How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb?
Wait, wait. Don’t tell me. I’m sure I know this one.
Scanning through the headlines yesterday I saw this one:
California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012
What will they think of next?
Apparently conventional lightbulbs are bad. They are the scourge of the planet and must be banned. That wondrous joy of late night reading that Thomas Edison gave to us nearly 140 years ago has to be cast aside in favor of newer, more expensive technologies.
And California has just the legislature to make this happen.
You see there are folks there who are working on enacting a ban on traditional incandescent lightbulbs. This would leave folks in the Golden State with a couple options.
They could use the new “compact fluorescent lightbulbs” (CFL’s). Or they could just let it get dark at night.
Whatever they do, they probably won’t be able to (legally) continue to use the old style bulbs.
Something must be done! And California may be just the folks to do it.
Ulterior Motives?
The lightbulb article points out that Wal-Mart may be the biggest winner of the new ban when their sales of the new, more expensive, bulbs become required.
Makes me wonder how much Wal-Mart stock some of those law makers own. Or maybe they just get treated well by some retail lobbyests?
I’m waiting to be convinced that these folks really think the planet is at stake.
Is it just me, or are legislators getting more and more ban happy these days?
I mean look at the list of things that either have been banned or are that banning is being talked about: smoking, trans-fats, freon, DDT, leaded gasoline, denying the holocaust (in most of Europe), driving without a seatbelt, driving over 55 mph 65 mph (ok, so maybe that one’s a bad example).
Some of those things are good ideas. But is heavy handed regulation the best answer to solve every problem?
There has got to be a better way.
I don’t claim to have the answers, but if things like the new lightbulbs are really such a good idea for the planet, doesn’t it make more sense for the makers of those lightbulbs to skillfully market them as such so that folks would make more planet friendly buying choices?
I mean I know that from a business perspective companies can get a higher rate of return on their marketing dollars if they can successfully lobby governments to ban the competition’s products than from other efforts.
Can You See Where It’s Going?
I can see where this one is going. These things seem to start in California and then overtake the whole world. And these bans seem to have the effect of building an even bigger gulf between the wealthy and very poor people on our planet.
We banned DDT in favor of more expensive, and less effective insecticides (which generally are more toxic to humans). As a result millions are still suffering and dying from insect born diseases that the wealthy nations have done away with because they can afford the more expensive agents.
Then we banned freon so refrigeration becomes more expensive and now fewer people can afford it. This has meant that refrigeration is that much further out of reach for the poorest countries so they have difficulty preserving their food and medicine. How many have died from malnutrition or disease as a result?
Now if this new ban gets traction are we going to put the third world in the dark?
Take a look at that map. Much of the world is already in the dark. And the light that is out there isn’t coming from the poor nations, is it? Should we make them darker?
Of course there are some who genuinely feel that light pollution is a big problem already…
I’m not sure government regulation is the answer. But that’s just The Way I C it.
Chris Cree is a regular contributor here at Successful-Blog and he helps businesses fuel growth through blogging with his consulting business, SuccessCREEations.
