So, “Swift,” you get to decide what is and isn’t “inexcusably wasteful” in my life? I’m a newspaper columnist and author, and I do most of my writing at home. It is very depressing to write in the light of CFLs, and what is “inexcusably wasteful” to me is lying in bed and not wanting to get out, which is how depressed people often behave.

As CLF absurdities go, my landlord installed a CFL as an overhead light and if I want light without waiting five minutes or so, I need to use a flashlight until it comes on fully. Genius!

Although I bought and am hoarding 120 incandescents on the Internet, “wasteful” girl that I am, I drive a Honda Insight (2004), which has a little over 20,000 miles on it. I spent $93 on gas last year. All last year. You?

The thing is, it’s sometimes right for me to make the most energy-saving choice, and sometimes, other things matter. I think, as a grown adult, I should be able to make those choices for myself.

P.S. I already have a mommy, thanks, and unless you have red hair and are named Lorraine, I’m pretty sure it’s not you.

Seeing as “using too much electricity because it creates negative externalities” is the reason for a bulb ban, a tax on electricity is the more direct solution. In response to part 2, as #18 points out, burning an open vat of gas presents unique safety hazards, etc. which electricity use does not. Overconsumption of gas is the least of worries in that situation.

The point is that expending all this energy on trying to ban lightbulbs is treating a single symptom rather than the cause (electricity prices that don’t account for the negative externalities of generation). This is inefficient because it’s piecemeal, easily circumvented, and penalizes those who have a legitimate (for whatever reason) preference for incandescent bulbs.

Swift, I can tell you’re not an engineer who needs to deal with physical reality on a day to day basis since you propose a one size fits all METHOD (CFLs) to an alleged problem. No engineer worth his salt would ever propose to ALWAYS use the same method to solve unique, local problems. They’d tailor the solution to the circumstances. Did that ever occur to you?

And David touches on your whole externality thing – if in fact (which IMO is not the case) the price of electricity doesn’t reflect all the costs associated with it, then the LEAST intrusive method of taking that into account is to levy a tax on each KWH of electricity to bring it up to it’s allegedly “true” cost and let the individual deal with this supposed “true” cost in the way that is optimal for their circumstances.

Oh, and on the whole gas thing: Its my gas. I’ll do with it as I see fit up to the point of interfering with another persons private property rights (see, my neighbor hasn’t given me permission to pour it all over their lawn…that’s the thing about PRIVATE property, my neighbor owns and controls his so I can’t go do what I want on it). If I want to “waste” it using it inefficiently (say by doing dragster runs all day at the local track, or having 50 Coleman lanterns going in the back yard all day long) WHO THE HECK are you to tell me what to do with MY gas that I paid for with MY money? I guess I’m going to come on over to your house, kick down the door with my jack booted thug squad and start bossing you around about how, IMO, you’re wasting this or wasting that.

Don’t like the idea of jack booted thugs kicking down your door and bossing you around Swift? Do on to others as you’d have others do on to you…..then again, some one with your mind set is OK with thug squads, so long as it’s THEIR jack booted thug squad doing the bossing. Of course, they’ll squeal like a stuck pig if it’s the other guy’s jack booted thug squad goring their sacred cow. I prefer a nation with no jack booted thug squads…..but that’s the difference between an zealot like you Swift and me. You’re willing to resort to violence, I’m not. I pity a person like you.

If I switch on an incandescent, on the other hand, there is no appreciable safety risk. The harm of which you speak is as-yet theoretical and does not arise in any meaningful respect from my own use of the light bulb. The alleged harm arises only if AGW is real (quite doubtful in my opinion), materially harmful (also doubtful even if real), and if one aggregates the common actions of millions of individuals acting alone and for their own purposes. (Even then, the cumulative, relative effect of lightbulbs on AGW sould strike me as minimial.) I therefore feel quite secure in drawing the line at the light bulb ban. That you claim to see no difference, from a regulatory perspective, between the open vat of gasoline and the light bulb ban is why it seems to me there is no end to the intrusions on individual choice that you would support.

This just points out where the comparison is broken. Burning gasoline in an open vat creates fire hazards, produces different emissions from using gasoline in a vehicle, and so on.

If the only issue were the amount of gas used, it would be very silly to prohibit “bad” uses of gasoline. Rather, the right thing to do would be to increase the cost of gasoline to include the negative externalities.

Here, the only issue is the amount of electricity used. So prohibiting the “inefficient” use is silly beyond the cost of its inefficiency serves only punitive purposes.

gitar: I did not see anything resembling a point in your post other than “gitar doesnt know what an eternality is.”

DEM: should there be no consideration for the otherwise uncompensated environmental impact on future generations? should I be free to burn gasoline that I paid for in open vats? how, exactly, do you draw the line, if at all? I’d like whatever answer you care to give to come up with a general solution that addresses both light bulbs and burning vats of gasoline in your backyard, and without resorting to ridiculous nonsense like claiming that “I have a desire to regulate everything.”

Squirrels: 1. you’re arguing for more tax. 2. however, even then, your argument fails. should my ability to burn gasoline in open vats in my backyard be limited only by the cost of gasoline? that is completely impractical and unworkable.

Thank you for not addressing the point and instead choosing to make a comment that is not relevant. I appreciate your contribution to the thread.

This. On a similar note, GM’s CEO(!) suggested last year that the real remedy to gas guzzlers would be to hike fuel taxes which would be less market distorting than efficiency standards.

You’ll also excuse me for not believing for one second that you “have ZERO desire for government to be in anybody’s lives,” as you are here claiming that a ban on burning open vats of gasoline fully justifies the ban on incandescent light bulbs, of all things. Lightbulbs! The lighting in my den isn’t safe from your desire to regulate and control; what is?

Talk about straw men and ignorance. Your own words earlier in this thread talk about how little of the electricity goes into photons (light) and how much into heat with traditional bulbs. Sounds like a perfect 60 to 100 watt heater to me that also brightens the room far more that a non light producing space heater. Who is the ignorant one again? Don’t let those pesky facts get in the way of your ideology….no strike that, religion.

Oh, and since I live in a northern area (western Washington to be specific) this time of year it’s light out until ~9:30, so I really don’t use lights all that much in Summer. And since it’s not particularly warm here either, even in summer, most houses here don’t have A/C either, so it’s not like you’re paying to extract the heat from the few lights that are needed. So your summer thing is a non issue in my case and for most folks here (yet another hole in your one size fits all position of CFL’s uber Alles).

In addition, the cost of electricity is small for lighting. The CFL’s I have in some of my lights (yes, I DO use them, WHERE IT MAKES SENSE – like in my exterior lights that are on for 16-17 hours / day in winter, 7 hours a day in summer) use about 15 watts.

The incandescent bulbs that were substituted use 60. Let’s do the math: At 45 watts delta consumption, that would take about 22 hours to make one kilowatt hour, which around these parts costs about 8 cents at summer rates. So at that rate, I’d save about…..1 cent a day per bulb on my interior lighting – the ones where I keep traditional bulbs. Over a year, that’s about $3.65 (I had to do this for you since you appear unable to do the math – demonstrating the ignorance you accuse other posters in this thread of having).

Given the cost delta between a CFL and traditional bulb and the time value of money, it simply doesn’t pencil out for most interior lighting. Since cost of ownership (both capital cost to acquire the bulb plus lifetime energy consumption) includes the consumption of ALL resources in the production of a good or service, IN FACT, the traditional bulb is the more environmentally friendly choice in many circumstances, especially when the time value of money and opportunity cost effects are taken into consideration. On the latter, instead of wasting a couple hundred on CFL’s for every light fixture in the house, I’ve put the limited money I have available into some rolls of fiberglass insulation for the attic instead – which has a far higher payoff and over all reduces my energy consumption far more than CFL’s would.

Oh, and the electricity around here is practically 100% renewable hydro.