFL or LED technology.

Last February, GE announced that it is working on an incandescent bulb that is 2X more efficient than the standard bulb..not as good efficiency as CFLs/LEDs, but better color quality and less-weird appearance. I wonder if this technology will be a casualty of the new regulations.

[Ray Klett]

The concern about compact fluorescent lights is valid for everyone to consider. There are several sites admonishing people to go through all kinds of protection when installing CFLs and in the event of breakage. Several people suffer from a form of flicker induced nausea. Last but not least is the manufacture of CFLs damages the environment far more than "the expert environmentalists" are willing to acknowledge.

[HotMBC]

Thanks for joining CotC this week!
Robyn & Mini