A summary of how people are being deceived worldwide about the light bulb ban, and by extension also about the subsidy pushed sales and regulations on other products, from buildings to cars to washing machines, measures based on energy use rather than usage safety.
The links are mostly to the
Ceolas.net site that accompanies this blog, a site deepening the arguments, but also providing external and official references (direct links, links via other sites, communication and document copies) - and providing more relevant ways to achieve the desired goals, in energy efficiency, in general emission reduction (CO2 or not), and in how innovative new bulbs are properly encouraged.
Light bulb regulations are often dismissed as unimportant,
as in criticising politicians fighting against them:
"
Hey, the Economy is still in deep trouble, and you worry about Light Bulbs?!"
Oddly, a lot of such critics supported the regulations in the first place - why, if the bulbs are irrelevant as an issue?
In any case, since people spend half their lives under artifical lights, one could say that such regulation affects them more than most other regulations, also given the psychological and well-being effects of lighting.
But there is also the deeper issue of regulating well known safe to use products, however good the motive: Light bulbs are in the vanguard of a new wave of worldwide product regulations, whether based on energy usage or otherwise.
It also throws up the bigger question,
as covered on the Ceolas.net site, about relevant resource management and about questionable "feelgood" sacrifices to "save the planet", rather than to actually deal with any underlying problems.
Finally - and ironically - those (generally on the left) who make such criticism and keep saying the
economy matters more, are the very ones ignoring that with bans they get
nothing, whereas with a tax on around 2 Billion annual sold relevant bulbs (in the US, as in pre-ban EU), they get plenty for their public spending, which in helping to pay for their price-lowering subsidies on alternative products don't "just hit people with taxes" either - albeit, as covered below, that market competition is a better policy.
What is at the heart of this ban?
A subsidised and enforced worldwide replacement of unprofitable patent-expired simple, cheap, well known, safe, and easily locally made bright broad spectrum light bulbs in an odd coalition between global capitalist manufacturing executives, left-leaning governments, and environmental organizations.
Innovative new products are always welcome:
Increased - not decreased - competition leads to the manufacture of desirable products.
Bureaucratic Committee defined "progress" by setting energy usage cut-off points still has to take into account what exists - or people might be left in the dark.
Energy saving Fluorescents and LEDs: Already invented in the presence - not the absence - of cheap incandescent competition, just like all other desirable energy saving inventions, and their improvements, throughout history.
Individuals can always voluntarily make energy saving choices - although their overall money savings are much less than supposed, for several reasons.
But
society energy saving laws, if needed at all, should of course be about society energy savings, not what light bulb Johnny wants to use in his bedroom!
Society energy usage savings are a fraction of 1%, or around 1% grid electricity, from Department of Energy data backed up by referenced institutional American, European and other sources - and is still less on referenced lifecycle (manufacture, transport, recycling) consideration.
Relevant energy saving electricity policy,
is about increasing the efficiency of generation and grid distribution (coal generation typically 35% energy efficient), from coordinated grid management with increased service provider competition to keep down energy use and cost, rather than any token feel-good-to-be-doing-something light bulb policy.
Even considering home consumption, there are many more demanding heating, cooling and other electricity uses than lighting.
Unnecessarily leaving products on is a "waste" of electricity.
The personal choice of what product to use, by those paying for that use, is not a "waste" of electricity.
Obstinate confrontation just hardens attitudes.
The point here is that one can understand the good intention behind light bulb regulations, and indeed agree with the overall objectives, without agreeing on the method used.
Energy efficiency regulations (on light bulbs or other products) are the wrong way to go about achieving energy savings or better bulbs, and the arguments used to defend the regulations are misleading.
1.
"This is not a ban!
You can still buy the traditional looking incandescent type of light bulbs!"
Setting standards that do not allow certain bulbs is obviously the same as banning them, even if it politically sounds more suitable to "
phase them out"!
As for "not being a ban on incandescents", that is in effect not true either.
It is effectively a progressive ban on incandescent technology, at least in the USA and Europe:
Before 2020 (USA) and 2016 (the European Union)
all of the most common regular types of incandescent light bulbs, including the touted Halogen replacements, will be banned, as defined in the legislation.
More on this, with official links to USA, Canada, EU, Australia,
individual US and Canada state legislation, and state repeal bills (enacted in Texas):
http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
Blog post with relevant USA Energy Act extracts:
"Yes it is a Ban"
Moreover:
The Halogen and other replacement type incandescents have already existed for some time, and are not popular with either consumers or politicians, as they cost much more for marginal energy savings, so politicians have not pushed their use with subsidies etc as with "energy saving" fluorescent bulbs (CFLs).
The replacement incandescents also have differences anyway, in light quality, in running hotter, and so on, compared to traditional simple incandescent bulbs, and in the EU the most popular frosted types are already banned.
More on this issue:
http://ceolas.net/#li001x
Finally, one has to be aware that the manufacturers supporting the ban would hardly
seek to further improve incandescent technology, given the more profitable alternatives,
as covered in a later point.
2.
"Energy efficiency standards simply mean that better products using less energy will be made!"
There is No Free Lunch.
Restricting the energy usage on buildings, cars, washing machines, TV sets or light bulbs always alters their characteristics: in construction, appearance, usability and/or performance as well as price.
http://ceolas.net/#cc21x
That is not all.
The standards must be set so that such products
already exist.
Otherwise, with light bulbs, people might literally be left in the dark.
Halogens, CFLs, LEDs - all invented before any ban.
The real issue is therefore that the
people don't want to buy what their "
political masters" want them to buy...
3.
"People won't buy CFLs or LEDs because they are too expensive!
People are too stupid to understand energy savings!"
Consumers don't repeatedly buy cheap products that don't meet their expectations.
Nor do they avoid buying expensive products that can give them future savings.
"Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run"?
From woollen suits to batteries and washing up liquids, durable expensive products are marketed and sold against cheap alternatives. Think of Energizer (Duracell) bunny rabbit commercials!
It is the presence - not the absence - of cheap alternatives that stimulates manufacturers to make better energy saving products, products that people actually want to buy.
Besides,
for those who nevertheless insist on the "market failure" of the bulbs because of their price rather than their quality, then
taxation of incandescents which can cover price lowering subsidies on the CFLs or LEDs obviously "evens out the market" (albeit unjustified of itself).
4.
"The expensive CFL and LED bulbs will become cheaper after a ban, on economy of scale!"
It may seem natural to expect that greater sales means cheaper bulbs.
Firstly it does not necessarily hold on supply and demand. Having removed the other bulb choices, there may be insufficient supply for the new demand. That raises rather than lowers prices.
Secondly, it is irrelevant how many bulbs are sold, in that manufacturers / distributors / retailers simply charge what they can. Since the cheap competition has been removed, and since there are fewer manufacturers of newer more complex bulbs, there is less pressure to reduce prices (besides which light bulb manufacturers have a history of cartels).
Meanwhile, on the Government side, pre-ban price lowering subsidies (as in North America and Europe eg
http://ceolas.net/#californiacfl onwards) are no longer seen as so necessary.
That is not all.
CFLs and LEDs contain rare earth elements, the price rise in recent years giving an increase in their prices, as covered in 2011 news reports.
Also they are mostly made in China, where wages are rising, and shipping transport fuel cost has also risen in recent years.
Finally, CFLs (and possibly LEDs) will be subject to increasing recycling mandates on manufacturers and retailers, which will again add to consumer purchase cost.
In comparison, incandescents are of course more simply and often locally made, and have no recycling requirement.
General energy efficiency regulation price issues are covered here:
http://ceolas.net/#cc2130x
Some further specific light bulb price issues are covered here:
http://ceolas.net/#li14x
5.
"Surveys show that people welcome energy efficiency regulations!"
"People will like CFL/LED bulbs when they actually buy them!"
"Better LEDs are on the way!"
A USA Today poll showed most people welcoming regulations and liking energy efficient lighting alternatives, while a Rasmussen survey showed that most people thought it was none of the government's business what light bulb they use.
