Congress bans incandescent bulbs

[SMCengineer]

That argument is based on the hidden assumption that consumers consume in a rational manner.

You could argue in the same way for why it was stupid to ban the use of freon. You could either educate the public on the environmental effects of freon and then hope they will buy the better products, or you can ban it outright. Sometimes the second option is the most efficient.

Most consumers consume on habit, very few rationaly look at two bulbs and consider which one will be cheapest and most energy efficient over say 10 years. Especially not when it comes to such small expenses. Banning a obsolete technology in this case isnt much different than mandating emission standards for cars.

No, the arguement is based on the assumption that consumers have the right to choose what to buy. Whether they consume rationally or not is in their best interest, not mine or yours. I, for one, will buy halogen bulbs because it's a better product, but I don't care what anyone else buys.

I also don't buy the arguement that most consumers buy on habit. Sure there are many people who don't care what they buy or what they save, but the vast majority of consumers (the ones that effect the direction of most businesses and what they offer) do care what they spend their money on. That includes the smallest items/purchases such as toothpaste, light bulbs, and food brands to the largest items such as housing, cars, furniture and computers.

[Kärnfysikern]

No, the arguement is based on the assumption that consumers have the right to choose what to buy. Whether they consume rationally or not is in their best interest, not mine or yours. I, for one, will buy halogen bulbs because it's a better product, but I don't care what anyone else buys.

I also don't buy the arguement that most consumers buy on habit. Sure there are many people who don't care what they buy or what they save, but the vast majority of consumers (the ones that effect the direction of most businesses and what they offer) do care what they spend their money on. That includes the smallest items/purchases such as toothpaste, light bulbs, and food brands to the largest items such as housing, cars, furniture and computers.

You earlier wrote this

There's no doubt the halogen bulbs are an excellent replacement for the incandescent bulbs, but in a free market the consumer decides what is best not the government or in most cases lobbyists. If the bulb is better, lasts longer, and saves energy than it will naturally replace incandescent bulbs.

That is ONLY true if consumers consume in a rational manner, in this case consuming rationally would mean buying the product that is economicaly better in the long term. Now the simple fact that the majority of light bulb consumers hasnt switched over to the obviously superior CFL even though they have been around since the 80's prove that consumers doesnt consume rationally.

If consumers doesnt consume rationally the better product wont neccesarly replace the worse product. In most cases this doesnt matter, but when it comes to environmentaly damaging products it does.

There are many cases when what you consume effects me. If you buy a refigerator with freon, a car with poor particulate filter or even the incandescent bulb that just so slightely increase air pollution by slightely higher energy consumption. Although I agree that banning the incandescent bulb doesnt really make a significant difference.

But in those cases the free market seems inefficient, would the emission standars for cars be what they are today without regulation? Would freon be gone from refrigerators without a ban? Since consumers in many cases doesnt consume rationally I dont se anything wrong with some bans or regulations as long as they dont infringe on anyones living standard.

I seriously doubt most people spend any time rationalising over what toothpaste or light bulb they should buy, I hardly know anyone that does and that includes most I know that are very well educated and intelligent. Familiarity usually seems like the most important thing.

[SMCengineer]

That is ONLY true if consumers consume in a rational manner, in this case consuming rationally would mean buying the product that is economicaly better in the long term. Now the simple fact that the majority of light bulb consumers hasnt switched over to the obviously superior CFL even though they have been around since the 80's prove that consumers doesnt consume rationally.

Now you're ignoring the law of supply and demand. The halogen bulbs have been around for a while, but the demand for them wasn't high enough for consumers to seek them out. Now that oil is at $120/barrell consumers are looking to cut energy costs and as a result the profits of halogen bulbs will grow. However, this is not because of congressional legislation. Businesses chase profits and when they see a market for long lasting, energy efficient bulbs they'll either get onboard or get beat by their competitor.

If consumers doesnt consume rationally the better product wont neccesarly replace the worse product. In most cases this doesnt matter, but when it comes to environmentaly damaging products it does.

There are many cases when what you consume effects me. If you buy a refigerator with freon, a car with poor particulate filter or even the incandescent bulb that just so slightely increase air pollution by slightely higher energy consumption. Although I agree that banning the incandescent bulb doesnt really make a significant difference.

But in those cases the free market seems inefficient, would the emission standars for cars be what they are today without regulation? Would freon be gone from refrigerators without a ban? Since consumers in many cases doesnt consume rationally I dont se anything wrong with some bans or regulations as long as they dont infringe on anyones living standard.

I seriously doubt most people spend any time rationalising over what toothpaste or light bulb they should buy, I hardly know anyone that does and that includes most I know that are very well educated and intelligent. Familiarity usually seems like the most important thing.

You're confusing my arguement. I'm not saying we need complete deregulation of the market. I'm simply saying that we need minimal governmental intervention. Obviously, if something is harmful to others, like freon, than the government has a responsibility intervene. In fact, protection of it's citizens is one of governments limited roles.

[Kärnfysikern]

Now you're ignoring the law of supply and demand. The halogen bulbs have been around for a while, but the demand for them wasn't high enough for consumers to seek them out. Now that oil is at $120/barrell consumers are looking to cut energy costs and as a result the profits of halogen bulbs will grow. However, this is not because of congressional legislation. Businesses chase profits and when they see a market for long lasting, energy efficient bulbs they'll either get onboard or get beat by their competitor.

Well this was more or less my point, a superior product wont neccesarly replace a inferior product. We are saying the same thing in different languages. If energy prices go up then people will look harder at energy efficient products just like you say(i.e act more rationally which increase demand). My point is, why wait? Nobody is worse of if we instead go in and pull the inferior product of the shelf tomorrow.