Paul Hsieh wrote an especially good (if depressing) post December 19 titled, “Outlawing the Traditional Incandescent Light Bulb.” He quotes four news articles and offers his own comments:
The new energy bill (passed by Congress and just signed into law by President Bush) will outlaw the traditional incandescent light bulbs over the next several years, requiring instead more expensive “energy efficient” bulbs as part of the fight against global warming. Of course, if these new bulbs are more cost-effective in the long run, then there’s no need to mandate their use. And if they aren’t, then this is just another burden on consumers. Either way, it’s a violation of the individual rights of producers and consumers of those products.
This is on top of the recent shameful capitulation by the US on global warming policy at the recent international Bali conference, in which the US gave into the demands of the rest of the world.
Those who think that the Republicans and/or the religious conservatives will provide any kind of principled defense against the anti-reason and anti-human views of the environmentalists are in for a rude awakening. …
Although I’m sure it’s unintentional, I find it ironic that the environmentalists and the evangelicals are teaming up to extinguish Thomas Edison’s incandescent light bulb, the long-time symbol of reason and thought.
By the way, I have purchased the energy-efficient bulbs for my house. Costco sells them for a reasonable price, and I believe that they cost me a little less to operate. But the idea of the federal government dictating to us what sort of light bulbs we may buy is ridiculous and offensive. If the federal government can force us to buy the bulbs that politicians decide are good for us, then there is, in principle, hardly anything that the federal government cannot force us to do.