To some extent it obviously depends on how questions are asked.
Assuming to begin with that the alternative bulbs are great,
that people like them, that they want to buy them.
What's stopping them?
And what's the point of banning bulbs that presumably in that case won't be bought as much, and so give (even) less energy savings - but might still have a welcome use for the few who do want to buy them?
As it happens, from consumer surveys (including the USA Today poll), most people have in fact bought and tried alternative fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) - but don't use them for
all their lighting.
The "switch all your lights" campaigns do not recognise the valued different uses for different types of lighting.
CFLs are
simply not suitable for all locations and uses:
Hot or cold ambience, vibration, dampness, enclosed spaces, recesses, existing dimming circuits, timers, movement sensor switching, use in chandeliers and small and unusual lamps, aesthetical use if clear bulbs are preferred, rare usage when cheaper bulbs are preferred - and so on - apart from light quality differences, particularly noticeable when dimming.
Usage in children's rooms might be restricted on breakage and mercury release issues, see point 10 below.
LEDs offer an alternative choice especially for directional lighting - but otherwise, with several similar location and usage issues to CFLs, as well as having their own light quality issues in spiky emission spectra.
LEDs also have even more light output problems than CFLs to achieve bright (75-100W and over) omnidirectional lighting equivalence, and at reasonable cost.
Future review of existing light bulb bans:
Any idea of people liking and using future alternatives, including future LEDs (and OLED sheet type lighting), particularly questions the need to continue existing bans on incandescents.
Compare with the vacuum tube example in point 11 on Standards, below.
In other words, if the "habit spell" of buying cheap incandescents has been broken and new lighting is appreciated, then a ban could be lifted at least on a trial basis (perhaps replaced with taxation), allowing the continued use for those who still seek out incandescents.
A further reason to review bans is that more and more future energy will be infinitely
renewable and of low emission - why should such energy users be denied product choice?
Indeed why should anyone be denied the choice on an energy savings basis, even today...
6.
"We save a lot of energy and CO2/mercury emissions with this ban!"
Worldwide environmental campaigns, as by Greenpeace below, are said to have
been the initial catalyst behind banning bulbs, and - to give them their due -
they have been very successful in emotionally pushing politicans and consumers to "do the right thing".
For dramatic effect, as in the USA and the EU, the savings have been expressed in terms of the multitude of coal power plants and millions of tons of CO2 saved with a long term view (eg to 2030).
Also, note how politicians simply
project old CO2 and mercury emission data into the future - ignoring the many changes in energy delivery and emission reduction that the same politicians say they will implement!
Besides, notice how any assumed "big savings" only come about by
banning what people would have bought if they could!.
No "big savings" from banning what people
don't want to buy!
No "big savings" anyway...
Actual energy usage savings are a fraction of 1% of overall energy use and around 1% of grid electricity, as seen with official USA Department of Energy, EU institutional and other official data:
http://ceolas.net/#li171x
The "saving of coal power plants" would not hold up anyway
http://ceolas.net/#li172x
while the CO2 emissions argument is wrong also for other reasons
http://ceolas.net/#cc24x
- whether or not one agrees with the need to reduce man-made CO2 emissions in the first place.
The CFL mercury v. coal mercury emissions issue is covered on
http://ceolas.net/#li198x.
That is still
only about the energy consumed in usage of lighting: which still does not take into account the
additional higher lifecycle (manufacture, transport, recycling) energy use of CFLs and LED lighting alternatives.
There is therefore the question of whether
any energy at all is saved, in an overall perspective for society:
The savings for
consumers is less than supposed in terms of their electricity bills, but whatever such savings, the point of course is that
society laws should be about
society energy savings, and for
environmentalists also about energy and emission savings wherever they may be, in the USA or China or elsewhere.
