Obama’s Call for Light Bulb Regulation Not a New or Bright Idea

by Alex Hankins on June 30, 2009

Eager to sustain his regulatory whirlwind, President Obama is now calling for efficiency standards for household and business lighting.  As if the climate-themed energy rationing bill that just blew through the House wasn’t enough, the White House now wants to force lamp and light bulb manufacturers to make their products use less energy.  This plan appears modeled after the ambitious fuel efficiency standards applied to the now decimated auto industry and Obama’s order to the Department of Energy to mandate increased efficiency for household appliances.  It’s almost funny — the government, of all entities, telling private enterprises to be more efficient.

Are these the winds of change we’ve been anticipating?  Something is floating on the breeze, but it smells disappointingly familiar.  That’s because all this has been done before, and by the administration of George W. Bush, no less.  In late 2007, then-President Bush signed an energy bill into law that established long-term efficiency standards for automobiles and household appliances and ordered a phasing-out (ban) of the incandescent light bulb by 2014.  For all his hot air about changing the country’s direction and breaking from the strides of the previous administration, Obama hasn’t even shown originality in his determination to send the economy into a tailspin.

As with his predictions regarding jobs and unemployment, Obama’s stated expectations for this new light bulb bill are, quite frankly, hogwash.  He says consumers will save up to $4 billion annually in energy costs, erroneously assuming away the greatly increased energy and light bulb prices that would result, which would drive down purchases.  Also, any replacements that do take place would be piecemeal — replacement and installation costs alone would be enough to encourage most consumers to hang on to their incandescent bulbs and older appliances for as long as they can.  Why pay and risk more for light when you can avoid it?

The biggest problem with this legislation, as with most government intrusions into the economy, is its total disregard for business incentives and consumer self-interest.  Businesses fully recognize that efficiency, especially energy efficiency, is consistently in high demand throughout the market, so any serious drive toward boosting profits must necessarily focus on innovations that they can use to entice cash-strapped consumers.  An added benefit brought by the resulting savings is that consumers have more money to spend.  So the incentives are there.  Improving technology is a win-win situation all around, but only if it is voluntary.

Simply commanding progress does not make it happen.  If some imagined and desired technology does not exist, ordering people to work harder will not make it arrive faster.  It’s not as if any industry wants to lag behind technologically.  The incentives are there.  Sure, a business can seize upon an underdeveloped idea like, for example, a car motor fueled by something that produces water vapor as its only exhaust, and pour its resources into making the motor work, but the fact that the idea is still inadequately understood would mean inevitable waste and likely failure for the business.  Maybe it turns out that the motor has to be too big to make it worth installing in a car.  Maybe it depletes this clean fuel more quickly than current motors expend current fuel.  Maybe it’s more dangerous.  Maybe only a certain car model can effectively use this motor, and consumers don’t like its size or shape.  Maybe a better idea comes along, or the motor and fuel cost too much even for die-hard environmentalists to use regularly.  The bottom line is that taking such a leap is a huge risk that no savvy investor would touch with a ten foot pole.  Even if something profitable finally does come out of such an investment, so much money would be wasted in the process of developing, refining, and marketing this unfamiliar product that the business may go bankrupt by the time the car hits the market.

So it is with lamps.  Energy efficiency is great, but without market efficiency, any products that do come out of this forced innovation (there’s no shortage of oxymorons in government) will be dead on arrival.

Then again, the economic illiteracy of the aformentioned bills’ supporters is only part of the problem.  Without even trying to understand how such regulations would affect their constituents or considering the idea that private expenses are private matters, the government is already charging ahead with more controls, more limits on liberty.  The private sector has solid incentives to innovate.  The government does not.  That is why it should come as no surprise when this legislation, which is mystifyingly supposed to help prevent climate catastrophe, ultimately inflicts more damage on the United States than a category 5 hurricane.  At this point, any change in the winds would be welcome.

ceolas June 30, 2009 at 1:38 pm


Take the light bulb example:

Ban consumers from buying what they want and applaud the savings: Edison's simple safe light bulb is bought 19 times out of 20 in the USA.

The popularity is the reason to ban it: After all, that's why the savings are supposed to be so great, no reason to ban what people don't want.

Think about it!

About saving energy =

Does society need to save energy? No, no shortage of electric energy sources……and energy savings aren't that great anyway, see http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards

About what Obama also said, "saving lots of emissions banning bulbs" =

Does your light bulb give out any gases?

Since power stations might not give out any gases either, bans are unfair on emission-free energy households being able to use what they want, now or in the future, and emissions can be dealt with directly – as is planned anyway – by using new cleaner coal or renewable (or nuclear) energy.

All lights have advantages, that's why they exist for people to choose:

It's a pity if just complaints about "energy saving" saving lights are used against a ban. However: Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s Lab was behind the compact fluorescent light: Conflict of interest?

Why a ban is wrong:

For a list, with references, why a ban on ordinary light bulbs is wrong, see:
http://ceolas.net/#li1x onwards

Thinking Positively Instead:

Dealing with emissions might have has advantages for their sulphur etc in them – whatever about CO2.

80% of emissions are from electricity and transport, and a focus on those sectors alone is enough, as described on http://ceolas.net/#cc10x "A New Electric America"

ceolas June 30, 2009 at 6:34 pm

I am very glad to see someone else who is critical of the energy efficiency regulation craze that is sweeping the world.

Why the sudden urge to save energy – particularly using electricity:
– there is no shortage of energy supply,
and energy security is not an issue since local power is nearly always used.


The fact is that efficiency regulation on a product sacrifices performance, construction, appearance and price features, and does not necessarily give the savings suggested anyway.
See http://ceolas.net/#cc2x
onwards regarding such effects of efficiency regulation on buildings, lightbulbs, cars, dishwashers and other products.

Baurzhan July 10, 2009 at 3:21 am

if you are really concerned about global warming, you should read the website*(www.agwcompany.com)

uggzcl June 30, 2009 at 10:19 pm


joe July 5, 2009 at 5:29 pm

I just wants to share this short animation to everybody

I thought it’s a lovable story about global warming~

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: