Jan 23rd 2014

Light Bulb Angst: Grow Up

by Jeff Schweitzer

Jeff Schweitzer is a scientist and former White House Senior Policy Analyst; Ph.D. in marine biology/neurophysiology

We are told that the world as we know it will end when an overreaching government phases out incandescent lights and forces consumers to purchase more efficient bulbs. Those to the right of center claim that the government should get out of the way and let consumers make their own choices. The government cannot pick winners and losers; only the magic of the market can do that. We hear claims that this is the worst case of governmental intrusion and excessive regulation.

That argument of overreach is disingenuous, tired, simplistic and wrong. Yes, in the vast majority of cases, market forces are the most efficient means of determining what should be sold at what price. Capitalism is extraordinarily successful. But we've learned from the days of the robber barons that unchecked capitalism has problems; so too have we learned since the days of Rachel Carson that the market does not always lead us to desirable environmental outcomes. The argument against phasing out incandescent bulbs is old and tired because we have been here before, hearing the same refrains of lament and grief about excessive regulation in the face of necessary and reasonable government action; and we are going through the same worn out steps to prevent the obvious; let's see how this always plays out.

First we as a society learn of a potential harm caused by common practice; take smoking as an example, or the use of leaded gasoline. Industry denies any problems, and usually counters with an argument that the practice is actually beneficial. Then scientists discover and confirm that the practice is indeed harmful (smoking causes cancer; lead causes problems with neural development). Industry counters with a barrage of ads and sponsored studies with biased results to confuse the public. Nevertheless, the evidence mounts, and industry claims become more absurd and desperate. Remember the spectacle of all those tobacco executives sitting before the senate saying with straight faces that smoking does not cause cancer? Then finally, the change that should have occurred decades earlier finally does, with billions of dollars lost and millions of lives impacted or ruined. Tobacco gets regulated as a medical device; and lead is removed from gasoline. Miraculously we see none of the catastrophic consequences predicted by opponents: the world does not collapse, the economy does not stop functioning, and mom and pop stores continue to thrive in the newly regulated world.

We all know the tobacco story so let's see how this scenario played out with lead in gasoline, which seems now to be taken for granted; then we'll see how this relates to the issue of incandescent bulbs beyond the obvious that both involve government regulations that ban the manufacturing and distribution of a product widely used by the general public.

Dates and sources for quotes below are found here. Also, the full history of the phasedown of lead in gasoline is captured in a report authored by Richard Newell and Kristian Rogers. The economics of the phasedown is expertly described by Joel Schwartz, Hugh Pitcher et al. in a paper published in 1985.

So, let's begin. In 1965, Clair Patterson published the first study to demonstrate that high levels of lead in the environment (water, air, soil) were man-made and constituted a potential health threat. Just as they would do later with climate change denials, the American Petroleum Institute countered with the claim that "the mass of evidence proves unquestionably that lead isn't a significant factor in air pollution and represents no public health problem in any way." (Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9, 1965). Sound familiar?

A few months later, in December of that same year, Harriet Hardy of MIT argued that small doses of lead could be a contributing factor to disease, and cites studies that suggest links between lead and mental retardation (New York Times, Dec. 16, p. 22). Advocates for lead claimed in testimony from Robert Kehoe (an industry-sponsored scientist) that, "There is not enough lead in our environment to be a health hazard to anybody. Those who say there is are ignoring the substance of the scientific work that has been done" (Washington Post, Dec. 19, p. A14). This went back and forth, until the pendulum began to swing decidedly against the industry. In 1971, Ethyl Corp. officials claimed to be victims of a "witch hunt," (sound familiar again?) complaining that environmentalists were using "scare tactics" (chorus line) by blaming lead for the fall of the Roman Empire. By 1977, the evidence for lead's ill-effects on health was beyond doubt. Testing by public health scientists showed causation between high levels of lead in children's blood and brain damage, hypertension and learning disorders. Later, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that leaded gasoline is the greatest source of atmospheric lead pollution. In June 1980, the courts affirmed in Lead Industries Association v. EPA that EPA regulations for the phase-out of leaded gasoline could be implemented.

