Not such a bright idea

Politician decides what light is best for your home

By Alisa Farenzena
From the April 2007 Print Edition

        Soon, the time might come for us to start stockpiling light bulbs.  That’s right — light bulbs, of all things.  That day will come if one Van Nuys lawmaker gets his way.

        The offending party is Democratic Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, who introduced Assembly Bill 722 on February 22.  The legislation would ban incandescent light bulbs by January 1, 2012, forcing all Californians to use the new compact fluorescent bulbs.  Levine’s bill “would make the Golden State the first to make it illegal to sell incandescent light bulbs,” according to a February 9 article in the San Francisco Chronicle.

        Levine wants to ban incandescent bulbs in favor of the more energy-efficient compact fluorescents in order to reduce electricity demand and generation, thereby reducing carbon emissions.  While the motivation is admirable, the proposed ban is heavy-handed.  Dictating what type of lighting people can use in their own homes is a major expansion of government power at the expense of personal freedom.  Who is Levine to say that people should not be allowed to escape the greenish tinge of fluorescent lighting while at home?

         Even if people did not mind having their freedom trampled, the ban would still be riddled with logistical problems.

        “Currently, there is no compact fluorescent replacement that is similarly shaped” to the small chandelier light bulb in the shape of a candle flame, according to the Chronicle report.  If a compact fluorescent in that shape did exist, it still would not be aesthetically pleasing in a chandelier.

        Banning incandescents would even make it impossible to use some common children’s toys; the iconic Easy-Bake Oven employs an incandescent light bulb as its heat source.

        “Another challenge is dimmable compact fluorescents, which are difficult to make without having them flicker or create a low-humming buzzing sound if the switch is not turned up all the way,” according to the Chronicle report.

        In addition, compact fluorescents “don’t always work perfectly with photocell devices that activate a light at nightfall,” according to a March 3 article in the Sacramento Bee.

        Considering these deficiencies, it is no wonder that compact fluorescents account for only 5 percent of California’s lighting market and only 2 percent of the nation’s lighting market, according to the Chronicle report.  These figures indicate that most consumers are simply not satisfied with the compact fluorescent bulbs currently available.

        If the government would keep its hands off of our lighting choices, the eco-conscious California market would eventually drive innovations in technology that would deliver energy-efficient bulbs suited to consumers’ specifications.  Instead, Levine wants to force Californians to buy a sub-par product, effectively halting innovation and product development.

        Levine’s lack of faith in the market makes a bit more sense within the context of other adopters of draconian bulb policy.  “Cuba’s Fidel Castro launched a similar program two years ago, sending youth brigades into homes and switching out regular bulbs for energy-saving ones to help battle electrical blackouts around the island,” according to a February 20 Associated Press report.

        If Castro needed to send youth brigades into private homes, one must wonder how Levine intends to enforce his ban.  How does he plan to ensure that every grocery store, big-box outlet, and hardware store in the state stops selling incandescent bulbs?  Does he intend to set up a new government bureaucracy to deploy lighting enforcement officers throughout the state to ensure that there is not a lone mom-and-pop general store in the Sierra foothills importing contraband light bulbs?

        Another foolish big-government plan, Prohibition, was much more comprehensive, since it made alcohol illegal in every state; still, it failed miserably.  A ban on the sale of incandescent light bulbs would be even more difficult to enforce because the bulbs would not be illegal nationwide.

        Levine’s idea is revealed to be even more impractical when the Internet is considered.  How does the legislator plan to prevent online retailers from selling incandescent light bulbs to Californians?

        Even if Levine somehow figures out how to do all of this, he still cannot stop people from legally buying incandescent light bulbs in other states.  With this induced purchase of incandescents elsewhere, spurred by the suppression of innovation described earlier, Levine is actually hindering the full achievement of his goal of energy conservation.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot