Why Are the Feds Peddling Light Bulbs?

Fans of eco-friendly bulbs are quick to point out their benefits: lower costs and better efficiency. Why then do we need government to help sell them?

In a recent piece at FrumForum, David Jenkins criticizes the GOP for looking to undo energy standards on light bulbs.  Jenkins certainly knows a lot more than I do about bulbs.  All I can do is tell a light bulb that allows me to read at night from one that doesn't. Up until now, traditional light bulbs did their job well, while the new eco-friendly ones tended to turn the room into a North Korean bathroom.

That was the case the first time I tested a tube-like bulb some years ago. I had been told it made financial sense to use them so I tried. I didn't need the government to tell me so.

Some of the new bulbs (the ones that light up quite like the old ones) are okay.  They seem to last longer than the first generation of eco-friendly ones, which is good because they are about ten times more expensive. The tube-shaped ones are still awful, whatever the package says about the number of "lumens" they produce.

But that is not the issue. The problem is the one Jenkins does not address: why does the government have to step in? Usually, when someone has a good product, he doesn't need to lobby the government into making it mandatory.

Jenkins has three main arguments, which are:

• new bulbs work well
• they are cost-effective
• the government must force you to use them

It seems to me that one at least must be wrong. And that is why people have all the right to be exasperated. Government intrusion is much more tolerable when its justification makes some sense.

Tweet