Lightbulbs

[Symmetry]

This is a thread about lightbulbs.

Republicans revive effort to repeal energy-saving lightbulbs law

So yeah- lightbulbs, people. We'll be talking about them here.

Urgh- anyway, they'll save money for American taxpayers, and they'll help the environment and... oh, look, let's face it...

Who am I kidding? I don't care. Nobody does. Just get an energy saving lightbulb, save yourself some money.

Share your thoughts on lightbulbs. Or don't. I don't care.

[Symmetry]

I should probably put a quote or something in from the article.

This is the quote I picked:

Republicans – including presidential contender Michele Bachmann – have championed the cause of old-fashioned 100-watt bulbs as a fight for personal freedom and the legacy of Thomas Edison, who invented it.

But a first attempt to get rid of the usurper – energy-saving LED and CFLs – was defeated in the House of Representatives on Tuesday night.

The bill fell short of the two-thirds majority needed under rules invoked by the Republicans for speedy passage. However, it did get a majority, and Joe Barton, who has been leading the charge of the Republican light brigade, vowed then he would be back.

"We can put it on an appropriations bill," he told the US politics website Politico. "We can back it under a rule. I can try and go to some of the Democrats who didn't vote for it and figure out a way to get them to consider voting for it in a different format."

Burgess told Politico he believed his bill had a better chance tacked onto a bigger spending measure.

At the time, the 2007 law on lightbulbs and other energy measures was backed by prominent house Republicans and signed into law by George Bush.

Tea Party conservatives, however, now cast it as a sign of government overreach by Barack Obama.

But not all Republicans are on board. Politico reported this week that the House Republicans demand for cuts on environmental spending risked alienating the hunters who are a core constituency.

Meanwhile, a group called Republicans for Environmental Protection called the focus on light bulbs an embarrassment to the party.

It's kind of long, so no blame if you don't feel like reading it. Anyway- back to the discussion.

Lightbulbs? That's the question at hand, people.

[Night Strike]

1. It's not the government's job to pick and choose which products get sold in a free market. They make those choices in a socialist market.

2. Since the ban was passed in 2007 (I think), the 2 major US plants that manufactured CFLs have closed and GE (Obama's good pals) have moved their plant to China. Incandescent bulbs are manufactured in the US.

3. It's not that big of an improvement in the environment because whatever it cuts down in emissions, it provides in mercury to landfills (because you aren't going to have 100% of them taken to a hazardous waste plant).

4. Speaking of mercury, have you read the EPA's guidelines for cleaning up one of these broken bulbs? It's a 2-column, page-long guide on doing things such as turning off central air, opening all the windows, not using the vacuum, wearing thick gloves, using tape to pick up the pieces. Not to mention the mercury and mercury vapors are highly toxic, especially to young children.

5. Some families can't afford the up-front higher costs of paying for the CFLs. Plus some of the large dollar savings they taught are based on replacing all of your bulbs, which is an expensive endeavor.

6. Some people have complained about not being able to read as easily with the new bulbs because they have slightly different light intensities at different wavelengths.

7. There is at least one study linking the frequency used to light the bulb to increased rates of cancer for those that sit too near them. Remember, these operate on the same principle as tubed fluorescent lights that are in most companies, so they also have a "Hum" that is produced.

[natty dread]

8. Now what will we make crack pipes out of?

[Symmetry]

A seven point anti-energy saving lightbulb manifesto? Referencing studies? Just... I dunno, I guess I admire your enthusiasm, but it kind of seems like a waste of time.

But yeah- why not? Some people said they hum, and some other people said they couldn't read as well, so yeah...

I forgot what I wanted to say. It was going somewhere...

[Night Strike]

A seven point anti-energy saving lightbulb manifesto? Referencing studies? Just... I dunno, I guess I admire your enthusiasm, but it kind of seems like a waste of time.

But yeah- why not? Some people said they hum, and some other people said they couldn't read as well, so yeah...

I forgot what I wanted to say. It was going somewhere...

Actually, I think it was the government wasting time passing the law in the first place. It always takes time to undo stupidity.

[AndyDufresne]

A seven point anti-energy saving lightbulb manifesto? Referencing studies? Just... I dunno, I guess I admire your enthusiasm, but it kind of seems like a waste of time.

More things should come in seven point manifesto form.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

A seven point anti-energy saving lightbulb manifesto? Referencing studies? Just... I dunno, I guess I admire your enthusiasm, but it kind of seems like a waste of time.

But yeah- why not? Some people said they hum, and some other people said they couldn't read as well, so yeah...

I forgot what I wanted to say. It was going somewhere...

The following are reasonable points that you conveniently ignored:

1. It's not the government's job to pick and choose which products get sold in a free market. They make those choices in a socialist market.

2. Since the ban was passed in 2007 (I think), the 2 major US plants that manufactured CFLs have closed and GE (Obama's good pals) have moved their plant to China. Incandescent bulbs are manufactured in the US.

3. It's not that big of an improvement in the environment because whatever it cuts down in emissions, it provides in mercury to landfills (because you aren't going to have 100% of them taken to a hazardous waste plant).

4. Speaking of mercury, have you read the EPA's guidelines for cleaning up one of these broken bulbs? It's a 2-column, page-long guide on doing things such as turning off central air, opening all the windows, not using the vacuum, wearing thick gloves, using tape to pick up the pieces. Not to mention the mercury and mercury vapors are highly toxic, especially to young children.

5. Some families can't afford the up-front higher costs of paying for the CFLs. Plus some of the large dollar savings they taught are based on replacing all of your bulbs, which is an expensive endeavor.

[BigBallinStalin]

I mostly side with 1, 2, and 3. 4 is concerning, but there's no source, so there's that.

#5 points to the deduction in real income in forcing poorer people to pay for more expensive light bulbs. Granted, they may save money in buying light bulbs which likely won't break as much, but... I'm still not certain on those chances, and whether this long-term savings is actually real will be shown over time. Still, people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves, instead of supporting a state-mandated prohibition on relatively harmless light bulbs.

_______________________________________________

My cynical side would like to stress two things:

1) Voting to ban supposedly less environmentally friendly (in the long-run) light bulbs is a politically savvy maneuver which enables the politician to capture more environmentalist votes.

2) The reduction of energy required to power these newer light bulbs would reduce the costs of supplying electricity to nearly all households. Given that the government owns and partly manages the entire energy sector, it's not difficult to see the conflict of interests.

[Symmetry]

A seven point anti-energy saving lightbulb manifesto? Referencing studies? Just... I dunno, I guess I admire your enthusiasm, but it kind of seems like a waste of time.

But yeah- why not? Some people said they hum, and some other people said they couldn't read as well, so yeah...

I forgot what I wanted to say. It was going somewhere...

The following are reasonable points that you conveniently ignored:

1. It's not the government's job to pick and choose which products get sold in a free market. They make those choices in a socialist market.

2. Since the ban was passed in 2007 (I think), the 2 major US plants that manufactured CFLs have closed and GE (Obama's good pals) have moved their plant to China. Incandescent bulbs are manufactured in the US.

3. It's not that big of an improvement in the environment because whatever it cuts down in emissions, it provides in mercury to landfills (because you aren't going to have 100% of them taken to a hazardous waste plant).

4. Speaking of mercury, have you read the EPA's guidelines for cleaning up one of these broken bulbs? It's a 2-column, page-long guide on doing things such as turning off central air, opening all the windows, not using the vacuum, wearing thick gloves, using tape to pick up the pieces. Not to mention the mercury and mercury vapors are highly toxic, especially to young children.

5. Some families can't afford the up-front higher costs of paying for the CFLs. Plus some of the large dollar savings they taught are based on replacing all of your bulbs, which is an expensive endeavor.