The energy use in manufacturing complex CFLs or LEDs, when including ballast and transformer component manufacture as well as the usual simple assembly measurement, may equate to more than 1 year's usage (
http://ceolas.net/#li16x), to which should be added the environmental cost of rare mineral and mercury mining, the extra CO2 emissions from Chinese coal plant powered manufacture, and the energy use and CO2/mercury emissions of low grade bunker oil powered ships transporting such bulbs around the world, and recycling energy and emissions (as applicable, and when the bulbs are not merely dumped) as also covered on the Ceolas site.
The comparatively easy local environmentally friendly manufacture of simple incandescents, with local jobs, may be noted.
If there is a problem, deal with the problem:
There are much more relevant future energy savings in coal power plant efficiency,
alternative energy supply, grid distribution upgrades, smart grid systems, and in alternative consumption savings.
http://ceolas.net/#nea2x
Coal is by far the main fossil fuel environmental concern with electricity use,
with around twice the CO2 emissions of either natural gas or oil in equivalent electricity generation.
Light bulbs don't burn coal, and they don't release CO2 gas.
Power plants might - and they might not.
And if they do, then coal and its emissions can be treated in various ways.
Effectively the same coal gets burned regardless of whether your light bulb is on or off:
Relevant domestic lighting is mostly used from 5pm onwards.
Coal plants are on all the time at basically the same output level.
Slow and cheap.
They can't really be turned down at night, as it takes too long to power up in the morning, and to some extent this is true of other base loading power, like nuclear energy.
Hence much fuel burned that noone uses. Hence cheap electricity at night. Hence the lighting causing
no coal use and
no CO2 or mercury emissions, that would not have occured anyway.
Even at peak times (centering around 5-7 pm temperate zones),
limited coal use and emissions are caused relative to any electricity used.
Peak times brings on quicker responding electricity generation, such as gas or hydro powered turbines, because of heating, cooking stoves and kettles coming on (rather than any lighting).
Therefore at such times, the light bulbs proportionally use sources with much less emissions than from coal.
So the idea that even (generously) the 1-2% of grid electricity saved from banning the incandescents translates into 1-2% less of any fuel burned, does not hold.
It may seem tongue-in-cheek to suggest that
no coal savings at all apply:
But in a context of just 30-35% efficient plants overcoming 6-8% grid transmission losses (USA, UK and elsewhere) it is in practice true.
But of course, it is much more fun (and profitable) to indoctrinate kids to switch bulbs to save the planet!
As it happens, CO2 and other gas emissions may
increase by switching away from incandescent light bulbs, especially in cooler climates, as shown by linked Canadian, Finnish and Icelandic
research, independently of one another (also see
http://ceolas.net/#li11x).
That is, when the electric light bulb heat from a low carbon emission (like nuclear, hydro, solar, wind) power plant source is replaced by CO2 emitting heat fuel (like coal, gas, oil).
7.
"But Governments talk of savings from 19% lighting usage in society!"
Arm-waving politicians love to bandy about big figures for journalists to happily quote in catchy headlines.
That includes "million-billion" energy/emission/money savings, carefully crafted to some distant future date (2020, 2030, 2050).
It also includes using deliberately misleading statistical data.
The 19% figure as quoted by the US Government (and similarly in the EU and elsewhere) as seen from link referenced Dept of Energy data,
http://ceolas.net/#li171x:
• arises as 19% lighting usage of commercial and residential total use, ignoring quoted industry and transport sectors: their lower lighting usage pushes down the lighting use percentage of all grid electricity.
• the commercial sector includes "commercial and institutional buildings and public street and highway lighting", hardly any of which involves lighting affected by the regulations!
Similarly, when talking of "percentage of domestic usage", one has to remember, from a society point of view, the other 3 sectors that use grid electricity, and that replacement lighting also uses electricity - along with other factors as explained and referenced.
8.
"But at least home consumers will see great savings on their electricity meters!"
Politicians like to emphasize how consumers save in running costs from buying more expensive bulbs.
Common switchover examples only use
main household lighting.
Not only is the main kitchen lighting often already a fluorescent tube,
there are many light bulbs that are rarely used in 20+ (Europe) or 40+ (North America) lighting point households, giving minimal or no savings in such situations when using expensive bulbs, that might also get lost or break before use, or be seen to be "dud".
