While we debate debt ceilings, health care, and wars, there’s one very obvious example of the over-reach of government: A ban on incandescent bulbs that illuminate our homes. Fortunately, some members of Congress have seen the light.
A few weeks ago, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and others sponsored a bill that, among other things, set in place a ban on incandescent light bulbs. President George W. Bush signed the measure.
Repealing the ban, which takes effect next year, has grabbed the popular attention. I wrote a short article on the topic for the Detroit News, and then a 20-minute interview on 760 WJR-AM, the most popular talk radio station in Michigan. There was strong support among listeners for repealing the ban.
People give various reasons for supporting a repeal, starting with flaws of bulbs slated to take the place of the workhorse bulbs. Compact fluorescent lights (CFL) contain mercury (bring out the hazmat suit if one breaks!), are more expensive to buy, and give off an objectionable light. Halogen bulbs are very hot and can cause fires. LEDs are useful for decorations, but their use as general-purpose lighting is still off in the future.
More fundamentally, though, the ban is bad because it represents a combination of bad practices: Industrial policy (we prefer these bulbs, not those); it’s based on questionable judgments on environmental policy (the country needs “energy independence,” “climate change” requires significant changes to the way we live, etc.); and it is supported by rent-seeking businesses (bulb manufacturers will, by force of law, be able to sell you only expensive bulbs, not cheap ones).
But most of all, it’s a case that simply invites ordinary citizens to cry out, “You want to control what kind of light bulb I want buy? Have you lost your mind?” It’s micromanagement, nanny-statism, and over-reaching control in the name of combating a crisis, rolled into one.
In their defense, ban supporters offer up two arguments. One, CFLs are actually cheaper to operate over the long run, and people who don’t understand that are wasteful and ignorant. (The Secretary of Energy, a man with a Nobel Prize in physics, has said this.) I suppose that’s why some news services call a repeal “controversial.” The idea of letting people choose for themselves? Far out, dude!
The other excuse they give is that the law does not really ban bulbs; it simply helps develop a new market by increasing energy-efficiency standards. But that defense depends on a distinction without a difference. Raising the standards to a level that is far beyond the state of the art or the design capacity of the bulb as we know it is to effectively ban it. Yes, there will be exceptions for the light bulb in your refrigerator and a few other minor applications. But the general-purpose incandescent bulb will be banned. Buy it while you can and stock up.
This week, the House of Representatives voted on a repeal. It got a majority vote, but failed to pass due to the rules under which the vote was cast. All but five Democratic members of the House voted to deny consumer choice when it comes to light bulbs. A huzzah to Minnesota’s Rep. Colin Peterson, the House will try again, under rules that require a simple majority.
The bill won’t get any further than that. The idea is dead in the Senate, and the president won’t sign it. But it’s worth doing anyway, to educate voters on the over-reach of government.
I’ve written much more on this topic; you can find that here.
