As the World Gets Scarcer, Light Bulbs Must Become Dearer

Time blogger Bryan Walsh says trying to overturn the impending ban on conventional incandescent light bulbs, as the House of Representatives did last week, is "terrible and stupid" because it reflects "a hardcore ideology holding that the government should not be able to install simple standards on public products for public aims if they in any way infringe on an individual's right to choose." That ideology, Walsh warns, impairs "our ability to collectively chart a better course through a hotter, more crowded and scarcer world." Such collective charting through a scarcer world is necessary, he says, because "we're all affected by the decision of some to be wasteful of energy, whether through national security (think of the trillions spend on the Middle East), pollution and of course, climate change." The government's ability to make us buy light bulbs we don't want is crucial, he says, because "if we take away government and society's tools to even attempt to respond to a world of limits in a collective fashion, I'm not sure how we'll survive."

Let me try to unpack that argument as charitably as I can. I am leery of justifying restrictions on individual choice by citing unspecified "public aims," let alone by collectivizing consumer decisions via statist neologisms such as "public products." Still, I agree that pollution, including the emission of greenhouse gases tied to global warming, counts as an externality that justifies government intervention, at least in principle. (Whether the benefits of such intervention exceed the costs is another question.) But if the problem is that consumers do not pay the full costs of the energy they consume, the solution is a tax (or cap-and-trade equivalent) to bridge the gap, based on the environmental impact of the sources they use. That way people can continue to make their own consumption decisions, but without imposing costs on others. The advantage of this approach is that individual values, tastes, and preferences still count for something, instead of being arbitrarily overriden by the state.

By contrast, dictates such as the light bulb ban, appliance efficiency standards, and automobile fuel economy regulations do not force people to take into account the environmental effects of their behavior; they simply make it illegal to buy certain politically incorrect ("inefficient") products, without regard to pollution or carbon emissions. Even if your electricity is generated by wind, solar, or nuclear power, for instance, you still won't be allowed to buy the newly banned bulbs and must instead use much more expensive (and possibly less functional) substitutes. Walsh's argument that environmental effects justify second-guessing individual choices that increase energy consumption is an open-ended license for such meddling, since so much of what we do—including decisions about where to live and work, how to get around, what to eat, and how to spend our spare time and disposable income—figure into that collectivist calculus. Although it may be terrible and stupid of me to say so, I am not convinced that human survival requires such elaborate central planning, and it seems to me the burden of proof should be on those who claim it does.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Plus, mandating light bulbs which contain mercury hardly seems to constitute reducing pollution.

  • Brett L||

    Paging robc. robc, to the comments for COASE repetition.

  • robc||

    I havent read all of above yet, but I aim to please:

    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE

  • robc||

    If this meme manages to spread across the intarwebs like "Fuck off, slaver" has [Note: credit goes to P Brooks for first use of FoS] begun doing, then I will be very happy.

    But COASE ... is freaking annoying, even to me, so I dont see it happening.

  • Or||

    "Fuck off, slaver" [Note: credit goes to P Brooks for first use of FoS]

    Why would anyone want to take credit for such an inane, juvenile statement?

  • robc||

    Only a slaver would say that.

  • Or||

    Logic fail, but wholly consistent with an adolescent worldview.

  • Almanian||

    Ohhhhh *concerned face*

    Does Or's butt hurt? Cause it sounds like Or's butt hurts....

  • ||

    The Internet is Serious Business.

  • Brandon||

    Sounds more like sandy vagina to me.

  • Pissiarch||

    Hey, I own Sand in Vagina™. It's my go-to insult.
    Watch it, Commodore.

  • ||

    Fuck off you slaving, butt hurt, sand vagina!!!!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Or,

    Why would anyone want to take credit for such an inane, juvenile statement?


    Because that is where the money is.

  • Almanian||

    Congratulations on making it past the Spam Bot, robc!

    *two thumbs up!*

  • Brett L||

    Thanks, mate.

  • ||

    Collectivists are truly the lowest scum on the human totem pole. Because, of course, when it comes to sacrificing for the collective, it's everyone else that needs to sacrifice. Not them.

  • Anarchists||

    Episiarch|7.18.11 @ 1:53PM
    Collectivists are truly the lowest scum on the human totem pole.

    Ahem.

  • alan||

    I really despise their mindset. Religious collective guilt ethos wrapped up in a sham attempt at modern empiricist language with the barest minimum of proof to give that rhetoric substance to justify their anti-human crusade. They are far more costly to the rest of us than any externality they imagine to exist.

