Yesterday our closet light bulb burned out. This managed to coincide with a current news item - California legislators are proposing to ban the incandescent bulb in favor of energy efficient light bulbs.
I have to agree with the desired end state - use the power of government influence to control energy consumption and reduce the power hungriness of the average California household. But the means are all wrong. They shouldn't be banning incandescent light bulbs, they should be taxing them.
My closet light bulb demonstrates the challenge. The ceiling fixtures in our townhouse have a decorative glass cover around the light bulbs. Dean was all excited to replace the current incandescent bulb with one of our newfangled energy efficient bulbs. (Not necessarily out of environment concern - more that I can never again make him climb a ladder to change the light bulb....). Unfortunately, Dean's plan was adverted - the energy efficient light bulbs are actually a fraction larger than their incandescent counterparts. The glass cover doesn't fit. And so instead of an energy efficient bulb, an energy hogging incandescent went in.
Which led us to conclude that the right answer is taxation. There are always those for whom aesthetics (or, engineering necessity) requires a standard incandescent bulb. The market driver now is to by the old bulbs, because at the point of sale they are cheaper. Even if their lifetime cost is less, consumer behavior is very sensitive to upfront cost. So to change behavior, instead of enacting an outright ban, California should just tax incandescent light bulbs at 200%. Most consumers would buy the energy efficient bulbs, but those who needed the older bulbs for a specific cause could still purchase them. Ultimately supply and demand would also influence price, and the less-demanded incandescent bulbs would be more cost more. This would eventually also replace the need for incandescents for old fixtures - consumers like us would realize that it may in fact be cheaper to replace old closet light fixture than to pay the incandescent tax.
3 comments:
Yep - I think that's the right option.
Alterantively, subsidze the energy efficient bulbs to amke them cheaper - or offer rebates or tax savings to manufacturers of the things, so they can compete with incadescants despite higher manufacturing costs...
Tnagentiallyu, it reminds me of what Eddie Izzard said about gun control - that we should just put an enormous tax on bullets - like 10,000 dollars a bullet - that way, if someone shot someone else, it would be because they REALLY deserved it...
Between 25-50% of enrgy use in an average household is from heating water. In Australia, there _was_ a government rebate to encourage more people to install solar hotwater rather than electric or gas storage types. It by no means covered the difference and as a result people still bought the cheaper, less environmental option.
Electric/gas = Aus$700-1400
Solar = Aus$3500+
Taxing electric/gas storage to subsidise the more expensive solar systems (or light globes, in your case) is a good way to convince people to take the _right_ approach.
To focus on the specific issue at hand, you could also buy a smaller CFL bulb - they come in different watt-equivalent sizes from cute to big...Find Yours Here.
Post a Comment