Don’t hoard Edison bulbs. You will lose money
No, you will spend money, for something you want.
What does the 2007 law really do? Contrary to many alarmist headlines, the law signed by President Bush in 2007 does NOT ban incandescents (nor any other technology, for that matter). The law simply requires new bulbs, beginning in 2012, to use 25 percent to 30 percent less power than today’s conventional incandescent bulb.
Which for the moment effectively bans incandescents. If mass market incandescents improve enough to meet the standard, than they would be on the market again, but if mass market incandescents get pulled because the of the standards the improvements (in the ones actually widely for sale, not just in a lab) may not happen. Also once the idea of such a standard is accepted the standards can always be made tighter, banning the new incandescents.
LEDs avoid some of the problems with florescents, but while their costs have come down, they are still to expensive to generally replace other bulbs.
Overall, the job creation story is overwhelmingly positive.
That is unlikely. Compact florescents are imported to a great extent than incandescents, so even the impact of "the seen" (the relatively direct and noticeable impact is likely to be negative, even before considering the indirect effects (Bastiat's 'unseen").
Bot mostly I'm against the ban, becuase its a matter of further extending government's power and control, and because, to the extent it effects bulbs bought and sold entirely within a state it exceeds the power granted to the federal government by the US constitution. |