  • ||

    Well, that and the fact that they include us in their collective without checking to see if we wanted to be in their collective. Which we don't.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Hmmmm...but your behavior seems to indicate that you do want to be part of their collective. Actions louder than words.

    /snark.

  • prolefeed||

    Wanting to live where you want to live does not imply you want to join the collectivist coercion of leftists intent on throwning you in a cage because you have the audacity to use lightbulbs they don't approve of.

    Oh, re this:

    Still, I agree that pollution, including the emission of greenhouse gases tied to global warming, counts as an externality that justifies government intervention

    CO2 is necessary to life. It is plant food. It is not a pollutant. Period.

  • Trespassers W||

    Yeah, Epi, you haven't moved to SOMALIA and you use the ROADZ!

  • TOWM||

    The Gauls indicated they wanted to be part of Rome seeing as they all didn't just move elsewhere

  • Neu Mejican||

    TOWM|7.18.11 @ 4:23PM|#

    The Gauls indicated they wanted to be part of Rome seeing as they all didn't just move elsewhere

    Analogy fail.

  • alan||

    Neu Mejican|7.18.11 @ 3:17PM|#

    Hmmmm...but your behavior seems to indicate that you do want to be part of their collective. Actions louder than words.

    /snark.

    Your love of the amped up, energy wasting vive of rock music means you don't care about the environment at all. Else you would be listening to John Denver and Pete Seager lyrics on a vinyl table you spun yourself with a cycle tread.

    Admit it, you don't love the environment at all.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I listen on a eco-friendly iPod, mostly. My gear takes no electricity at all, as I am a drummer. Lately I play mostly jazz, so no amps needed even for the band mates, but yes, I live a carbon heavy American lifestyle. My footprint is low for the USA. I have reduced it by over 50% in the last decade, but my hate of the environment shows through my actions.

    Epi lives in Belltown...an action that implies some desire to benefit from the advantage of being part of a collective.

  • alan||

    That was good for the soul. When Mother Earth exacts her revenge, she may choose to be merciful on you even if you fail her. I on the other hand . . .

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    My footprint is low for the USA. I have reduced it by over 50% in the last decade[...]


    Funny you mentioned it... I've increased mine 50%.

    Talk about "tragedy of the commons!" Bwa ha ha ha ha!!!

  • Neu Mejican||

    It's not Old Mexican's carbon that is the problem, but the methane. Not enough Epazote in the world to keep up.

  • Restoras||

    For some reason Collectivism makes me think of the phrase "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".

  • ||

    It makes me think of the phrase(s) "We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.".

  • ||


    I agree that pollution, including the emission of greenhouse gases tied to global warming, counts as an externality that justifies government intervention, at least in principle.

    When did you start writing for Think Progress?

  • ||

    When did you start thinking that infringing on my quality of life was libertarian?

    Though I'm not entirely convinced re: the consequences of warming being catastrophically negative.

  • prolefeed||

    When did you start thinking that emitting plant food and making your heat bills in winter go slightly lower was infringing on your quality of life?

  • now||

    right about now. But when you put it that way it smells like strawberries and pie.

  • ||

    You forgot to mention less dead people.

    Cold kills.

  • ||

    When did you start thinking that infringing on my quality of life was libertarian?

    Name one person who has had their quality of life measurably infringed upon by AGW?

  • Almanian||

    I think Bryan Walsh needs to be "put away". For the good of "scoeity", of course.

    "We" don't need any of his stoopid getting on anyone else.

    Wow! I can see how well that "societal" coercion thing can be! MOAR of it!

  • ||

    Why not have a one-child policy? That should do it.

  • Old Creeper||

    OK, I'll take yours.

    OH! That's not what you meant...sorry

  • In touch with utopia||

    We need more tax payers. Start fucking now, it is THE LAW!

  • Restoras||

    You know who else was a fan of similar policies...

  • kinnath||

    .....because "we're all affected by the decision of Bryan Walsh to continue drawing breath.

  • Almanian||

    ElimUNASHUNiszr RhetoriCZzzZZ!!111!11eleventyseven!!

  • kinnath||

    A tautology is a tautology is a tautology .....

  • Tautology||

    I yam what I yam...

  • T||

    A sweet potato?

  • Old Mexican||

    But if the problem is that consumers do not pay the full costs of the energy they consume, the solution is a tax (or cap-and-trade equivalent) to bridge the gap, based on the environmental impact of the sources they use.


