Executive Summary:
Philips, which makes 1 in 4 of the world's lighting fixtures, is banking a large part of its financial future on the production and sales of LED lights. LED lights currently make up less than 10% of lighting sales in Europe.
The LED is more expensive than the incandescent light bulb, but is expected to be less expensive than the compact fluorescent by 2013.
LEDs have a long life, are energy efficient, and do not contain mercury like the compact fluorescent. However, the quality of light produced by a less expensive LED is described as "cold", while "warm" LED light is twice as costly.
Phillips will not realize its LED sales goals unless the EU and other governing bodies continue with their plans to ban the incandescent light bulb. Europe is on track to ban it in 2012.
Opinion:
The incandescent light bulb is going to be banned by our government. Stop laughing. Seriously. I think the US ban takes effect in 2014. I do think Congress will have no choice but to delay it. And then delay it again. And again. (Like the DTV transition.) But like DTV, it probably will get implemented someday. When it does, I hope I have a closetful of incandescent light bulbs. I hate those compact fluorescent bulbs---they make everything look jaundiced. I challenge anyone to tell me how this is a necessary function of government. And if LEDs are that great, the market will ensure they will be implemented eventually, so why does the government need to step in at all?
Why does it matter if you hate compact fluorescent light bulbs when you think the government is going to enact a measure to make LED the only thing available?
ReplyDeleteAre you asking if environmental regulation is or should be part of the governments oversight?
My hatred of the crummy light of CFLs is just a bit of personal color to my commentary, although it helps drive the point home. Whether or not the govt. mandates a CFL or an LED, both are unnecessary intrusions on my life. Forcing citizens to buy one kind of light bulb goes way, way, way beyond reasonable "environmental legislation"---especially given that CFLs contain mercury.
ReplyDeleteJust for the sake of understanding here, let's say that LED lights could be made that put off a light very similar in color, directionality, and brightness equal to current incandescent bulbs (to my knowledge this is not currently the case, but I am just looking to find out what you feel the limits of the government are). Would you then feel it was appropriate for the government to regulate light types to cut down on energy usage (LED's are something like 90-99% more efficient in energy use than an incandescent bulb) or environmental impact (an LED light would not have the ability to 'burn out' in the same way and should have a MUCH longer life)?
ReplyDeleteOr should decisions that can effect energy usage and have environmental impacts be left solely to consumers (free market)?
One argument for the free market approach that you alluded to in your original post is that if they are so much better, why worry about regulations? People would just switch to them.
I guess my only counter here (and it isn't a strong one) would be that there is a cost inherent in switching and benefits can't be realized until that initial cost is overcome (like energy of activation in chemistry). People often make poor long-term financial choices to have a benefit now or avoid an issue later (credit cards being a fantastic example of this, with how most people use them).
However, as for regulating environmental impact, I do think this is something that should be a governmental concern (not that I agree with how they do it all the time). The reason being that an individual will make decisions that benefit themselves or their loved ones and not necessarily take into consideration the impact on others... or do so only to a lesser degree. Laws and regulations do the opposite, taking into account what is good for the whole even if it impinges somewhat on the wants of the individual (frankly I can't think of a law or regulation that doesn't do this). I guess that is how I see environmental controls... at least how they should be.
I have a bigger problem with some of the extreme green movement that seems to get through into legislation. I guess my only comment here is that it is more of a problem or side-effect of the type of system we have. A legislator supports these things to curry votes as they are often things that sound good to do, and the people who don't support them only do so half-heartedly (won't loose votes) and those who support them are rabid, die-hard supports.
The keyword here should be "constitutional authority". The feds have no authority to tell us what lightbulb to use. If lightbulbs have that much of an envirionmental impact(questionable), local authorities perhaps should regulate them, but that depends on your local laws.
ReplyDeleteYou say that people are making "poor" long-term decisions now and that's why government should step in. (Never mind the fact that thousands of people making personal choices will in aggregate be wiser than a government bureaucrat any day---the USSR proved that.) But there is no "free lunch" to your decision, and you are likely just causing a different kind of pain than the one you are supposedly avoiding (which might not even happen). And you are taking away liberty (not "wants"), which has a significant cost. So you are trading guaranteed pains now for a possible, but not guaranteed, one in the future. Sounds like a bad trade to me.
Solving the problem with the legislator buying votes this way is easy. The problem isn't with our system, but how governments have usurped authority that the system does not give them. Tell them to give it back to the local communities and individual citizens, and the extreme green movement will evaporate. Or just work within the free market to influence individuals, which is where they belong.
ReplyDeleteMany, many of our laws and regulations unfairly impinge on our liberty---that's my whole point. Legislators, especially at the federal level, have gradually bastardized our system over the years and people have become accustomed to it so they don't question it as much. That doesn't mean I am a libertarian---I'm not. The Federal Government does have some authority to regulate our actions, but only what we the people gave to them, and no more. Anything more should be handled at the local level.
ReplyDeletePathfinder Three, do you consider yourself one of those people that makes "poor long-term decisions" that benefits yourself and your loved ones and doesn't consider their impact on others? If you aren't, why do you assume others are?
ReplyDeleteI have certainly made some poor long term decisions in my time, though I am striving to improve. As for why I assume others do, let's just look at the credit crisis that our country is in... that kind of makes it pretty clear that there are lots of people making bad decisions about their long term future.
ReplyDeleteAs for constitutional authority, the commerce clause has been held up as giving congress the authority to regulate anything that is traded across state lines. There are certainly strict constructionalists who don't agree with this interpretation, but the facts are that it is currently (and for the past century) how that clause has been interpreted.
Do you then believe that people do not have the right to make bad decisions? That the government must almost always step in before they do? And how many people out of the country are in deep credit card debt vs. those that aren't? I found this site* that says that half of all US households carry a balance on their cards. (Doesn't say how big.) That means half of them don't. I don't. I could have easily run one up in the last few years, but I didn't.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.credit.com/credit_information/debt_help/Five-Shocking-Credit-Card-Debt-Statistics.jsp
That interpretation is flawed, and you don't have to be a strict constitutionalist to think so. If you interpret it that way, then Congress has unlimited power. They can always find some way to pin what they want to do on "interstate commerce" because there is so much of it now vs. at the founding of the country. So are you in favor of unlimited power for Congress? I think not.
ReplyDelete