The Humble Light Bulb: a victim of political stupidity and green zealotry

Every journalist in the land seems to be going ga-ga over the new "energy saver globe". This is the eco-friendly alternative to the devilish and grossly inefficient incandescent bulb. We are being incessantly told by our media mavens that the new alternative is cheaper in the long term than the old light bulb and that it will save just oodles and oodles of energy and that it would be irrational not to buy it.

The funny thing is that Joe Public has to be mandated by arrogant politicians into buying the next best thing to sliced bread. Why is this so? Because in the eyes of his intellectual and moral superiors in the media and politics he is just too dumb to know a good thing when he sees it. Therefore his betters must intervene to save him from his ignorance short-sightedness.

Irrespective of what smart-aleck journalists and pompous politicians think Joe Public is being perfectly rational in choosing the incandescent bulb over the new wonder light, despite the fact that calculations showing the technical superiority of the new product are correct. The principal problem is that politicians and journalists are economic illiterates. If it were otherwise they would never have confused technical efficiency with economic efficiency.

If technical efficiency was the sole determinant then consistency would demand that these advocates should also promote silver, gold and platinum as alternatives to copper wiring because they are superior conductors. But, as they would argue, these metals are too expensive for the job and that's why we need copper.

The same goes for solar panels. If these were 100 per cent efficient they would still be grossly inefficient economically because they involve massive diseconomies of scale where as centralised power generation gives us economies of scale. When it is realised that what really matters is economic efficiency the case for mandating fluorescent lighting and other alternatives falls to the ground.

Philips' figures show that the running costs of a $6 11 watt energy globe (the equivalent of a 60 watt incandescent globe) over a three year period would be $6.60 while the $1.0 alternative would cost 36 dollars for the same period. A "slam dunk deal", as Americans say. Only it ain't. Let us return to our hapless consumer, the one who is too stupid to know how he should spend his money.

In a free market he would have the choice of both products and he would choose on the basis of which one gave him the greatest satisfaction. In this case let us make it the destructive incandescent bulb. Running this light for one year will cost him $12 while the other one will cost $2.20. What is being overlooked, however, that he is not calculating costs in this mechanical way. He is comparing $1.0 for the incandescent bulb with the $6 for the so-called eco-friendly alternative.

By spending $1 he finds himself with $5 to spend on other goods. What we have here is an example of opportunity cost. It is very clear, therefore, that he values the additional goods more than he values the 'eco-friendly' light. But what about future savings? This question brings us to time preference, the preference for present goods over future goods. In other words, we value present goods more highly than those in the future.

If one were to ask these journalists if they would prefer to have a $100 today or $100 in a year's time, they would choose to have $100 today. By making this choice they reveal that they value $100 today more highly than $100 in the future. This means that these sums of money are being correctly treated as two different goods, with time making the difference. (Incidentally, this is why we have interest). If they were being treated as identical goods it would then be a matter of complete indifference to our journalists whether they chose $100 today or vice versa. The same goes for buying lights or any other goods.

Future cost savings are just that — in the future. If the consumer chooses the incandescent light then he is clearly stating that the cost of the alternative exceeds the value of its future benefits. In general, the lower the consumer's income the higher his time preference is likely to be. From this we conclude that mandating these lamps reduces the welfare of the less well off, as does the absurd tax on plastic bags. ( Plastic bags v. greenie bigotry ). However, this fact didn't faze Malcolm Turnbull , one of the economic illiterates responsible for the policy of banning incandescent light bulbs.

This leaves our activists with the externality argument. According to them the humble light bulb is a case of market failure that is 'polluting' the environment and as this cost is not built into their price they must phased out in favour of an alternative that produces very little in the way of externalities. Two free market economists nailed this argument when they pointed out:

Taxes do not result from a market process, nor do they reflect allocation decisions of resource owners . . . In other words, taxation is a method of intervening, not an alternative to intervention or nonmarket allocation. (O'Driscoll and Rizzo, cited in Efficiency and Externalities in an Open-Ended Universe , Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007, p. 13).

(For those who might be a little confused on this point, there is no fundamental difference between mandating incandescent bulbs out of the market or putting a prohibitive tax on them. As for pollution, Co2 is a nutrient and not a pollutant. Moreover, thousands of scientists are now challenging the phony science of man-made global warming. In addition, there has been no global warming for ten years. These scientists know that the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is a mere 0.38 per cent while the Martian atmosphere is 95 per cent carbon dioxide. These are facts that you will not find in our scaremongering rags)

We must now examine the greens' hypocrisy. Back in the late '60s or early '70s green fanatics whipped up hysteria about traces of mercury being found in tuna and how it would poison us. Research later found that the amount of mercury found in tuna was perfectly normal and had nothing to do with industry. I raised this case because mercury is a necessary component of the greens' new wonder lamp. So the same fanatics who railed against traces of mercury in tuna are perfectly happy to bully us into installing mercury-laden lamps in every room in the house. (This raises the question of who should be sued if someone is harmed by mercury from one of these 'eco-saving' lamps).

If I break a an ordinary bulb I merely have to sweep up the bits and put them into a bin. Not so with 'green lights'. When they break they need to be disposed of in a responsible manner. Philips, one of the companies manufacturing these lights, states:

All mercury-containing products must be disposed of responsibly. As more of us adopt CFLs to help save energy and contribute to a better environment, it becomes more important that our community has a recycling programme for mercury and other environmentally unsafe materials.

GE and Philips were the ones lobbying to outlaw the regular lighbulb.

Florescent= patent payments

Incandescent = no patent payments

essentially this is a financial subsidy via regulation.

The floriescent can’t stand on its own in the free market.

I’ve got a house full of these curly little Hg filled critters. The local hardware has a deal on them at 99¢ a copy. I expect our taxes are paying the freight on this one, but it’s too good a deal to pass up. The little ones are the ones on sale. They light up right away, and don’t get hot. Down side? They don’t fit in all fixtures, and you can’t use them with a dimmer switch. Disposal? I toss ‘em in the trash and don’t worry about it.

For living environments, (living room etc., den, bedrooms, bathroom, dinning rooms, etc) incandescent is the only way to go. It is a matter of choice.

You know that saying "the only way to go" implies that there is actually no choice at all? ;)

I agree with the choice part: Ultimately it's the consumer's decision. I disagree with the "only way part". I only use CFL light bulbs for a number of reasons:

1.) I mostly use the lights for a straight 4-5 hours during the evening.

2.) I have no problem with the slightly "colder" frequency spectrum of my CFLs, especially because with the specific model I use it's only a small difference.

3.) I find conventional lightbulbs rather unaesthetic, too. LEDs oder OLED panels, now that's something else.

4.) I'm frugal. Mostly because of my protestant upbringing. That doesn't mean I'm cheap. I like things that have a certain value and functionality. I have an expensive, hand-made mountain bike that I cherish and a nice stereo. I just don't like throwing away food that's still edible or paying more for electricity than necessary. I just dislike waste.

But that's my personal opinion, nothing more. Everybody is entitled to his or her personal opinion. But that's exactly my beef with the article. It's a lot of hogwash about time preference (That effect is more than cancelled out be the inconvenience and cost of having to replace the light bulbs more often, so you start saving money within a few months. Time preference is more relevant when buying a car or a house) when it actually boils down to a question of taste: Some people just like the softer, warmer light of incandescent light bulbs better.

I have CFs running in half my house. Some of the remaining incandescents haven't been replaced since I took over the house 25 years ago, some have been replaced once or twice.

Those replaced more frequently will switch to CFs when they burn out. For the low usage fittings, I'm laying in a stock of incandescents.

There were two or three name brands I’ve tried that really had off-color, which was totally unacceptable and I returned them. I have been checking on this 3-4 years but all were poor in color.

Finally late last year there was one brand called n:vision I found on sale at home de-pot though, for not much more than incandescent in multi-paks. They had three different temperature colors, and one of them - soft white - is a really good match to the warmer yellow we are used to. The other two - bright white and daylight - were TOO bright white or blue white for indoors, and were just wierd.

That has been the biggest issue in my family - wife in particular would NOT allow me to use the others. These she is fine with. Other soft-whites have still been to blue.

I had one early burn-out only - but about 18 or so others have been in for 10 months so far, with hopefully another 7 yrs to go.

ALSO important - I checked the lumen rating compared to incandescents I was replacing and got brighter CFLs than the regular bulbs. The “watt” equivalency was not as accurate in practical use. Having MORE lumens was what worked. This I found was really important in making sure perceived color and brightness was good - not noticable or objectionable. I am well satisfied.

AND as a kid that ALSO played with mercury, I’ll just bag-em in a plastic bag and toss them in the trash - I am not buying what the parts per billion nazi’s are selling. BTW I am - of course - a genius, so the childhood mercury didn’t hurt me (but I didn’t drink it after all...).

IMHO ;^)

I really really want to break a few hundred of these downtown just to see what happens..don’t have the nads to actually do that for I don’t want to do time for releasing hazardous materials in a populated area (even though I think the dangers of mercury are overrated)..plus I don’t want to be responsible for wasting hazmat and emergency teams resources...but I still dream of doing this anyway

Fine.

But - My “eco-green” fluorescents DON'T last as long as incandescents, and require $8.50 - 9.50 to replace every 16 months instead of $0.75 to $1.50.

Now, if my air-conditioning season in Atlanta is May-Sept (a little bit in April and October some years) when the heat gain from regular (quick-lighjtng) bulbs IS a drain on resources, BUT the added heat from the incandescents in Sept to April is REPALCING natural gas so I have to burn LESS natural gas for heating in winter .....

Back to the three S solution. Sweep, screw in a new one and shhhhhh. Take out the trash, but shred anything with your name on it and dispose of it in a separate bag...assuming there are dumpsters to drop them in--and wear gloves so you don't leave any of those pesky fingerprints on anything--including the new bulb...

Unless you are in a major urban area which can afford to set up special facilities, or your taxes go up to fund the federally mandated (but unfunded) light bulb disposal center in your small town/village/nearest paved road junction, what will probably happen anyway is that it will end up in a landfill.

I don't particularly want them, I do not like the light, and I have grandkids (and a great-grandkid) jumping around on a daily basis.

So every time I see 60W incandescent bulbs in stock at the local stores (they go fast), I get a few 4-packs. I will continue to do so until they are no longer available, by which time I should have a pretty good supply stashed. Maybe by the time I have used that up Congress will pull its collective head out far enough to see a thin ray of daylight (but I'm not counting on it).

I've bought a total of three of these types of light bulbs.

Two burned out within a month.

I had one of the bulbs (not the fixture) start to spark, sizzle, and catch fire (fortunately I was in the room). Later we found out a friend of ours had the same thing happen. I have never had an incandescent bulb (the bulb itself, not something near it) catch fire.

I’ve found that I need to burn more than twice as many of the CFLs in order to get the amount of light I am used to in the house. In addition, they break very easily - I’ve had three of them break now. That does not make me happy at all. Third big problem with them is the warm up time, especially in cool areas, is quite noticeable.

It is IrishMike who needs lessons in economics, not Mr. Jackson. What IrishMike missed is that the author made a distinction between economic efficiency and technical efficiency. As a graduate in economics I can assure IrishMike that this is standard economics. Mr. Jackson’s use of time preference to explain consumer behavior regarding light bulbs is also standard economics.

The author’s argument is a simple one. Whether or not a good is economically efficient is determined by the consumer. Underlying this approach is the role of price. If fluorescent lamps are truly economically efficient in that they satisfy consumer wants then there will be no need for the state to intervene.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.