Regulation is one
of those words that have changed through misuse. At the time of the writing of
the Constitution, it meant “to allow to be regular, to be expected.” That was
what it meant in reference to a well-regulated militia and regulating commerce
between the states.
Now it means something more like “rules imposed through government coercion.”
I’m against that. I grow more against it with further examination. Even
well-meaning regulations (and aren’t they all?) that do not cross my personal
choice tend to decay overall freedom (for example, because I don’t smoke, I am not much
affected by regulations against smoking).
Here are the facts about today’s regulations:
·
They exceed the proper role of government.
·
Everything that exceeds the proper role of
government causes negative, unforeseen consequences.
·
The negative consequences of government
regulation almost always result in the exact opposite of the stated purposes of
the regulation.
So, whatever your opinion about the utility and value of
certain types of light bulbs, government coercion is wrong.
I’m mentioning this now, because January 1, 2014, marked the
latest (final?) phase in the imposition of the light bulb control regulation
that was signed into law in 2007. You may or may not have already realized you
can no longer buy incandescent bulbs 75 watts or larger. The 1-1-2014 phase now
includes 60-watt and 40-watt bulbs, the ones you’re most likely to be using
around your home.
Soon to be anachronistic incandescent bulb photo by James Bowe |
Technically, you as a consumer are not breaking any laws by
buying or using the banned bulbs. So if you Google one of those “myths about light bulbs” articles, you will be told that’s just
overreaction by ranting bloggers such as myself. However, they are stopping the
manufacture and importation of the banned bulbs. So, you can buy still buy
them—as long as the supply lasts, or for about six more months, according to
Home Depot, which stockpiled supply more than most. But once the supply runs
out, the de facto result is that you as a consumer no longer have the option to
buy the cheap, incandescent bulbs you’ve been using all your life.
There are alternatives—expensive ones, but possibly
cost-effective, if the bulbs last longer and use less energy. That’s the stated
purpose. (To those who accuse me of being a ranting blogger, I would like to
calmly point out that the government’s stated purpose includes the insistence
that my personal use of incandescent bulbs has a direct effect on the
temperature of the planet and the viability of various faraway species like
polar bears, whose numbers are climbing. Just saying.)
It doesn’t matter whether alternatives are superior. What
matters is—it is not the government’s prerogative to make my consumer choices
for me. The light bulb legislation is a classic case study.
Incandescent bulbs are cheap, reliable, and useful. They
create a warm glow, and pleasant color. But they are not particularly
efficient. The frequently stated percentage is that 90% of the energy is wasted
while the useful 10% creates light. Wasted
is a relative term, however. The other 90% creates mostly heat. If you had an
Easy-Bake Oven as a kid (I did), you can see that was a good thing. Light bulb
heat is also useful in incubators for hatching chicks and for some indoor
gardening. It’s not a terrible thing in a home otherwise requiring energy for
heat.
Are those uses significant enough to override the government
mandate? Yes, actually.
Ask the question another way: Is the government’s purpose
for controlling purchasing decisions important enough to override valid
consumer needs/demands? There shouldn’t have to be a weighing on a scale. As
soon as something is placed on the consumer demand side, it outweighs the
invalid government purpose—unless the government purpose is rationally
recognized as assuring protection of our rights to life, liberty, and property.
I’m trying to connect the dots for government’s role in
deciding which current science to honor as sacrosanct enough to require
sacrifices from the citizenry. I can’t do it. (Maybe especially when it’s been
23 degrees this week—in subtropical Houston! I know that doesn’t qualify for
sympathy from the rest of you suffering from what’s being called the “polar
vortex.”)
What I see is that, compared to me, government is really bad
at making decisions about what I should purchase. I’m all for innovations, some
of which we’re seeing with LED and halogen bulbs. (Here is a good comparison article.) Some of these are still very
expensive, but the market, not government coercion, is the best path to
innovation and affordability. And way too much of the government coercion has
steered us toward compact fluorescent bulbs.
