Should Governments Ban the Incandescent Lightbulb?
Thursday April 26, 2007
Canada is following the lead of Australia and has announced that it will be banning the sale of incandescent lightbulbs. Although I consider myself to be an environmentalist, I am against this plan, as it is bad economics:
A much more economically sound policy would be some form of carbon tax on coal based electricity.
There is an argument to be made that consumers are uninformed about the cost savings of using CF lightbulbs and other energy efficient devices. That is an argument I can accept, and markets work best when all actors have as much information as possible. If that is the case, why not require manufacturers to disclose on their packaging how much electricity, in terms of dollars and cents, that their product uses in a year in normal operating conditions? Let the consumer decide if the higher electricity bills are worth having the less efficient product!
- This ban is essentially the government choosing one technology (compact fluorescent lightbulbs) over another (incandescent lightbulbs). Fortunately it does not go quite that far - the government is not subsidizing CF lightbulbs (that I know of). But overall, governments have a lousy track record when choosing one technology over another.
- Prohibition is one of the most costly and inefficient ways to achieve a desired outcome, as I discussed in Should Governments Legalize and Tax Marijuana?
- Some people genuinely prefer incandescent lightbulbs and are willing to pay for the externalities they cause. Why should they not be able to do so? Why should we take away their choice? If the problem is that electricity rates do not adequately reflect this externality, then raise electricity rates!
A much more economically sound policy would be some form of carbon tax on coal based electricity.
There is an argument to be made that consumers are uninformed about the cost savings of using CF lightbulbs and other energy efficient devices. That is an argument I can accept, and markets work best when all actors have as much information as possible. If that is the case, why not require manufacturers to disclose on their packaging how much electricity, in terms of dollars and cents, that their product uses in a year in normal operating conditions? Let the consumer decide if the higher electricity bills are worth having the less efficient product!
Comments
I agree with you.. but let me play devil’s advocate for point #3:
Can the same logic be applied universally? It seems to be better applied to benign goods.. e.g. green apples vs. red apples. But in this case, one good is more harmful to the environment than the other
I likewise agree, but something to consider:
“EnergyAustralia says by using just one 15-watt compact fluorescent bulb instead of a 75-watt standard bulb, consumers could save about $10 a year.” (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/light-bulbs-ban-to-slash-emissions/2007/02/19/1171733685061.html)
For most consumers, this may represent a $150 saving over the year. Data from the 2001 Australian census showed that average household income in capital cities was $57k (sorry couldn’t find new figures in a hurry, I’m meant to be studying for an exam).
This means that the savings represent something in the order of 0.2% of annual household income. At this small level, it must be questioned whether most households would optionally switch over to the CF bulbs.
Most households would need the push that the government is currently giving to make the switch. I agree that economically, it might not be the most optimal way of achieving the switch, but I think at the end of the day, it is possibly the most appropriate to bring about swift changes – achieving lower emissions swiftly will be key to achieving long-term environmental goals.
The impact of the switch (the financial savings) are not huge to the individual under current electricity rates etc., but the savings to the enivironment as a result of millions of households making the switch are indeed suggested to be significant.
My apologies for dodgy grammar etc throughout, it was a somewhat hurried messgae
I just found a new calling – thanks Mike! I am going to become an incandescent lightbulb smuggler!
We get drugs from Canada, and I will provide that…
“special warm glow that only comes from a Garth-distributed incandescent lightbulb. Tired of the harsh light from your government mandated fluorescent bulbs? Worry not, fellow North Americans. I can provide you with all your incandescent lighting needs at the fun and fast price of $35 (US) per bulb.
Compact flourescents have disposal issues since they contain trace amounts of mercury, really toxic stuff. How do these governments factor in the costs to the environment of this danger?
One thing that has not been addressed are those individuals diagnosed with scotopic sensitivity syndrome. Fluorescent lights cause us severe discomfort. When trying to read under fluorescent lighting, type seems to sparkle and move. By taking away my choice to buy incandescent I am forever placed into a world where there is no escape from headaches and eyestrain. If you would like to learn more about this disorder go to http://www.irlen.com
I would love to have others rally for our cause…this problem is a real medical condition.
Fluorescent lights cause migraine and headaches.So,I strongly feel that they should be abandoned and LEDs used be used because they are eco friendly and donot flicker..so a proper lighting system..BPl also provides such cool products.Check more at:
http://www.studylite.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30&Itemid=38&cid=cm