Learning To Love Big Brother (II)

Jim Manzi weighs in on the war on incandescence:

What’s so funny about this is that CFL proponents (or more precisely, proponents of laws that would make it illegal for you to use incandescent bulbs in your house) often refer to “inefficient incandescent technology that has barely changed since the invention of the tungsten filament nearly a century ago.” This profoundly misunderstands technology. The best technologies last hundreds or thousands of years, and become so much a part of the built environment that we don’t even think of them as technologies anymore: books, stone houses, woven shirts, fire. The fact that incandescent bulbs have lasted as long as they have and that a law is required to make people give them up probably indicates that it is a great technology.

People like the kind of light that these bulbs give off. Why focus on just this technology that allows the aesthetic pleasure of pleasant light, but is “inefficient” because we get the same number of lumens with fewer units of CO2 emissions from another technology? Why not pass a law that all new or repainted buildings – homes, offices, everything – must be painted white? It would increase the albedo of the Earth and thereby reduce AGW with certainty, in spite of no loss of the functional efficiency of buildings. And what about this desire for wool, silk and cotton clothes? Shouldn’t we pass a law making it illegal to wear anything not made of petrochemical products like rayon and polyester, if we determine that the net AGW impacts of more animals is greater that the impacts of greater refinery utilization? One way or another, of course, all clothes should have to be white ...

For what it's worth, if an incandescence tax were really the most cost-effective way to fight global warming, I would happily pay an extra buck or two for my incandescent light bulbs. Happily. But of course, nobody's offering me that choice.

Fortunately, there's no way the American people will stand for this. The tree of liberty must be refreshed by the excess mercury from compact fluorescent light bulbs! Maybe this will be the issue that catapults a Huckabee-Jindal ticket into the White House in 2012 ...

Comments

I agree with you that we shouldn't be forced to use CFLs, and I understand your anger about this.

But this "excess mercury" thing is an intellectually dishonest dodge. Seriously. A CFL bulb has 1% of the mercury of a thermometer. Short term mercury exposure has an extremely low chance of causing deleterious health effects. And who are these people who are breaking light bulbs left and right? I'm quite certain that I haven't broken a single light bulb in at least 5 years.

Posted by Freddie | February 6, 2008 7:36 PM

Ross,

Perhaps you could take that extra buck or two you're not paying taxes on and go buy yourself a clue.

If this is what it takes to get conservatives to contemplate the virtues of limited government, it is one sad commentary.

Posted by Jeff | February 6, 2008 7:55 PM

Ross, Glad to hear you have signed on to support a carbon tax as the most economically efficient way to increase energy efficiency while accommodating people's preferences. Now, how about using your position as a pundit to do something about it? If not, perhaps you could man a phone bank or something.

Incidentally, we already pass regulations about stuff like the energy efficiency of refrigerators, banning Freon (CFCs), and so on. What happens is that the vast supply of consumer dollars motivates companies to do R&D and create efficient refrigerators, find a CFC substitute that doesn't harm the ozone layer, and so on. People howled, screamed, and whined about the Freon ban, but guess what, capitalism found a way to make do. And the ban actually achieved its environmental goal. I suspect that in less than a decade, there will be a CFL good enough that this debate will be academic.

I don't support banning incandescents either. But I also don't think that the people who are moaning are willing to spend political capital to defend a carbon tax against the inevitable distortions that will be used to prevent it from being enacted.

Posted by Ben | February 6, 2008 8:28 PM

"A CFL bulb has 1% of the mercury of a thermometer."

And where do the discarded CFL bulbs go? They go into the trash where they break and leak mercury.

Posted by JordanT | February 7, 2008 12:35 AM

It's a bit odd to say that you would support a Pigovian tax on X, because you would gladly pay the tax in order to keep using X. That's not the point.