The mentioned energy savings section (
http://ceolas.net/#li171x) includes why consumer savings are less than expected.
A longer rundown can be seen from
http://ceolas.net/#li12x onwards.
A general point, as covered by research references from the above link, is that if electricity effectively becomes cheaper to use, more will be used (and wasted).
More specifically, the so-called "
power factor" (not the same as power rating) of ordinary "energy saving" fluorescent bulbs means that they use
twice the energy at the power plant than do ordinary incandescent bulbs, compared to what your meter says.
http://ceolas.net/#li15eux, with references, including Sylvania/Osram factsheet
admission about the actual double energy usage of common CFLs.
That is not all, since many cheap
LEDs for domestic use
also have power factor issues (and LEDs have their
own issues affecting usage savings).
Electricity consumers of course have to pay for this "hidden cost" in higher bills.
Conversely:
With any electricity saving the electricity companies make less money,
and they simply raise the electricity bills, or receive state subsidies (out of citizens pockets) to compensate, as already seen in several countries and states
(
http://ceolas.net/#californiacfl and onwards)
Heads we lose - Tails they win!
9.
"But incandescents waste 95% of their energy as heat!"
Not only do incandescents often usefully release around 95% of their energy as heat:
Proponents conveniently "forget" to add that CFLs and LEDs
really waste energy as heat, CFLs
80% and LEDs
70%.
That is because the CFL/LED heat is
internalized, to give a greater, unseen, unpredictable fire risk, particularly with CFLs (incandescent heat being more noticeable, to warn users).
http://ceolas.net/#li18eax
The incandescent heat "waste" is therefore a useful side-effect in temperate climates, given that when its dark it's often cold.
The energy savings from the lesser use of other room heating is shown by much institutional research, as referenced,
http://ceolas.net/#li6x.
Of course, when the ordinary room heating is not electric, that saving will not show up on the electricity meters.
Conversely, while incandescent use decreases the effect of air conditioning cooling, it is of course optional, and might still be preferred for light quality and other reasons.
There are many more reasons why a ban in Canada, Northern Europe and similar regions is wrong,
http://ceolas.net/#li11x
These sort of "
energy guzzling heat wasting" statements are of course also intended to show incandescents as a useless wasteful lighting choice.
Not only is the light quality of incandescents arguably better,
and at least offers an alternative consumer choice,
but
"efficiency" is not just about
"energy efficiency":
It is much easier and cheaper to construct a
bright incandescent light bulb than a bright CFL or LED bulb:
Thus the irony of the early ban on bright 100 Watt light bulbs
http://ceolas.net/#li7x
Finally, regardless of the energy usage amount:
What exactly is a "waste" of energy?
A product unnecessarily
left on is a waste of energy.
The personal
choice of what product to use is
not a waste of energy.
Even less so when using electricity, of there is no future source shortage.
10.
"It's time to replace 100 year old incandescent technology!"
If it ain't broke, don't fix it:
The technology of a regular incandescent light bulb is also simple, safe and proven technology,
compared to the newer, more complex, less known, questionably safe alternatives
(CFLs with mercury and radiation issues, LEDs with lead and arsenic issues, even Halogen bulbs with potential Bromine and Iodine gas issues).
http://ceolas.net/#li18eax (CFLs),
http://ceolas.net/#li20ledax (LEDs)
All lighting has usage advantages.
Energy saving is not the only advantage a product can have.
Incandescent lighting, including "old" simple regular incandescent lighting, has several specific usage
advantages.
Welcoming the new does not mean having to ban the old.
As described, the development of new desirable lighting technology is helped, not hindered, by the continued existence of popular cheap competition.
11.
"Society is full of product standards!
Manufacturers stopped making 8 track music systems, LPs, cassettes, and much else, whatever about consumer wishes!"
Certainly, but they were not
banned.
Industry standards,
do not preclude people buying, making, importing older products or product versions - products which may retain certain advantages.
"Energy guzzling" radio tubes/valves and "energy saving" transistors are a good case in point, also because of the similarity of incandescents to tubes, and of LEDS (light emitting diodes) to transistors.
The tubes were not banned, and still retain a usefulness for some applications.
The ban on incandescents may not matter to those who (somewhat dimly!) simply want to light a room.
But for those more sensitive to lighting used, whether for ambience, or for artistic, health or photographic reasons, it is a more serious matter.
Photographers and film-makers can particularly be put out by the unpredictable and limited color rendition of CFLs and LEDs with their spiky emission spectra.
Government standards,
such as obligatory energy ratings, can usefully inform consumers of product qualities, and aid international trade.
It does not necessitate banning products that do not meet given standards
(a particular problem in the already control-oriented EU, as also seen in relation to safe but "misshapen, wrong sized" food items and much else that is safe, which could of course still be traded voluntarily, ungraded etc).
Government standards are necessary to ensure unsafe products are not sold:
Here we arguably have the opposite, given new complex CFL/LED usage concerns, and given the "old" well known alternatives!
Even if the energy savings were there, why should Government tell people how they can or can't use the electricity they pay for?
There is no future electricity shortage to justify it - including of new environmentally friendly sources - and if there
was a shortage, the price rise would reduce use anyway,
and lead to increased demand for energy saving products (compare with oil prices and cars).
Essay on Standards and Markets
http://ceolas.net/#cc203x
12.
"But the major light bulb manufacturers sought and welcomed this ban!"
Manufacturers are happy to switch to production of energy saving lighting, "to save the planet".
Good. Nothing stopping them!
Except, of course, that they "need" to make sure no popular cheap competition is allowed.
Why do they welcome being told what they can or can't make?
Would
you welcome being told what you can make? If so, why?
Price and lifespan are of obvious importance in profiting from the sale of any disposable product.
GE, Osram, Philips manufacturers already cooperated to ensure profitability from
short lifespans. The
Phoebus cartel ensured that the 1000 hour standard incandescent lifespan endures today.
Now, they turn to
higher price, admitting a greater profitability from CFL/LED sales, as documented and
referenced, also regarding the lobbying activities.
This in spite of the
claimed long CFL/LED lifespans:
Unsurprisingly, as referenced, independent testing is showing that the supposed long - less profitable - CFL/LED lifespans are unlikely to be realized, also from the lack of real life similarity to the lab specifications used, and "Energy Star" and similar warranties do not have anything near such lifespan guarantees.
Of course, no need to worry about consumer complaints in a few years time, when the ban is long since achieved, and promises have conveniently been forgotten.
The Simple Incandescent is the Penicillin of major light bulb manufacturers:
An old
cheap generic unprofitable patent-expired product.
As a simple online search will show, the fight is on, for
profitable patents of CFL and LED technology - technology that governments helpfully ensure that citizens against their will have to buy (or no incandescent ban would be needed).
The industrial politics behind the ban, referenced and documented, is covered here:
http://ceolas.net/#li1ax
The issue of manufacturer support for government policies of lighting replacement with more profitable complex expensive alternative offerings of those manufacturers and of their assembly allies in China, is also well documented by Michael Leahy and Howard Brandston in their 2011 e-book "
I Light Bulb", in particular from the American angle.
Congress lighting consultant Brandston was there personally, in political meetings leading up to the 2007 legislation.
"
The NEMA Lamp Subcommittee was composed of General Electric, Osram Sylvania, and Philips, the same industrial giants who formed the old Phoebus Cartel (limiting lightbulb lifespans) back in 1924....conducting its own research and internal hearings that culminated in a recommendation to ban the incandescent light bulb...
When I asked NEMA for help in fighting the incandescent light ban, I was politely told that they could not be involved in any research program like that"
There is nothing wrong in manufacturers seeking profits - what is wrong is handing them the profits on a plate.
Politicians should if anything do the opposite, seek to increase rather than reduce competition on the market - a competition stimulation which of itself leads to new desirable products, as it always has, and also happens to reduce society energy use more effectively than regulations, see point 13 below, under market competition.
The
local jobs issue:
The EU ban legislating European Commission acknowledged the thousands of European light bulb manufacturing job losses resulting from the ban
http://ceolas.net/#li21x.
Similarly, American jobs have already been lost from plant closures.
The pushed CFL and LED replacements are principally made in China (in whole, or as components for assembly and re-branding in the USA, EU and other importing countries).
Incandescent-related jobs with major manufacturers may eventually have been lost anyway, but regulations hasten the move, and it should be noted that any light bulb manufacture start-up is made less likely when it must meet energy usage standards that make the light bulbs (incandescent or otherwise) more complex and difficult to make.
Moreover, locally made simple bulbs environmentally reduce energy and CO2 emissions in both manufacture and transport.
13.
"But we should still target light bulb use!"
Why are simple incandescent light bulbs being banned?
They are not being banned for being unsafe to use, like lead paint.
No, the reason for banning bulbs is simply to
reduce energy consumption.
After all - as regulation proponents keep saying -
"We are not banning the bulbs, we are setting energy usage limitations on them!".
So,
if any light bulb policy at all is needed (doubtful), there are better alternatives, based either on taxation or, better still, the increase of market competition.
Taxation-Subsidies
Taking a "liberal" left-wing stance, how do governments usually reduce consumption, at least outside the USA?
Note the massive potential Government income from taxation,
say on coal, electricity from coal, any electricity, or on individual products, to appropriately reduce energy consumption, compared to legislating what consumers can or can't buy and use.
Buildings, cars, TV sets, washing machines etc as well as light bulbs have or will increasingly have bans on them, based on energy use, in the USA, the EU, and probably elsewhere, on current plans.
Yet, just to look at light bulbs:
1 1/2 - 2
billion annual pre-ban sales of relevant incandescent light bulbs in the USA as in the EU shows the potential Government taxation income from them alone.
What do regulations give governments in direct income? Nothing.
Meanwhile, consumers keep choice and are "
not just hit by taxes",
in that tax money can also go to
lower the prices of energy saving alternatives.
Also:
It is much easier to implement and to alter taxation, and easier to flexibly apply it to new products that change the market situation, than clumsy one-set-standard regulations that need to have complex bureaucratic worked-out replacements - as seen from current elaborately defined
regulations!
It is also easier to
remove taxation when deemed no longer to be needed (eg when sufficient low emission energy is available), without having to restart the abandoned manufacture of products, as with regulation.
Light bulb taxation examples:
http://ceolas.net/#li23x
Taxation is still wrong and unnecessary, for similar reasons to regulations.
They are just a better alternative - arguably also for those who now favor regulations.
There is a still better alternative...
Stimulation of free market competition
This is the
best option
also to lower energy consumption, all the way along the energy usage chain:
Firstly, because electricity producers, just like manufacturers, are then more keen to keep down
their own energy usage and cost.
Secondly, because manufacturers are also pushed to deliver energy and cost saving products that the public actually
want (and have always wanted, and do buy, even when costing more, and can imaginately be marketed for their savings in usage as described above - rather than to lobby regulators for easier profits through bans on cheap competition).
New inventions - energy saving or with other advantages - can always be helped to the market, though not continually supported.
Contrary to common political propaganda,
innovation does not necessitate banning what has gone before!
On the contrary, product innovation - whether with buildings, cars, washing machines or light bulbs - is proven as desirable, in direct comparison and direct competition on the market place.
A progress seen throughout history also of new energy saving alternatives, like the invention of fluorescent and LED lighting - without regulations.
The general advantages of stimulating competition are covered in the website introduction
http://ceolas.net/#b1x and competition related to electricity generation and distribution is covered in sections that follow from that.
Light bulb manufacturing competition is covered in a later section:
http://ceolas.net/#li23x.
How many politicians or bureaucrats should it take to change a light bulb?
None.
How many citizens should be allowed to choose?
Everyone.
What then of the current federal situation?
