The savings arguments for a ban are also wrong

This is a very welcome criticism of the ban on ordinary light bulbs from a business perspective - which in turn reflects on what
consumers can buy.

1. "Businesses fully recognize that efficiency, especially energy efficiency, is consistently in high demand throughout the
market"...

Yes, why does president Obama and Co keep pointing out the benefit for the consumer:
Energy efficiency is one advantage a product can have, and industry that wants to make aprofit will provide it.

However, inefficient products also have advantages, or noone would buy them.
A given car using more energy is faster and or safer (heavier) than one using less energy. Energy efficient modifications
preserving the same performance may or may not be possible, but always adds to price.

So it is with lighting too.
Edison's light bulb gives cheap fast bright light, admittedly heat too, but that is not always a waste.

2 "It’s not as if any industry wants to lag behind technologically".

Right again.
Now, how often do you hear people saying
something like
"Hey man, the light bulb is old technology , we've got to look forward".

Let's say that new LED lamps (still too dim and complex to replace current household lighting) prove to be as great as many say.
OK. Presumably people will actually want to buy them then - unlike current fluorescents.
In which case, what is the point of banning
light bulbs?
Conversely, if new lights aren't great - what is the point of banning light bulbs?

Compare with the light bulb cousin, the radio tube.

Did the arrival of the transistor (with a low energy electronic similarity to LED lighting)
mean that radio tubes were banned?
No Sir: People bought far fewer devices with tubes, but they retain a value for some people today, without wasting much energy
overall.


Some other points about the Obama announcement.

"We save lots of energy",
the president says.
That is as said only from banning what people actually want to buy, and as the above article says, the amount can be questioned,
from several viewpoints including that many household lights aren't used that often
(price v usage cost), that fluorescents use more energy than supposed for equivalent bright light, and that extensive hoarding
and/or illegal imports will impact on savings.

America doesn't need to save on electricity, there are plenty of energy sources and no oil import is used for electricity.

"We save lots of emissions",
the president says.
Whatever about the effect of lowering carbon dioxide on global warming , light bulbs don't give out gases.
Power stations might not either, whereby
the unfairness for emission-free households
not to be allowed to use the lights they obviously want - for example in California and some East Coast states, where around half
of electricity delivered is free of emissions.

Emissions of all kinds will increasingly be dealt with anyway as planned with cleaner coal or energy substitution
(coal power which already is decreasing rapidly in mercury emissions, from the use of new processing technology as shown by Government EPA data).
Note the irony of promoting high-energy high-emission mercury containing fluorescent lights from unregulated coal-powered China with added intercontinental transport emissions and recycling emissions, compared with promoting local American jobs in low-energy low-emission simple safe Edison light bulb making factories.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, that's environmental progress. Yo.

If there was really a need to lower light bulb use (there clearly isn't),
then taxation would be preferable to all concerned anyway, as well as to the environment .
People don't like taxes , but keep the choice of what they like to use,
and by generally spreading taxes across different lights according to efficiency,
some could be cheaper than today.
Taxes can flexibly be altered according to fiscal/emission requirements and be adapted to new market entrants, and be lifted when not necessary.
Taxes, unlike bans, give government income that can be used to lower emissions (renewable energy projects, home insulation schemes etc) more than remaining light bulb use causes them.
Efficiency taxation could be applied generally to products instead of efficiency regulation.

However, such taxation is still in principle wrong,
affecting the natural business-consumer demand and supply relationship which includes the efficiency feature anyway, as the above article says,
and taxation is also wrong in still affecting emission-free households: Taxation is simply a better alternative than bans if Government insists on targeting electrical products, or indeed cars and buildings.

Why it is wrong to ban light Bulbs:
http://www.ceolas.net /#li1x onwards
( http://www.ceolas.net )