    Jacob, consumers already pay all the costs of the energy they consume.

    Walsh's argument that environmental effects justify second-guessing individual choices that increase energy consumption is an open-ended license for such meddling[...]


    Jacob, that is what people like Walsh want. They want the government to have total meddling in people's lives. Environmentalism is nothing more than a way into this ultimate goal.

  • ||

    Shorter: greens are really watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.

  • Almanian||

    Racist!

  • Mensan||

    Was that racist against Martians or Native Americans?

  • Almanian||

    Any mention of watermelon in any context is inherently racist.

  • Chupacabra||

    Mmmm, fried chicken and watermelon.

    Oh, DAMMIT!!!!

  • You Want||

    greens with that? How 'bout some o' mama's chitlins?!

  • Mensan||

    I still don't get it. I love water melon. What could possibly be racist about watermelon?

  • Jolly Rancher||

    @Mensan - yeah, right, I mean LOL!

  • ||

    some of my best...desserts...are watermelon

  • BakedPenguin||

    If you're being sincere, I suspect you're young. It used to be a racist meme that black people liked watermelons.

  • Patrick||

    Begorrah, I'm liking the potatoes.

  • Giuseppe||

    And I just-a love the rigatoni, it-a really hits the spot.

  • Buffy||

    I simply adore bologna sandwiches on white bread.

  • Ivan Ivanovich||

    Da, I am likink potatoes, too, in the liquid form, ha ha.

  • Hamish McTavish||

    Ach, I dinna care what the rest of you say, haggis is the best food in the universe.

  • Sylvia Plath||

    Light-bulbs sound tasty.

  • Mensan||

    Young is a relative term. I am fully aware that watermelon has for a long time been referenced with racist connotations directed at black people.

    What I'm saying is I don't understand why. Saying all black people like watermelon is an overly broad generalization to be sure, but I don’t understand the racial component. Of course black people like watermelon; it’s delicious. White people like watermelon too.

  • GILMORE||

    Really, the racism has got to stop.

  • ||

    You're not taking into account the negative externality.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Joshua,

    You're not taking into account the negative externality.


    There's no unaccounted externality, Joshua. People already took into account the tradeoffs, otherwise they would NOT have accepted electricity.

  • ||

    Is there any product or service that people consume that explicitly includes the cost of negative externialities?

    Serious question. I can't think of any off the top of my head.

  • ||

    You're not taking into account the negative externality.

    Why is government better at solving negative externalities then all other systems?

    Also by definition don't all negative externalities eventually resolve themselves?

    Also every voluntary transaction has 1rst class positive externalities. Why are the positive externalities of cheap energy never acounted against the negative externalites?

    Sure I may lose 20Cents a day from the negative externalities of CO2...but I make far more from the positive externalities.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Joshua Corning,

    Why is government better at solving negative externalities [than] all other systems?


    It is not, but leftists do not want to hear that.

    http://mises.org/daily/5085/Ac.....ernalities

  • Almanian||

    Also:

    "I'm not sure how we'll survive"

    Jesus FUCKING Christ. Because mankind hasn't made through however many millenia of survival and evolution WITHOUT the iron fist gentle, guiding hand of collectivist coercion persuasion in an ongoing "world of limits".

    How does this fuckstain remember to breathe, much less feed and clothe himself? Hey, Bryan Walsh - I hope you slip on a crack at the station and get run over by a high-speed train, you fucking needy, scared, useless limpet!

  • Almanian||

    Oh, Walsh, one more thing - the best part of you ran down your mother's leg when you were born.

    That is all.

  • ||

    isn't it the height of narcissism to beleive that a consequence which one cannot imagine must, by definition, be catastrophic/terrible?

  • Old Mexican||

    The government's ability to make us buy light bulbs we don't want is crucial, he says, because "if we take away government and society's tools to even attempt to respond to a world of limits in a collective fashion, I'm not sure how we'll survive."


    And this is where the heart of the matter resides: In this belief that people are simply too stupid to make their own choices and that there must be a group of notables making those choices for us.

    Never mind that there would be no perfect people to populate such deciding groups; never mind the economic calculation problem and never mind the very insulting nature of Walsh's implication, that WE humans cannot "survive" without a directing, controlling bunch. No, we are simply "too stupid."

  • Almanian||

    Well, I'm not sure how Walsh WOULD survive. Pretty damned sure how I'd plan to survive...

  • sarcasmic||

    Collectivists do not cooperate unless they are forcing someone to do something or they themselves are being forced to do something.

    All they respect is violence. That's it.

    The idea, the concept, of people engaging in cooperative activity without some looming threat of violence simply does not compute.

  • oncogenesis||

    Don't forget the casual conflation of "government and society". To a collectivist drone, government is society, and society is government.

  • fish||

    Never mind that there would be no perfect people to populate such deciding groups...

    You ignorance astounds me Old Mex......Tony.....duh!

  • Almanian||

    Also, that cartoon would RULE if it were a gang of CFL's with little bats breaking incandescent bulbs with a caption "Kristallnacht II".

    Or perhaps a slightly-less-hyperbolic and probably-offensive caption. Whatever. But CFL's with bats and bowlers and Lee Press on Lashes would be teh awsum...

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    I find this amusing, despite being handicapped with near sobriety at the moment. I'll pay you 2 bitcoins for your blessing to use that image in whatever way I can manage during my occasional spurts of constructive activity.

  • ||

    If you want energy efficiency, a light bulb ban is absolutely the STUPIDEST way to do it. Ditto for mileage standards and emission limits.

    The best mechanism to increase efficiency is a simple, single-rate CARBON TAX. But the climate change crowd has bungled the sales job with all their loose talk about “global governance”, by putting that clown, algore, in charge and by turning government-funded scientists into political hacks .

    Why impose thousands of clumsy and circumlocutory regulations on businesses to control carbon emissions or fuel efficiency when a single, simple-to-calculate, simple-to-administer, revenue-generating carbon tax can get the job done?

    That’s what the LMAD plan does.

    The LMAD plan uses a $600 billion/ year CARBON TAX not to fight global warming BUT to BUY off Liberals. And that’s just the start… LMAD also adds fully-funded Healthcare for every American, a public option health insurance entity, and the implementation of tax schemes frequently advocated by Liberals such as a “sugar” tax and a value-added tax. The LMAD plan even grants overnight amnesty of 10 million illegal aliens.

    THEN LMAD buys off Conservatives with much more than a balanced budget and limited government ; it permanently ends future illegal immigration with zero-tolerance, adds tort reform and completely replaces all taxes on production, labor, saving and investment with the new carbon tax, the value-added tax and the sugar tax. The LMAD plan even removes the burden of healthcare expenses from corporate balance sheets by ending our reliance on employer-provided health insurance.

    Energy efficiency? It's in there. Healthcare-for-All? It’s in there. Balanced budget? It’s in there. Carbon tax? It’s in there. Rational taxation? Amnesty? Border Security? Limited government? Social Security and Medicare solvency? It’s all in there; it’s all paid for and it’s all optimized for economic growth.

    It’s time for progressives concerned about rising temperatures and conservatives concerned about rising federal debt to realize the obvious: they need to BUY each other off in order to effectively address their pet ideological concerns-there is no other way. This means trading, among other things, a carbon tax for a balanced budget amendment and a more limited government. This plan is outlined at http://letsmakeadeal-thebook.com

    Wahla! Energy efficiency WITHOUT a light bulb ban.

    Plan Blog: letsmakeadeal-thebook.com/

    Facebook: facebook.com/pages/Lets-Make-A-Deal-The-Book/143298165732386

    Twitter: twitter.com/#!/lmadster

    Or just Google "LMADster" for more info.

  • ||

    Oh look, another retard. We just can't win here, can we.

  • Patrick||

    This asshat shows up here much like the concern troll on the 'Murican Ethanol thread earler today.

    Do the orgs that pimp this nonsense have some sort of Google alert that lets them know when a political website has a posting on their topic, letting them know the next target to carpet drop this pablum on top of?

    This is not rhetorical; it's a legitimate question as it seems to be going on like clockwork here lately.

  • ||

    It wouldn't surprise me, honestly. They're propaganda outlets anyway; why wouldn't they do something like that?

  • ||

    Google News alert + copy pasta + high unemployment = human spammers.

  • SFC B||

    Mmmmmmm... copy pasta...

  • Neu Mejican||

    That's a typo... it's supposed to be copy antipasto.

  • Jim||

    I don't know why, but the way he spelled "algore" made me wonder, in 1,000 years, will historians believe he was an Arab, and quote him in history books as Al'Gor? Wouldn't be the first time a name has become bastardized like that over the course of time.

  • ||

    Eventually "algore" will morph to "angora" and future researchers looking into the long extinct race "libertarians" will wonder why they hated a type of rabbit so much.

  • ||

    Al'Gor is a Klingon, you moron. You're worse than Warty.

  • Warty||

    He is not.

  • ||

    OK, maybe not. But close!

  • ||

    In the future, we remember al Gorda as a terrorist organization that successfully reversed a natural warming trend and plunged the world into a horrible 500-year ice age.

  • Restoras||

    Not to be confused with the religion founded by Al'Gourda...

  • ||

    Actually, to be confused. And don't offend the Gourd again.

    There's also the totally unrelated al Gouda. Blessed are the cheesemakers.

  • ||

    Has anyone ever founded a protest band called The Algore Rhythm? (Or, if C&W style, The Algore Rhythm Aces?) If not, someone should. Think of the possibilities, people!

  • cynical||

    Still, it's less retarded than the bulb-banners, since if the problem is "carbon from electricity consumption causes global warming", then a tax of fossil fuels is a least a straightforward, no bullshit solution, as opposed to trying to micromanage every use of electricity. The premise might be wrong, but what follows is genius-level shit, by comparison.

  • Restoras||

    A+

  • rts||

    Did you just type "wahla" for voilà? I hope you hired a good copy editor for your, uh, "book".

  • fish||

    I'm glad someone caught that!

    He's got to go to work now spinning the sign that points to the low cost mattress outlet.

  • Brett L||

    Fuck off, slaver!

  • Almanian||

    That's so immature. "Or" so I've been told...

  • Loki||

    Wahla?

    Don't you mean "Voila!"?

  • fish||

    Why impose thousands of clumsy and circumlocutory regulations on businesses to control carbon emissions or fuel efficiency when a single, simple-to-calculate, simple-to-administer, revenue-generating carbon tax can get the job done?

    Well at least this guy is honest about it! No end of the world raising sea level stupidities......Nope! Simple acknowlegement that we want your money and taxing consumption of substance with carbon is how we plan to do it.

    Refreshing

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Why not just legally redefine CFL's to include incandescent bulbs?

  • sarcasmic||

    Why not? Words change all the time.

    The only possible excuse to object would be religious intolerance of incandescent bulbs.

    Which is exactly why members of Al Gore's Anthropogenic Global Warming doomsday cult would object.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    So true.

  • cynical||

    Why not just add regulations specifying a minimum average number of times you can turn the fuckers on and off, low-temperature startup times, and other things that only incandescents can do. Either GE fixes the fucking problems, or else no one gets light bulbs.

  • ||

    Just for the record, Bryan Walsh is not related to me. My actual relatives are embarrassing enough...

  • fish||

    I like Bill (former SF 49ers football coach) and Joe (noted musician). See not all your relatives are bad.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Another note:

    How effective was banning marijuana, cocaine, and heroin?

  • NotSure||

    Well I for one will be the first in line to buy "illegal" light bulbs in the black market. Governments can even create a new war, the war on light bulbs.

  • Old Mexican||

    I agree that pollution, including the emission of greenhouse gases tied to global warming, counts as an externality that justifies government intervention, at least in principle.


    In principle, it doesn't; you would be begging the question.

    The so-called "externalities" are a canard, based totally on a mindset that pretty much looks like "back seat driving:" It is the second-guessing of other people's choices.

    People already take into account the opportunity costs when making choices. If people like electricity, they already took into account the opportunity cost of not having electricity: No pollution, no cables, no noise, a simpler life. "Externalities" are simply concepts based on a total misunderstanding of true economic costs (opportunity costs.)

    Another factor that you may be ignoring, perhaps for the sake of argument: Non-electrical societies are far DIRTIER than electrical societies: They use other and far dirtier energy sources; they require more land-intensive food; they are subjected to the whims of nature and can cope less with natural disasters. This is MORE measurable and immediate in human terms than the much less obvious (and very likely MYTHICAL) aspects of so-called "global warming."

  • sarcasmic||

    But poverty is so romantic!

    Living off the land, self sufficiency, being one with Mother Earth and all that.

    No deodorant or showers, quick death from disease, no modern conveniences, it's so romantic!

  • SFC B||

    Most diseases don't offer a "quick" death.

  • Restoras||

    Don't forget the glorious (short)lifetime of back-breaking, life-shortening work! I'm amazed people aren't flocking back to the farm in droves!

