Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2007 Senate Bill 578 (Criminalize incandescent light bulb sales after 2011 ) [by Lighthouse10 on May 18, 2009]I think I have just about the longest (?) list of reasons why a ban on light bulbs is wrong
http://www.ceolas.net/#li2x onwards....
There is of course a bigger point here too, about consumer freedom http://ceolas.net/#el30x
As far as consumers are concerned, they can decide for themselves if any running cost savings in buying this-or-that product is worth it for them, when they compare with advantages that inefficient versions always have, or they would not be so popular (whether, say, fast heat from fan/bar heaters, bright and broad spectrum light from light bulbs, or contrast and viewing angle advantages of plasma screens).
In contrast, the 2 main issues for society and therefore politicians to consider are
1. The depletion of energy resources
2. The emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases
The depletion of energy resources (including "wasting electricity") is itself not a problem that needs regulation:
1. Renewable energy sources already exist, and are increasingly deployed.
2. As finite sources become scarcer, their price rises, reducing such consumption anyway, and the choice of renewable energy resources becomes more natural on the market place. Taxes or subsidies can of course speed up the effect before then.
Carbon emissions do seem to be a problem:
1. Whether or not global warming would be taking place anyway, the current general consensus is that carbon emissions aggravate the effect.
2. As an overall principle, if any man made ecological disturbances can practically be limited or contained, that is a desirable course of action.
3. Unlike with energy depletion, energy markets do not themselves react to increasing carbon emissions.
Carbon emissions should therefore be the focus for politicians in legislation, involving any energy efficiency measures required - not the other way round.
The argument that
"Supply side carbon emission reduction is too slow and expensive, we must also act on consumption, banning products that don't meet defined efficiency standards"
doesn't hold up.
1. Because, as can be seen ( http://ceolas.net/#em1x onwards ) generation and distribution efficiency can be addressed in several ways, not all of which need take time, and some of which need organizational thinking, rather than money.
2. Because -if needed- appropriate taxation as described ( http://ceolas.net/#gg4x ) not only raises funds, it quickly limits and redirects consumption as required, with much more future adaptability regarding scope and application than bans.
Reply
Hope our legislators take their kids,
then look their kids in the eyes
and take some bold action.
Reply
That would be a shame. What a waste of fresh water.
Reply
View Full Conversation
