|
Should Governments Ban the Incandescent Lightbulb? |
|
|
|
|
Written by Staff Writer
|
|
Apr 29, 2007 at 07:46 PM |
Canada is following the lead of Australia and has announced that it will be banning the sale of incandescent lightbulbs. Although I consider myself to be an environmentalist, I am against this plan, as it is bad economics
This ban is essentially the government choosing one technology (compact fluorescent lightbulbs) over another (incandescent lightbulbs). Fortunately it does not go quite that far - the government is not subsidizing CF lightbulbs (that I know of). But overall, governments have a lousy track record when choosing one technology over another.
Prohibition is one of the most costly and inefficient ways to achieve a desired outcome, as I discussed in Should Governments Legalize and Tax Marijuana?
Some people genuinely prefer incandescent lightbulbs and are willing to pay for the externalities they cause. Why should they not be able to do so? Why should we take away their choice? If the problem is that electricity rates do not adequately reflect this externality, then raise electricity rates!
A much more economically sound policy would be some form of carbon tax on coal based electricity.
There is an argument to be made that consumers are uninformed about the cost savings of using CF lightbulbs and other energy efficient devices. That is an argument I can accept, and markets work best when all actors have as much information as possible. If that is the case, why not require manufacturers to disclose on their packaging how much electricity, in terms of dollars and cents, that their product uses in a year in normal operating conditions? Let the consumer decide if the higher electricity bills are worth having the less efficient product!
Mike Moffatt, 27/04/07
|
Blog