Posted by asdfafsd | February 7, 2008 2:46 AM

I dislike this on many levels because it forcefully removes a proven, tested product and technology in return for a miniscule, dubious energy savings...with a Marxian perspective that consumer discernment of incandescent light being "warmer" and making people's appearances better is besides the point and people shouldn't be permitted to make a "bad" economic decision of a product when energy savings is involved.

But, if you look closer, you see that environmentalism and the politicians trying to coerce it's dictates - are not really about making the country more energy-efficient. Instead it is a political movement that seeks to indoctrinate and "raise consciousness". The focus is on cheapshit little things ubiquitous to households that children, the children! can help out with, do school projects on, and make a difference.

When my kids were growing up in their prime years for being propagandized in the 90s, all that shit was the rage in school. Recycle newspapers, recycle old plastic, glass. Worship renewable energy, bring home the teachers petition against building a new nuclear plant and a pledge to eat only dolphin-safe tuna (what about the poor tuna?). And end killing trees by geting rid of paper grocery bags...

The kids learned some economics from me. It actually cost more energy to recycle newspaper and creates more water pollution from bleaching and acid treating scrap than using recyclable trees. And labor costs born by taxpayers when this renewable biomass fuel was hand-sorted by taxpayer subsidized workers. And "saving" by recycling plastic was even worse because the polymers varied so much between products you couldn't use the scrap for many new products..

Better all the plastic, scrap paper and wood just goes to the trash-to-energy plant. Economics says metals are worth recycling, save huge energy expenditure when you do so - but people figured that out two hundred years ago and created metal scrap dealers.

And the big deal about now scrapping those plastic bags and using reusable totes that have to be washed regularly? Apparantly the energy savings of 390,000 people forgoing supermarket plastic bags for a year will save enough energy to fly one Hollywood celebrity and an entourage of 5 one-way to Davos for a global warming media awareness event.

But like with incandescent bulbs being banned as bad and evil, geting rid of those bags will make children and Mother Earth herself happy!

If we truly want to stop CO2 generation's bigger sources, we would agree globally to eliminate large families and reduce Earths population to sustainable levels (2 billion or so), developed countries would end taking in millions of "refugees" from overpopulated lands. We would build nuke plants. Heavy energy users with 30,000 square foot mansions would be taxed a luxury excess energy use tax. People would be taught how to use less heating and airconditioning, and run washers and dryers only - since a full load has energy costs that exceed a 75W incandescent burning 5 months straight for the nincompoop daughter that does a washer-dryer cycle for a single pair of jeans.
People would be given meters like the Euros and Japanese and Chinese have that monitors the time electricity is used and charges different rates for peak hours, emergency peak hours, off hours...which can be checked out which condition applies on their cell phones..

Posted by chris ford | February 7, 2008 3:32 AM

Actually I think it will be when the HD transition goes totally awry in early 2009. The next President's term will be over almost before it starts.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 7, 2008 6:26 AM

Ross, that pledge reminds me of Rush Limbaugh's hang up with the low-flow toilets. That regulation was going to be repealed by Republicans, then he was going to buy an old-style toilet from the Kohler Co. Instead, Kohler just went out and designed a better low-flow toilet.

Posted by Joe Hartzell | February 7, 2008 8:36 AM

Freddie: when was the last time you've seen a mercury thermometer? That is itself is quite a dodge. I'm in chemistry and I don't see mercury thermometers -- I see thermocouples and alcohol thermometers (the red liquid ones.)

Ross, please quit being such a chemophobe. It's unbecoming a conservative. Look, folks, mercury isn't all that great for you. But elemental mercury isn't particularly toxic when compared to the stuff that's bonded to carbon (like ethyl- or methylmercury). It's the mercury that we put into the air (through coal-fired plants) that turns into alkylmercuries that are really, really bad. Unless you're burning your CFL, I'd relax.

One last thing: maybe I got the wrong CFL, but that 2-3 min warm-up time is really, really annoying.