  • Brandon||

    To the statists, it's always someone else who's not part of the collective who will be doing the backbreaking labor, while they themselves will be allowed to sit around coffee shops and discuss irony as long as they vote the right way. The entire worldview depends on the existence of a poorly-defined "other" to demonize and subjugate. Hence the prevalence of "Fuck off, Slaver!"

  • Tony||

    You have to work to be this ignorant OM. Your post says the following things and nothing else:

    You don't believe in externalities (a painfully simple thing to understand).

    You don't believe in global warming (despite the evidence).

    In other words, you simply refuse to believe in things that don't fit your dogmatic worldview. Waste of a mind.

  • Allow me...||

    Fuck Off, Slaver.

  • Tony||

    Ah libertarians, to whom the world is the playground they got beat up on.

  • Tony||

    Ah libertarians, to whom the world is the playground they got beat up on.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    You don't believe in externalities (a painfully simple thing to understand.)


    It is a simple thing to understand: They're pure bunk. What YOU don't understand is economics, which would allow you to see why so-called "externalities" are pure bunk - that's not MY problem, it's entirely YOURS.

    You don't believe in global warming (despite the evidence.)


    Oh, I believe in Global Warming - in fact, if there was NO warming, this Earth would be like Mars: a lifeless ball. What I believe is pure bullshit is that Man is the sole contributor to it. That's all.

  • Neu Mejican||

    What I believe is pure bullshit is that Man is the sole contributor to it. That's all.

    Strawman.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You don't believe in externalities (a painfully simple thing to understand).


    Externalities schmexternalities

  • NotSure||

    These people still hold the outdated belief that the world is facing an overpopulation crises, when the opposite is true. Even in Africa the place with the biggest population, the fertility rates are plummeting. The final population surge will be followed by population implosion. Countries such Russia already are in the crises, others such as Greece and Spain are soon to follow. The future government buffoons like Bryan Walsh will be writing how people need to have more babies, otherwise the world will end.

  • NotSure||

    Even in Africa the place with the biggest population growth.

  • Colin||

    Strangely enough, the guy who started the overpopulation meme was one of the same guys who started the global warming meme.

  • ||

    Malthus talked about Global Warming?

  • ||

    "if we take away government and society's tools to even attempt to respond to a world of limits in a collective fashion, I'm not sure how we'll survive."

    And just think, the individual who made this comment is calling someone else stupid.

  • ||

    Geez, can't believe I'm the first with:

    Fuck off, slaver.

    You're welcome.

  • robc||

    If we can find a way to work "Fuck Utilitarianism" into the thread, all 3 of my catch phrases will be accounted for.

  • Almanian||

    Oh, yeah, it's all about you, robc. If there were any value to posting that, there'd be a "utilitarian" payback on that effort. But there's NOT - so NO ONE's going to post it.

    Cause utilitarianism sucks, so FUCK UTILITARIANISM!!

    Welcome...

  • Zombie Jeremy Bentham||

    I'm coming to kick your ass!

  • ||

    You've forgotten the motto on your coat of arms already? Efutue, servus dominum!

  • ||

    This isn't a ban, by the way. It is a ban on inefficient bulbs, but you can still buy all the incandescent bulbs you want. They are just going to be high-efficiency and cost more than 75 cents or whatever.

    I'm not saying the government should do this, I'm just clarifying our terms here. That crap annoys me when the conventional media does it, but we don't need to reproduce their language here.

    I do appreciate that Jacob says "ban on conventional incandescent bulbs" but that's still a tad misleading.

  • ||

    "This isn't a ban, by the way. It is a ban on inefficient bulbs."

    Yes, as you say, it's a ban on conventional incandescents. I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face "This isn't a ban." It gets richer when your next sentence starts with "It is a ban."

  • Was Not Was||

    Everybody walk the dinosaur

  • robc||

    They are just going to be high-efficiency

    Not necessarily. Efficiency, in part, is determined by the Time-Value of money.

  • NotSure||

    Why is it misleading, as you said yourself the new ones are high efficiency the conventional are not, hence the conventional ones are banned.

  • cynical||

    Ah, so it isn't "incandescent bulbs" that were banned, just "all of the incandescent bulbs that people actually used". And I'm sure the efficiency standards were chosen according to rigorous and objective criteria, rather than just being set so as to ensure that nearly all incandescents failed them.

  • ||

    I'd like a ban on inefficient rockets. And inefficient power sources, like everything that isn't fusion.

  • Almanian||

    I'd like a ban on idiots and statists - can we do that while we're at it?

  • Almanian||

    Also, we need to stop coercion. With force, if necessary.

