OUR VIEW

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Mar 1, 2008

Dim bulb law

The problem with a light bulb mandate

Compact fluorescent bulbs are a wonderful invention that millions of Americans have embraced as the prices have come down. The incentives to buy them are obvious and immense: each bulb lasts five to seven years, and can save $100 or more in electricity costs over those years. In homes with 50 or more bulbs, the electricity savings can reach thousands of dollars in a few short years.

A product such as the compact fluorescent -- a no-lose investment that almost guarantees a staggering return of 30 or 40 times the investment -- is destined for greatness. No person of sound mind, given the facts, would ignore this product without good reason.

So why is the federal government forcing us to buy these bulbs? A recent congressional mandate -- ostensibly to save us from global warming -- outlaws the sale of traditional incandescent bulbs beginning in 2012. Suddenly a product that had more built-in appeal than an inventor could reasonable hope for is something consumers must buy. It's a law we'll come to regret.

As a result of this law, makers of compact fluorescents will no longer need to earn our favor. The price will never dip to the levels it might have in a more competitive market, in which traditional bulbs still had some appeal for a variety of obvious reasons. Manufactures will not trip over themselves in a race to make sure the compact fluorescent continues to improve, conquering all aspects of incandescent light. The incentive will be gone.

Most baby boomers and seniors remember when calculators cost hundreds of dollars each, and cell phones were only for the richest of the rich. To make the products mainstream, manufacturers had to find ways to make them affordable to everyday consumers. They made them sleeker and cheaper, available to all. Had Congress forbade the sale of slide rules and landline phones in the name of some great cause -- forcing us to rely on cell phones and calculators -- manufacturers would have relaxed. Rather than a frenzy to produce the best for less, we'd have seen schemes to slow innovation and maintain high prices. We'd have bulkier and pricier calculators and phones.

Until recently, the compact fluorescent was on the path of the cell phone. Once a luxury of the upper class -- with each bulb costing $15 to $20 -- manufacturers managed to get the price within a few dollars of standard bulbs. They made them smaller and more attractive, offering the "full spectrum light" version to mitigate concerns about imitation light.

But now the rules have changed. Soon, thanks to Congress, the manufacturers will have a product we must buy -- unless we want to live in the dark. They'll no longer have to sell their bulbs on the shelf next to a competing product that costs 50 cents or less. They'll have much less pressure to achieve and maintain greatness while lowering the price.

Furthermore, consumers will be stuck with the product -- whether it works for them or not. While the vast majority of consumers would choose compact fluorescents, for the obvious financial rewards, the bulbs don't work for everyone. Some people claim fluorescent lighting hurts their eyes. Excessive exposure to fluorescent lighting -- in factories and prisons -- has been shown to cause depression and anxiety. Pioneer light researcher John Ott, quoted in a paper by the National Academy of Integrative Learning, coined the term "malillumination" to describe the negative, harmful effects of cool-white fluorescent lighting on human behavior.

And now, in the wake of the fluorescent mandate, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is warning that we shouldn't use compact fluorescents over carpeted floors, and that pregnant women and other parents, should consider other options. The lights contain mercury, and when they break the liquid metal can vaporize and cause severe health hazards. If a compact fluorescent breaks over carpeting, the EPA warns, it's nearly impossible to clean up the mercury without ripping out contaminated portions of the carpet.

Clearly, compact fluorescents are a great product and millions of Americans are happily choosing them. But they're not right for everyone. People suffering severe depression, pregnant women and those who care for raucous kids might want to consider other options.

Unfortunately, they won't be able to in 2012 -- the year government begins choosing light bulbs for us.

Washington's meddling mania

When the feds take a break from telling us how to light our homes, they work hard to protect us from lying, steroid-using baseball players. Last week, Congress began a process that could lead to perjury charges against baseball great Roger Clemons for lying to a congressional panel investigating steroid use in baseball.

We'll stipulate up front that our system of justice demands truthful testimony from witnesses. Anything less gives us something less than true justice. But forcing people to testify about actions that weren't crimes when they are alleged to have occurred is setting them up. All too often, such investigations turn up little in the way of actionable transgressions, but encourage witnesses to lie to protect someone's reputation, thus creating a crime where none existed.