Posted by Klug | February 7, 2008 9:46 AM

a Marxian perspective that consumer discernment of incandescent light being "warmer" and making people's appearances better is besides the point

Aha, the hidden agenda emerges! By making people's appearances worse, the Marxists seek to reduce sexual activity, and hence population growth, and hence global warming and all the rest of it.

Seriously, how about a little perspective here. In Africa, half the population has AIDS; in Bangladesh, half the country is under water most of the time; while here in the US, we (are going to) have to use light bulbs we don't like! A man from Mars reading the libertarian list of grievances would have to conclude that this country must be the Earthly Paradise.

(My wife switched most of our house to the fluorescents last week while I was out of town. The quality of light is certainly different, but my consumer discernment is that I actually like the new bulbs better. Of course, I looked bad enough already that no change for the worse was possible.)

Posted by roac | February 7, 2008 10:00 AM

One nice thing about the new light bulbs is that they don't produce much heat.

On the other hand, the inefficiency of old light bulbs is due to the fact that extra energy is used to create heat. Therefore, in cold weather these bulbs aren't really very inefficient because the extra heat they produce means you need to heat the room less using alternative means. Of course, during hot weather it means you'll have to use the AC more. So, if you are going to switch to the new bulbs, you might as well wait until summer.

Posted by Jim W | February 7, 2008 11:27 AM

Ross, knock it off, seriously.

No one is banning light-bulbs. We are increasing efficiency standards--as we ought. I am all for a carbon tax (which rebates some of the proceeds to the lower classes), but we don't have it yet and it isn't the only tool in our belt. History, athwart which you seem to fancy you are standing yelling "Stop," will not look kindly on the American Conservative movement's childish antics regarding global warming. It isn't funny.

Posted by David | February 7, 2008 11:49 AM

Yet another example that Ross is in the pocket of Big Tungsten. Companies whose Tugnsten mines, might I remind everyone, fuel genocide in Africa so that you might have soft warm lighting while sipping wine in your smoking jacket. Fascist!

Posted by AngryActivist | February 7, 2008 12:08 PM

I keep hearing people talk about the quality of the light given off by these bulbs but fail to detect any difference. I changed every bulb in my house two years ago and the only difference I have noticed is that blown bulbs have become a thing of the past. With the days of the bare bulb behind us, can you actual detect what kind of bulb is delivering your inderect light? Or are you like the people who demand a specific brand of water?

Posted by Larry Geater | February 7, 2008 2:35 PM

"And where do the discarded CFL bulbs go? They go into the trash where they break and leak mercury"

Not really, because you are supposed to send these bulbs to special recycle centers.

As far as the amount of mercury in the light globes is concerned you might want to check the warnings on the boxes. The government says you should clear the room for 15 minutes and use special methods to clean the debris.

Ross may be in the pocket of big tungsten, but the regulators are shilling for world trade, GE and the Chinese. The globes are made by GE in China.

As an aside, I was watching an interview with a government spokesman a few montsh ago and the subject of CFLs came up. The guy said yes they had great success in convincing the legislators to act on puhing out the old light globes. Then he said next year the push will be to get everyone to use LED lights. How long before the CFLs are mandated out.

Posted by davod | February 8, 2008 2:39 PM

"A CFL bulb has 1% of the mercury of a thermometer."

I love this argument. Walmart didn't sell 100 million thermometers during the last 10 months of 2007. Thermometers don't burn out and get thrown in the trash. Every CFL contains .5mg of mercury. This is enough mercury to contaminate 30,000 gallons of water. We have a pending environmental disaster.

Posted by Baker | February 13, 2008 2:01 AM

hi when is big brother 08 starting as i have not got a clue when it does so if u could tell me it would be great i am a great fan of big brother but dont no when it starts thx

Posted by jordan | February 17, 2008 1:06 AM

hi when is big brother 08 starting as i have not got a clue when it does so if u could tell me it would be great i am a great fan of big brother but dont no when it starts thx

Posted by jordan | February 17, 2008 1:07 AM