  • ||

    Only inefficient coercion need be banned.

  • Jennifer||

    My incandescent lightbulb stockpile occupies a ridiculous percentage of my total closet space but I still plan to buy more, "Hoarders"-inspired fears be damned. CFLs and LEDs offer light that for me is bleak, cold, depressing and headache-inducing. Fuck that; I'd sooner haul all my Goth-phase candelabras and oil lamps out of storage and get all my illumination from open flame. At least firelight breaks down into a complete rainbow spectrum when filtered through a prism.

  • ||

    Psst. If the bulbs run out, I can score you some whale-oil. As long as you don't ask too many questions.

  • robc||

    Back in the early 90s I planned on filling up a rental storage unit with Freon.

    I wonder what that would go for on one of those auction shows?

  • robc||

    Just to clarify, be Freon I mean specifically R-12.

  • ||

    You should change your handle to UKOD.

  • robc||

    ?????????

    whoosh.

  • ||

    Snow Crash. The Undisputed King Of Ozone Destroyers.

  • robc||

    Huh. Ive read it, dont remember that bit.

  • robc||

    Okay, looked it up. I would have thought I would have remembered that bit. Its been a while.

    Yeah, that would have been me.

  • alan||

    It was an amazingly disjointed book. Great bits and pieces hampered by often contradictory exposition. I forgot that bit too.

    Liked it better than Diamond Age. God I hated the drummers. She just threw her self into the middle of a diseased ridden fuck pile symbiote. It may be my least favorite scene of any scene in any book ever. Killed the entire investment of time in the book I had up to that point.

  • robc||

    Best I can find from a google search:

    1 lb R-12 originally $1.29 at K-Mart ...now a bargain of three cans for $45!!!

    So $1.29->$15 in 18 years, about a 15% ROI. Thats ignoring the cost of the rental unit. Dang it, I hate when I dont follow thru on great ideas.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I only accept high grade oil made from the drippings of Neanderthal meat after STEVE SMITH has had his way with them.

  • -||

    Preparing for Peak Incandescent?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Walsh's argument that environmental effects justify second-guessing individual choices that increase energy consumption is an open-ended license for such meddling, since so much of what we do—including decisions about where to live and work, how to get around, what to eat, and how to spend our spare time and disposable income—figure into that collectivist calculus.

    See also: healthcare spending.

  • sarcasmic||

    What will become the new international symbol for "Good Idea"?

  • ||

    What makes you think there will be such a thing as "good ideas" in the Glorious Collectivist Future?

  • sarcasmic||

    In the Glorious Collectivist Future the only ideas that will matter are those that can be backed up by threats of violence from The State.
    The merit of the idea does not matter.
    Only that the source has political connections.
    Because coming up with good ideas is hard. It's so much easier to kiss up to the people who give orders to the men with guns.

  • collectivist overlord||

    THINK! damn you - or I'll blow your head off!

  • herve villachaize||

    "...pollution, including the emission of greenhouse gases tied to global warming..." Sorry, but global warming is a scam and a fraud; I can't take the rest of an article seriously after encountering nonsense like this...

  • ||

    A few years back, based on the estimated hours ratings of CFLs I "upgraded" my most heavily used lamps. As CFL prices have come down and my incandescent stock has dwindled I have continued to "upgrade".

    I happen to like the damn things (except the warm up time on the larger ones). Electricity where I live is almost entirely natural gas derived and the costs have not been declining. The energy savings were well worth it to me. No government coercion necessary just simple market forces.

  • ||

    I have done much the same thing, but among the CFLs I have also included an increasing number of LED bulbs. The latter have arrived at a point where the light is sufficiently pleasing and powerful, while the price is reasonable. Plus, they don't (so far) have the unfortunate characteristic of CFLs I've used, which overheat to a frightening degree at the base whenever the bulb itself "blows out" (i.e., cracks or becomes detached from the base).

    My electricity consumption has fallen enough that the savings in electric bills long ago paid for all the bulb "upgrades." So I'm already a pretty happy camper and expect to be even happier with each successively better and cheaper generation of LED bulbs. No government coercion necessary at all.

  • Old Mexican||

    I use CFLs wherever the lights need to be on for a long time: My living room, or the dining room, or my bedroom (albeit not for very long! Wink, wink!)

    I always seek to purchase those that emit a warm light rather than the bluish hue of the cheaper ones or the so-called "day-glow" white, because they make a room look uninviting, like a doctor's office.