<Sigh>

1) I've got no idea what this means. Since when has the US been a free market under those terms? Government regulates trading standards all the time. Try buying some heroin under the current free market. Socialist cops might have an issue.

2) Those plants won't be coming back if the law is repealed.

3) I have no idea if this is true or not, feel free to post the study.

4) Not read it, but I've used energy saving light bulbs a fair bit, and so far have avoided death. Sounds like typical over-worrying from people designing instructions. My microwave came with one of those famous instructions about not putting pets in it. Heads up- I wasn't planning to.

5) Sounds like a Sam Vime's boots issue.

[Night Strike]

4 is concerning, but there's no source, so there's that.

Oh, the latest one I found is actually 3 pages long: http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.pdf.

A seven point anti-energy saving lightbulb manifesto? Referencing studies? Just... I dunno, I guess I admire your enthusiasm, but it kind of seems like a waste of time.

But yeah- why not? Some people said they hum, and some other people said they couldn't read as well, so yeah...

I forgot what I wanted to say. It was going somewhere...

The following are reasonable points that you conveniently ignored:

1. It's not the government's job to pick and choose which products get sold in a free market. They make those choices in a socialist market.

2. Since the ban was passed in 2007 (I think), the 2 major US plants that manufactured CFLs have closed and GE (Obama's good pals) have moved their plant to China. Incandescent bulbs are manufactured in the US.

3. It's not that big of an improvement in the environment because whatever it cuts down in emissions, it provides in mercury to landfills (because you aren't going to have 100% of them taken to a hazardous waste plant).

4. Speaking of mercury, have you read the EPA's guidelines for cleaning up one of these broken bulbs? It's a 2-column, page-long guide on doing things such as turning off central air, opening all the windows, not using the vacuum, wearing thick gloves, using tape to pick up the pieces. Not to mention the mercury and mercury vapors are highly toxic, especially to young children.

5. Some families can't afford the up-front higher costs of paying for the CFLs. Plus some of the large dollar savings they taught are based on replacing all of your bulbs, which is an expensive endeavor.

<Sigh>

1) I've got no idea what this means. Since when has the US been a free market under those terms? Government regulates trading standards all the time. Try buying some heroin under the current free market. Socialist cops might have an issue.

2) Those plants won't be coming back if the law is repealed.

3) I have no idea if this is true or not, feel free to post the study.

4) Not read it, but I've used energy saving light bulbs a fair bit, and so far have avoided death. Sounds like typical over-worrying from people designing instructions. My microwave came with one of those famous instructions about not putting pets in it. Heads up- I wasn't planning to.

5) Sounds like a Sam Vime's boots issue.

1) Because heroine is actually deadly to both the user and those around the user. Incandescents are not.

2) No, but the incandescent plants will stay open. Plus the people that hate buying things from China will no longer be forced to do so.

3) It's common sense. How many people will take the time to find where the closest hazardous waste plants are and then go take their CFLs there if it's more than 15 minutes away? Even if one is close, most people won't. They will just dump them in the trash can with everything else and they will then go to a landfill.

4) Mercury is actually serious business. It's one of those heavy metals that damage the nervous system and other system, but since it's a liquid at room temperature, the vapors it produce can actually go straight through you skin. Most other heavy metals have to be ingestion (by mouth or by nose) to cause damage, but mercury does not.

[Symmetry]

4 is concerning, but there's no source, so there's that.

Oh, the latest one I found is actually 3 pages long: http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.pdf.

A seven point anti-energy saving lightbulb manifesto? Referencing studies? Just... I dunno, I guess I admire your enthusiasm, but it kind of seems like a waste of time.

But yeah- why not? Some people said they hum, and some other people said they couldn't read as well, so yeah...

I forgot what I wanted to say. It was going somewhere...

The following are reasonable points that you conveniently ignored:

1. It's not the government's job to pick and choose which products get sold in a free market. They make those choices in a socialist market.

2. Since the ban was passed in 2007 (I think), the 2 major US plants that manufactured CFLs have closed and GE (Obama's good pals) have moved their plant to China. Incandescent bulbs are manufactured in the US.

3. It's not that big of an improvement in the environment because whatever it cuts down in emissions, it provides in mercury to landfills (because you aren't going to have 100% of them taken to a hazardous waste plant).

4. Speaking of mercury, have you read the EPA's guidelines for cleaning up one of these broken bulbs? It's a 2-column, page-long guide on doing things such as turning off central air, opening all the windows, not using the vacuum, wearing thick gloves, using tape to pick up the pieces. Not to mention the mercury and mercury vapors are highly toxic, especially to young children.

5. Some families can't afford the up-front higher costs of paying for the CFLs. Plus some of the large dollar savings they taught are based on replacing all of your bulbs, which is an expensive endeavor.

<Sigh>

1) I've got no idea what this means. Since when has the US been a free market under those terms? Government regulates trading standards all the time. Try buying some heroin under the current free market. Socialist cops might have an issue.

2) Those plants won't be coming back if the law is repealed.

3) I have no idea if this is true or not, feel free to post the study.

4) Not read it, but I've used energy saving light bulbs a fair bit, and so far have avoided death. Sounds like typical over-worrying from people designing instructions. My microwave came with one of those famous instructions about not putting pets in it. Heads up- I wasn't planning to.

5) Sounds like a Sam Vime's boots issue.

1) Because heroine is actually deadly to both the user and those around the user. Incandescents are not.

2) No, but the incandescent plants will stay open. Plus the people that hate buying things from China will no longer be forced to do so.

3) It's common sense. How many people will take the time to find where the closest hazardous waste plants are and then go take their CFLs there if it's more than 15 minutes away? Even if one is close, most people won't. They will just dump them in the trash can with everything else and they will then go to a landfill.

4) Mercury is actually serious business. It's one of those heavy metals that damage the nervous system and other system, but since it's a liquid at room temperature, the vapors it produce can actually go straight through you skin. Most other heavy metals have to be ingestion (by mouth or by nose) to cause damage, but mercury does not.

1) Can you at least accept that heroin is a case where government decides what can and can't be sold in a free market? It was kind of your first point that free market governments don't do that in your original reply. You've shifted to a completely different point. Your first point was simply wrong.

2) I've got to be honest, I just buy lightbulbs when I need them and don't check where they were made. I suspect most people do the same.

3) and 4) seem to have merged a bit now. I'd still like to see that study comparing environmental impacts and cost/benefit, or whatever it was comparing.

[BigBallinStalin]

A seven point anti-energy saving lightbulb manifesto? Referencing studies? Just... I dunno, I guess I admire your enthusiasm, but it kind of seems like a waste of time.

But yeah- why not? Some people said they hum, and some other people said they couldn't read as well, so yeah...

I forgot what I wanted to say. It was going somewhere...

The following are reasonable points that you conveniently ignored:

1. It's not the government's job to pick and choose which products get sold in a free market. They make those choices in a socialist market.

2. Since the ban was passed in 2007 (I think), the 2 major US plants that manufactured CFLs have closed and GE (Obama's good pals) have moved their plant to China. Incandescent bulbs are manufactured in the US.

3. It's not that big of an improvement in the environment because whatever it cuts down in emissions, it provides in mercury to landfills (because you aren't going to have 100% of them taken to a hazardous waste plant).

4. Speaking of mercury, have you read the EPA's guidelines for cleaning up one of these broken bulbs? It's a 2-column, page-long guide on doing things such as turning off central air, opening all the windows, not using the vacuum, wearing thick gloves, using tape to pick up the pieces. Not to mention the mercury and mercury vapors are highly toxic, especially to young children.

5. Some families can't afford the up-front higher costs of paying for the CFLs. Plus some of the large dollar savings they taught are based on replacing all of your bulbs, which is an expensive endeavor.

<Sigh>

1) I've got no idea what this means. Since when has the US been a free market under those terms? Government regulates trading standards all the time. Try buying some heroin under the current free market. Socialist cops might have an issue.

2) Those plants won't be coming back if the law is repealed.

3) I have no idea if this is true or not, feel free to post the study.

4) Not read it, but I've used energy saving light bulbs a fair bit, and so far have avoided death. Sounds like typical over-worrying from people designing instructions. My microwave came with one of those famous instructions about not putting pets in it. Heads up- I wasn't planning to.

5) Sounds like a Sam Vime's boots issue.

1) Simply saying that the US isn't a free market, therefore, this is OK doesn't really counter the idea of striving towards maintaining a freer market. Why do you think that the government should be granted the ability to prohibit certain light bulbs? (I'll tie this in with number #2, so please just keep the question in mind).

EDIT: Incandescents aren't nearly as deadly as heroin, so I fail to see the similarity in justifying its ban. CFLs with their mercury pose a greater health risk, so why not ban them since they pose a higher health risk (going with your logic)?


2) Sure, they might not, but other entrepreneurs could. Besides, they're not the only companies affected. Anyone and any company who purchases light bulbs now has to purchase more expensive ones, thus increasing their short-term costs, and hopefully based on short-term evidence, long-term energy costs might decrease...

The point of letting people make decisions themselves (i.e. supporting free market principles) is that slow-comers can learn from the experiences of the first-comers, who make the mistakes and/or reap the benefits of buying CFLs. What's right about forcing everyone to adapt a new technology in the face of the uncertainties?

In short, other people should experiment first, and the late-comers will learn from the first-comers experiences. That's the best scenario, and it's not provided by state-mandated laws prohibiting certain goods.



#3 is two-sided:

http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/faq_compact.htm#what_is_mercury

GE's website argues that since 40% of American electricity is produced by coal plants, and that there is mercury within coal, then "A coal-fired power plant will emit 13.6 milligrams of mercury to produce electricity required to use an incandescent light bulb, compared to 3.3 milligrams for a CFL." That study was conducted by GE, so you can take those numbers for what it's worth.

GE did leave out the fact that there is mercury contained within CFLs, which averages 4mg per CFL. (http://energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf).

So, it's 7.3mg for the CFLs versus 13.6mg for incandescent light bulbs (assuming that the 40% coal energy proportion remains unchanged), but if the problem was really about mercury emissions from coal-fired plants, then why not enact laws that deal with the source of the problem? Shifting energy production from coal towards nuclear would not only reduce the emission of mercury from the decreased reliance on coal energy, but also would mitigate the many negative externalties of coal energy (and replace it with the relatively lesser problems of storing nuclear waste).

EDIT: Furthermore, since the 40% proportion of coal energy production is not static, then that 13.6mg will reduce over time--especially since the federal government plans on expanding nuclear energy. The justification for banning incandescents becomes less strong over time.


4) http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm. You make a good point, but there are idiots, and the unintended consequences will be evident through their mistakes. Of course, it's difficult to ascertain how much damage in the long-term is incurred from breaking one CFL in your house and breathing some minute amount of mercury for a few seconds. Those costs are unknowable, but it should be concerning, since every household will have CFLs and now the risk for these costs have increased. It's just an unintended consequence whose responsibility lies with the central planners.


5) I have to admit that I'm not familiar with Mr. Sam Vine's boots, but the point remains that the poorer people will experience a slight, short-term reduction in their real income with the new prohibition. Granted, there may long-term cost-savings; however, that remains uncertain. The discovery of the benefits of CFLs, in my opinion, should be conducted through a more free market means, instead of state-mandated prohibitions.

[BigBallinStalin]

Symmetry, beyond the free market v. central planning debate, for me, it's not so much about protecting the environment, than it is about politicians capturing certain voter markets, reducing energy costs on their state budgets, and perhaps supporting certain corporate interests.*

*(I doubt my third point because if it was true, then why hasn't the incandescent light bulb industry held more sway over this issue?)


EDIT: Also, sure, light bulbs? Who gives a f*ck? But it's not about the light bulbs, persay. It's about either supporting free market principles or supporting the state's central planning. I'm glad you brought this issue up because it's easy to shrug one's shoulders and say, "Who cares!" But that indifference enables the state to continue with its behavior. People have to call the state out on certain issues, but if that's not done, then the state is encouraged to behave more against our liberty.


(Phatscotty: "Give me incandescent light bulbs or give me death!")

[Night Strike]

Even if GE's study is on emissions is correct, the fact that this mercury will either be directly in the home or seep into the water supply from a landfill is much more directly harmful to people than the gases emitted from a power plant.

[BigBallinStalin]

Even if GE's study is on emissions is correct, the fact that this mercury will either be directly in the home or seep into the water supply from a landfill is much more directly harmful to people than the gases emitted from a power plant.

There is that off-chance from what I observed since people tend not to recycle, or properly dispose of, their light bulbs. It's just another unseen cost (and unintended consequence) of central planning. But who cares, right? ...

If the environmentalists were truly for protecting the environment, they should at least acknowledge the unintended, yet foreseeable, consequences of prohibiting incandescents in favor of CFLs.

[Symmetry]

BBS- I'm giving up on the numbering here, as the points have shifted, but my point on 1 was that the government does in fact have power to decide what can and can't be sold on a free market. Your point is fair, NightStrike's was bull and he shifted the point rather than admitting it was bull.

I can appreciate why some people would want to cry tyranny over this, but can I just bring this down to earth again and remind you that this is about lightbulbs.

The environmental impact is pretty much the only issue I'm concerned about, so I'll have a look through any comparisons.

The Sam Vime's Boots theory basically says that an initial large spend is sometimes better than a lot of small spends over time when you purchase quality. If you google it, you'll find some explanations.

[Night Strike]

I can appreciate why some people would want to cry tyranny over this, but can I just bring this down to earth again and remind you that this is about lightbulbs.

The environmental impact is pretty much the only issue I'm concerned about, so I'll have a look through any comparisons.

So having mercury directly in homes doesn't matter to you?

[Symmetry]

Vime's Boots theory:

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socio-economic unfairness.

[patches70]

Lightbulbs? That's the question at hand, people.

Hell, in the US the Central government tells us what kind of toilets we have to use.......

You know, there was a study not too long ago comparing different groups and how they fared in the stock market. Members of Congress had a higher than average return than other groups. Why is this?

Because they have advanced knowledge of legislation that will affect companies and are able to move on it.

GE was the only producer in the US of the light bulbs called for. It's good legislation from their point of view.....

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but it seems that this is less about "saving the environment" and more about helping out a big campaign donor. The environmental angle is just a justification. Need I remind anyone that Immelt is now working for Mr Obama? Or that GE didn't pay any taxes last year?

Hmm.....

[rdsrds2120]

Even if GE's study is on emissions is correct, the fact that this mercury will either be directly in the home or seep into the water supply from a landfill is much more directly harmful to people than the gases emitted from a power plant.

I would have to see data on this as smoke from power plants and other energy supplying facilities often contain mercury.

-rd

[BigBallinStalin]

Symmetry, your Sam Vines' boots theory does a provide a good point, but the question remains:

Since information is not perfect, (and that it's a process of discovery), then should the central planners make the decisions or should individuals acting with the markets make the decisions on which good is better?

If the central planners had perfect information and were aware of all knowledge, then they could best decide for everyone else. Since they don't, I doubt their capabilities to decide what is best for others--especially since there is the conflict of interests and political incentives at play.

In order to tap into the aggregate knowledge of society, the markets and its individuals should engage in this process of discovery.

Whether the debate is about light bulbs, illicit drugs, prostitution, etc., the crux of the issue is free market principles (a.k.a. spontaneous order) versus central planning. I prefer free market principles, so of course, I'll take the time to debate about light bulbs, because I stick to my principles, and I'm adamantly against state intervention.

Given what I've posted, Symmetry, do you find yourself to be on the side of central planning or on the side of free market principles/spontaneous order, or shall you remain "agnostic"?

[Symmetry]

I can appreciate why some people would want to cry tyranny over this, but can I just bring this down to earth again and remind you that this is about lightbulbs.

The environmental impact is pretty much the only issue I'm concerned about, so I'll have a look through any comparisons.

So having mercury directly in homes doesn't matter to you?

I note that the US government has banned the sale of mercury thermometers and, in some states mercury based blood pressure devices. Do you think that was right? Or was it socialist? I don't really know what you're arguing anymore.

If it helps, I know that mercury is dangerous. As is bleach. I'd advise wearing gloves when handling bleach too, but it doesn't bother me having it in my home.

[BigBallinStalin]

Even if GE's study is on emissions is correct, the fact that this mercury will either be directly in the home or seep into the water supply from a landfill is much more directly harmful to people than the gases emitted from a power plant.

I would have to see data on this as smoke from power plants and other energy supplying facilities often contain mercury.

-rd

CFLs on average contain 4 mg of mercury, according to the epa.org/mercury.



If 100% of the CFLs were recycled or discarded properly, then there would be no problem. Since they aren't because many people are unaware of the environmental consequences of not doing so (or they don't care), then you should at least pause to contemplate about the unintended consequences of the state-mandated prohibition.

Of course, what % are not discarded properly? I'm not sure, but since 300+ million people will be forced to use CFLs, and since we know that some people won't take the extra steps of properly discarding CFLs, then the risks of mercury exposure into the environment would greatly increase.

[Symmetry]

Symmetry, your Sam Vines' boots theory does a provide a good point, but the question remains:

Since information is not perfect, (and that it's a process of discovery), then should the central planners make the decisions or should individuals acting with the markets make the decisions on which good is better?

If the central planners had perfect information and were aware of all knowledge, then they could best decide for everyone else. Since they don't, I doubt their capabilities to decide what is best for others--especially since there is the conflict of interests and political incentives at play.

In order to tap into the aggregate knowledge of society, the markets and its individuals should engage in this process of discovery.

Whether the debate is about light bulbs, illicit drugs, prostitution, etc., the crux of the issue is free market principles (a.k.a. spontaneous order) versus central planning. I prefer free market principles, so of course, I'll take the time to debate about light bulbs, because I stick to my principles, and I'm adamantly against state intervention.

Given what I've posted, Symmetry, do you find yourself to be on the side of central planning or on the side of free market principles/spontaneous order, or shall you remain "agnostic"?

Interesting question, and I hope you'll appreciate that this wasn't exactly how I saw the argument heading, so I'll try to give the best response I can, but yeah- I will try to think more on the wider issues.

I genuinely believe that central planning is better than individual choice in many cases. Quite simply, I don't have the knowledge or ability to judge how effective a given drug is at treating a medical condition, for example. I rely on a certain amount of central planning to regulate that and make certain decisions for me. I'd love to be in a position where I could test every possible permutation and work out what is effective, but life is too short.

I appreciate that you lean more towards the free market side, and I think that's a reasonable standpoint. I just don't agree with the idea that it should all be free market. At some point the government simply has a wider view of the economy, of the impact of a product, and of its effectiveness. An individual will just know if it works or not, and sometimes not even that, after they've tried it.

I don't want to come across as advocating a centrally planned economy, but central planning has its place, and I will call bull when the process that's taken place everywhere, across all time, in every society, of governments deciding what can and can't be sold legally is criticised as a type of tyranny.