Here’s what I have against fluorescent light bulbs:
· They’re ugly. The twisty, neon-looking knot is
not esthetically pleasing. The light emitted is unpleasant—that’s one of the
reasons I hate shopping, because everything looks ugly when the lighting makes
your skin look a harsh greenish-purple. I can avoid shopping in fluorescent-lit
department stores most of the time, but I can’t avoid my home. I don’t want
that unpleasantness surrounding me in my nesting place.
· They hum. The hum isn’t noticeable to everyone,
but it’s enough to be distracting—especially when constant—with some highly sensitive
individuals. It’s enough to cause distraction for young kids in schools,
interfering with their learning. (Sometimes they get misdiagnosed as ADD and
get medicated, when all they really needed was separation from the ugly humming
lights.) In adults the hum leads to migraines. The humming is worse if you try
to use a dimmer switch. With improved technology, you can now mitigate the
dimmer switch hum—if you replace your switch and pay a lot more for the bulbs.
· They’re expensive. Supposedly they last longer.
Unless they’re not upright. Hmm. I have a couple of lamps that use upright
bulbs; all the rest of the bulbs in my house are horizontal or slanted downward
from ceiling fixtures. Even the porch light, which conceivably could tolerate a
squiggly fluorescent bulb, is upside down. So, for me, the costs would not be
mitigated by longer lasting bulbs.
But here is the big, main problem: they are dangerous hazardous waste when broken. Sometimes the argument
is about how small the effect of mercury would be in the environment in total,
compared to the current mercury production from coal-based electricity use. But
my concern is about the inevitable breakage in my home. I couldn’t count the number
of incandescent bulbs we’ve broken over the years. There was a time, when the
boys used to play full-court basketball in our 8-foot-high family room, and the
light fixtures were a constant casualty. Cleaning up an incandescent bulb is a relatively
small thing: pick up the large glass pieces, vacuum and/or wipe up the rest.
Done.
Broken CFL photo from epa.gov |
Compare the clean-up instructions for fluorescents (you can
read the actual government instructions here; my abbreviated and only slightly
embellished version is below):
1.
Evacuate all living beings, except yourself,
whom you have self-appointed as expendable.
2.
Open windows and doors, and then evacuate
yourself for 5-10 minutes.
3.
On your way out, shut off central air system.
Leave it off for several hours.
4.
While you’re out of the contaminated area,
collect the following supplies (which hopefully are not located in the
contaminated area):
a.
Cardstock, duck tape, wet wipes, jar with lid or
Ziploc bag in which to seal hazardous waste.
b.
Hazmat suit including disposable gloves.
5.
Remove all traces of debris, using your listed
supplies, and seal debris and clean-up supplies in container that you will
transport to containment facility, so it doesn’t continue to contaminate your
home with mercury vapor.
6.
If area is carpeted, follow the clean-up
procedure by vacuuming, carefully, with windows still open, and immediately
dispose of vacuum cleaner bag as hazardous waste. Follow this procedure (including
turning off air system, opening windows, and disposing of hazardous waste
vacuum cleaner bag) when vacuuming this area over the next several months.
So, let me explain about Houston. No sane person opens the
windows and turns off the air between April and November (pretty much never during
the other months either). The humidity is overpowering; a typical day is over
90% humidity. It’s much cheaper to maintain indoor temperature and humidity
than to spend hours overtaxing the system to recover non-liquid air. So a single
broken bulb is going to wipe out the annual energy savings of the stupid bulbs.
(Not to mention that a single presidential vacation easily wipes out the
savings of the bulb switchover for a typical small city.)
And apparently the government, so concerned about my safety
that it can’t allow me to use incandescent bulbs that might contribute in some
incalculable way to the fragility of the planet, is perfectly fine with my
being forced to use mercury vapor in my home that I must clean up myself
following inevitable breakage—just follow the easy clean-up steps and then simply
plan to die early.
We can count on government to make personal consumer choices
badly. So, while this law is headache-inducing on that level, what is more
difficult to understand is how we—the American people, with liberties
guaranteed in our Constitution—have elected officials who pushed this through
in the first place and then failed to repeal it before it took effect.
Failing a full repeal, I request (demand) a personal
exemption.
No comments:
Post a Comment