    But for my bathroom and other places where the glorious glow of an incandescent is required, I use incandescents. That is my choice; I know the tradeoff between beauty and my electrical bill. WHO THE FUCK IS CONGRESS TO TELL ME OTHERWISE???

  • ||

    Where i live all the power used to light homes comes from hydroelectric power.

    Why the fuck can't I use regular light bulbs?

  • robc||

    For every incandescent bulb you use, a salmon fails to spawn.

  • ||

    90% of the spawning salmon that go through the hydro electric turbans of a dam survive...not the fish latter mind you I am talking about the spinning turbines.

    Also the 90% is only fish that were caught with a fish hook pulled out of the river then were cut open then had a 1 pound transmitter and batteries surgically implanted in their body then sown back up and thrown back into the river.

    I have the funny feeling that fish that did not have this procedure have a better survival rate then the study group.

  • .||

    I wasn't aware that radio transmitters worked underwater. Hm.

  • Colin||

    Because the most important thing is for you to obey.

  • Colin||

    Time should just change their name to Truth.

    They'd sell lots of copies in Russia.

  • cynical||

    Great, now the left gets to make Vince Foster conspiracy claims...

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "That ideology, Walsh warns, impairs "our ability to collectively chart a better course through a hotter, more crowded and scarcer world."

    And by that, of course, he means that the self appointed elite will do the course charting part all by themselves and the "collective" part comes in where we all fall in line and obey after they've decided.

  • ||

    Just to speak anecdotally, I have a lamp in my office. Its specific purpose was to be an incandescent alternative to the madly oscillating fluorescent bulbs in my ceiling. Naturally, the company, when my incandescent bulb burned out, gave me a fluorescent bulb as a replacement. Disappointed!

  • ||

    There can be only one solution. Got shit in your boss' desk. Go now. We'll wait on you.

  • ||

    If only it were that simple. This is the corporate bureaucracy at work. No mere executive can stem its tide. He'd probably tell me to do what I'm gonna do--buy my own damned light bulb. Which is what the maintenance guy told me to do.

  • Solanum||

    Probably not a good idea if your boss can wither your taint with a mere thought.

  • ||

    I thought he was a minion of Urkobold in his spare time. If he works for Urkobold, I don't even think it would safe for him to shit in the same office park as his boss. Do that in the safety of your own home, dude.

  • ||

    "Works for" is inaccurate. "Part-time slave" is more precise.

  • ||

    An even better reason.

  • ||

    Did you engage the slavers in hand-to-hand gladiatorial combat to the death?

  • ||

    Are you kidding? I'm part of the problem, because I allowed the installation of the bulb, and I have yet to replace it, though I plan to soon. Just like I plan to restore limited government.

    Fucking useless libertarians.

  • ||

    You can offset the installation of the CFL by throwing it off a bridge on your way home tonight.

  • ||

    Or violently, forcefully shoving it up Bryan Walsh's ass. That works, too.

  • ||

    Maybe I should collect the mercury and mail it to Maintenance.

  • ||

    "Accidently" break the damned thing. Next step is call the local haz-mat cleanup team to guarantee that your workspace remains safe and mercury free. Let the company pay the bill.

    Yes the fact of the matter is I am a closet passive aggressive.

  • ||

    They replaced all my light bulbs with super-bright energy saving bulbs. The energy savings part kicks in by me never turning them on.

  • ||

    Yeah, the light from those is undoubtedly God-awful. My sister's office is now lighted, thanks to those bulbs, like a Brazzers porno set. It's fucking insufferable.

  • Warty||

    I'm glad I'm not the only one who hates the lighting in Brazzers porn.

  • ||

    It think it's bad only insofar as I can see those "girls" they use better.

  • Warty||

    Who is into overlit-used-up-old-whore porn, anyway?

  • Brett L||

    Rule 34, there's always someone.

  • ||

    Incandescent light bulbs... please! It seems to me a better governmental intervention would have included telling people they couldn't rebuild in New Orleans. At least it'll seem that way the next time a cat. 5 storm (again) turns that place into a cereal bowl and taxpayers have to "voluntarily contribute" several billion more dollars to literally bail them out...

  • GroundTruth||

    "I am not convinced that human survival requires such elaborate central planning, and it seems to me the burden of proof should be on those who claim it does."

    What a concept! It might lead to something like 'a sea of liberty with islands of authority'.

    No, too late... that's just old fashioned, age of enlightenment thinking.

  • ||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement