George J Boggs, PhD writes:

Also speaking as an engineer, I agree completely with the economic and spectral analyses of those persons advocating fluorescent “bulbs” and LEDs. In fact, I use them in my home today wherever – and wherever - I can. At this time, however, many lighting fixtures simply do not accommodate fluorescent bulbs (for example, my porch lighting and my ceiling cans/fans) for aesthetic and physical reasons, not to mention the dimming problem. I note that none of the economic analyses account for replacing fixtures and the sunk cost of the existing dimmer base. The advocacy analyses presented so far are depressingly narrow and certainly not worthy of even a C in my classes. But I’m sure that, along with wind and solar power, all this will be taken care of by unspecified design engineers in unspecified places at an unspecified time in the misty future. However, should the “ban” go into effect prior to these new technological wonders, I am fortunately in an economic position to travel to Canada and/or Mexico and buy the incandescent bulbs I need to light my home during the usual off-peak hours. I like the beach anyway.

Being an engineer, Duane Truitt should have done a more a bit more analysis. Taking his 9625 kwh saved over 10 years need to be looked at relative to the total that is already consumed by each man, woman and child. Currently the US consumes 3.6T kwh/year. For a family of four, this means they are really on the hook for 48,000 kwh/year. Over ten years, that's 480,000 kwh. So, the CFL savings is quite modest, 9625/480,000=2%. That's right, this CFL push will save 2%. I'll bet many thought it much more.

Our energy needs grow at around 5% per year. This means this government mandate, with all the re-tooling and paperwork and recycling that will have to be put in place, merely delays the inevitable by about 5 months. In January of 2012, if everyone switched to CFL, we'd see a 2% drop. And then by May of that year, the savings would have been erased by an LCD TV. And we'll still end the year in December consuming 3% more than we did at the beginning of the year. And we'll still finish the following year, 2013, at 8% higher than 2012!

And this is where we need to ask the government to try harder. If legislation is required for a 2% change, and this is really the first one that will impact the consumer directly, then we can expect dozens more coming down the pike that will deliver a lot less bang for the buck.

If we believe this really is a problem, fixing is going to hurt. It won't hurt a little, it will hurt more than you can ever imagine. A homeowner needs to consume 1/10th (90% reduction) of what they are consuming today to make a dent in their per-capita consumption. Businesses will need to consume 1/4 of what they are consuming today to make a dent in their per-capita consumption.

Fiddling around with 2% reductions is merely fooling ourselves. Some like to ask "But doesn't every little bit help?" Well, if you believe bailing out New Orleans with a coffee mug is better than nothing, then please be my guest. But dont' require everyone to participate.

Duane Truitt of Naples, FL responds

I would like to respond to some of the other rather thoughtful letter writers concerning the subject of "Ban the Bulb".  The other writers raise a number of valid concerns, such as worry over the mercury in discarded CFL bulbs, the need to simply conserve energy through willful choices that we make every day, and the concern that the cost of CFLs may well seem prohibitive to the poorest of our nation.  And certainly many conservatives don't like government mandates, period.  Let's examine each of these valid points of concern:

A general comment - any government ban on incandescent bulbs is not going to be instantaneous, and is likely to involve, as Luminous Maximus suggests, some form of extended phase-out, perhaps over ten years.  Any impacts or benefits involved thus would not be triggered on a full, instantaneous basis, but rather would occur over such a period that is not likely to cause any massive disruptions in anybody's lifestyle or pocket book.  Yet, if the government does not take a hand in the process, the phase-in is likely to take far longer than 10 years ... more  likely decades ... to produce the benefits that, frankly, are needed sooner rather than later.

Mercury - any reasonable Federal legislation should have provisions that encourage or require States and local governments to provide effective recycling systems for all fluorescent bulbs (which already account for the marjority of the commercial and industrial lighting fixtures in use today) - not just CFLs.  This is not a particularly difficult proposition, as most urban communities today already recycle various other types of waste, including paper, plastics, metals, and even electronics.  With an extended phase-in period and appropriate government systems and infrastructure provided, mercury contamination should present no signficant challenge to implementing a switchover to CFLs.

Conversion costs to the poor - Firstly, as stated above, the government is not going to mandate an instantaneous switchover to CFLs (or LEDs).  Therefore the conversion cost will be spread out over an extended period.  Second, there are already all manner of government support programs, including those addressing the energy bills of low income customers, that benefit the poor now ... adding support or a subsidy for the purchase of CFLs would simply be more of the same.  Thirdly, the utility companies themselves already provide all manner of residential and commercial subsidies for the adoption of energy saving appliances and devices, because the utilities have a vested commercial interest in conserving energy and reducing the prohibitive costs of building new power plants and purchasing hydrocarbon fuels in a volatile world energy market ... again, adding CFL subsidies to the mix of subsidies is simply doing more of the same.  I submit, no family is going to go hungry or fail to put shoes on their kids' feet because of a switchover to CFLs or LEDs.

Conservation habits - of course, Americans should develop a better conservation ethic, and I would venture to say that a lot of Americans over the last generation definitely already have done so to some extent.  While it is a nice thought that this would provide "enough" conservation, frankly the biggest achievements in energy conservation (and pollution avoidance) historically have come in the form of Federal and State government mandates.  Who really believes that the fuel economy of the nation's automobiles would have improved anywhere near as much over the last 30 years without the hated (by conservatives) CAFE standards?  We can debate the merits and costs of CAFE forever, but I don't believe that anyone can deny that CAFE has resulted in a large reduction in American gasoline consumption per mile driven since their introduction.  We'd certainly do even better if people drove fewer miles.  Perhaps over time that will be the case, as our newer urban and suburban development models change to promote mixed use development, with more walkable/bikeable cities and towns, and of course as the effects of internet technology continue to reduce the need for many people to even need to physically commute to work.  A reasonable person will concede that it often requires a combination of limited government mandates and collective individual choices to produce significant societal and economic change.

Government mandates - this is the stickiest one to address in an audience of conservatives (like me) ... several of the letter writers simply object to the government telling them what kind of light bulb they can buy.  That is an understandable concern, but at the same time, let's be both conservative and realistic.  American government at all levels already mandates all manner of products that you and I are allowed to buy, and I don't see us conservatives climbing the ramparts and laying down our lives to object to most such mandates that already exist.

Examples?

Well, the car or light truck or SUV that you drive has imposed upon its design and manufacture all manner of government mandates, such as those affecting its fuel economy (CAFE standards) and safety features (i.e., seat belts, air bags, crash test performance standards, noise abatement, advance recycling fees on lead acid batteries and tires, etc. etc.).  Without the aforementioned and unappreciated "government mandates", the air in our major cities today would likely be nearly unbreathable (I certainly remember what it was like in Los Angeles and Denver 35 years ago - the air was brown and it stank, and it had to be hurting the health of the average inhabitant), and the average automobile would probably get around 12 to 14 mpg.  Similarly, without the government auto safety mandates, the annual death toll on our highways today would undoubtedly be several multiples of the roughly 40,000 people who die violently every year now.

I suppose a few conservatives railed a generation ago over the government's ban of leaded gasoline, and the ban of leaded paint in our homes, both of which eliminated consumer choices ... but who would seriously object now?

Speaking of our homes, another widespread form of government mandate that we're all affected by (but most people never think about) is the local building and development codes, which assuredly take away many freedoms of consumer choice.  Yes, one might reasonably object to the Federal mandate in the 1990s for the use of low flow toilets, but come on, every other aspect of plumbing, electrical, and structural design and construction was already heavily regulated by State and local building codes for decades before that.  As long as any of us have been alive, the government has been ordering homes to connect to sewer systems at much greater cost to consumers than any switch to CFL lighting would ever impose, not to mention the bans on lead water pipes and paint, asbestos floor tile and pipe insulation, and so on and so on ... such requirements have been imposed upon us all, rich, middle class, and poor alike.  Because of government mandates, you can't erect a trailer house in most urban or suburban neighborhoods made up of stick-built homes.  That certainly "costs" someone who might otherwise want to buy a cheap home many tens or hundreds of thousands or dollars.  Yet, if you're the next door neighbor living in a nice house, you'd definitely be up on the ramparts if your neighbor tried to build a shack next door that would trash your property value.  Without government mandates, you'd be powerless to prevent that.

The government already mandates mortgage lending and commercial lending rules, and heavily regulates banks, which all of us depend upon to operate our individual and collective financial systems.  Our agricultural and food production and distribution systems have been heavily regulated by the government since the muckraker days of the early twentieth century.  Most of us never think about it at all, yet food safety is a government mandate that we all demand.

The fact is - like it or not - we are already awash in a sea of government mandates that limit our choices as consumers.  In most instances, those mandates are never noticed, and are simply taken for granted, and the ultimate effects of such mandates - if such are ever even considered at all - are or would be appreciated by most of us, conservatives and liberals and libertarians alike.

I think most conservatives would agree that the type of government mandate that would not be justified would be one that actively attempts to mandate a given lifestyle.  Such as if the Congress passed a law telling us we all have to turn out the lights and go to bed at 9 pm.  Or, if Congress passed a law telling us that we are only allowed to own or build a house of no more than 2,000 square feet, because anything larger is "wasteful" (apparently we don't have to worry about Al Gore proposing any such legislation any time soon!).

We are long past the time in American culture and government to be using generalized objections to government mandates as a reason not to do something that is of collective public concern.  It's not a question of whether government mandates are or should be used.  It's a question of which mandates are justified and which mandates are not.  That kind of consideration requires individual and collective political value judgment ... and that is one of the reasons why elections matter.

Robert Williams writes:

Florescent bulbs have their place, but so do the old incandescents.  For example, operating certain machines, such as lathes, at certain speeds under florescent lights sets up a dangerous stroboscopic effect.  Using the old bulbs at the same time eliminates this.  In any case, the government has no business in the light bulb business.  Capitalism and the free market should be left to resolve the whole issue.