So industry leaders first disputed that lead in gasoline was the source of lead in the water and atmosphere (somewhat like those who later would claim that climate change is a hoax); when that proved unviable, they said, sure, but lead in the environment was not a health hazard (sure, climate change is real but not caused by human activity, a natural variation of no concern). When that proved untrue, they argued that opponents were organizing a witch hunt using scare tactics to mask the horrific economic consequences of regulating lead (environmentalists were scaring the public about climate change to advance an extreme left-wing agenda of eco-terrorism). Today you don't hear anyone arguing we should still have lead in our gasoline. Why? "Thousands of tons of lead have been removed from the air, and blood levels of lead in our children are down 70 percent. This means that millions of children will be spared the painful consequences of lead poisoning, such as permanent nerve damage, anemia or mental retardation." By 1983 we also learn that the benefits of the lead phase-out exceeded its costs by $700 million in just a few years.

Let us not forget in the face of this economic and public health success that the predictions of economic ruin and regulatory overreach were quite stark as industry tried to rally opposition to regulating lead. I have seen no apologies or admissions of error. Just silence; which is striking given the stridency of the opposition, and how incredibly wrong they were. Here are just a few examples:

• Oil industry representatives testified to EPA that the lead phase-down would cause them to lose profits, prevent them from funding future oil exploration, and make gasoline unaffordable.

• In 1970, the petroleum industry was putting out stories that removing lead from gasoline would cause everyone's car engines to erode or explode. That, in turn, would destroy the economy, all because "a bunch of pointy-headed scientists, doctors and public health officials" were spreading "chicken-little panic" about a "purely hypothetical and overblown danger."

• One lead additive manufacturer ran an ad in major newspapers in December 1973, later picked up in a Washington Post article, claiming the lead phase-down would waste one million barrels of oil a day.

• Phillips Petroleum estimated that producing unleaded gasoline would consume between 300,000 and 600,000 barrels of additional crude oil a day and require from $8 to $15 billion in refinery capital investment.

Of course none of that nonsense proved to be true; the only truth is that removing lead from gasoline caused no economic disruption, but did result in important health, environmental and economic benefits.

And so now we come to another government phaseout of a product considered by the public to be a normal part of daily life, the incandescent bulb. The first order of business is to explain the significant benefits of banning incandescent bulbs. The argument for government intervention to institute and enforce the ban is every bit as compelling as that for removing lead from gasoline.

Energy efficiency is the greatest and most obvious return on the investment away from incandescent bulbs. Two options exist, compact fluorescents (CFL) and light emitting diodes (LED); we can consider CFLs as an intermediate technology, with its own set of problems, including mercury disposal. LEDs are the wave of the future. Compared to traditional bulbs, LEDs use at least 75% less energy and last 25 times longer, usually rated at least at 100,000 hours. An LED circuit gets close to 80% efficiency, meaning 20% is lost as waste heat. Regular bulbs are the inverse; 20% efficiency, while 80% is lost as heat.

At the national level, DOE puts annual energy savings by 2030 from LED use at about 300 Tera-watt-hours (TWh), even with only moderate market infiltration. That is enough electricity to power 24 million homes every year, at an annual savings of $30 billion at today's electricity prices. That translates to nearly 180 million barrels of oil, each year, oil that we would not import from the Middle East -- one more step toward energy independence. So we can power 24 million homes simply and forgo 180 million barrels of oil every year simply by changing some light bulbs, which in the end cost less over the bulb's lifetime than incandescent bulbs. The move is a no-brainer, yet the market would not allow for this outcome because the initial purchase price (for now) is higher. Only by government regulation can we get to the obviously desirable endpoint within any reasonable time frame; and of course as LEDs get manufactured in every-greater numbers, the unit cost will go down, further underlying the validity of the phaseout policy.

Concerning personal benefits, if you use a 100 Watt incandescent bulb for one year, with an electrical cost of 10 cents/kilowatt hour, you will spend $88 on electricity to light the bulb. Of that, $70 will have been used to heat the room, all wasted energy. Instead, with an 80% efficient LED bulb, the electricity cost would be $23 per year. In fact, the cost savings would be higher because most incandescent light bulbs blow out within a year; LED bulbs can used go a decade without burning out.

Sadly, predictably, the right wing brings out all the same objections they brought to the table with the phaseout of lead. The repetitive song goes like this: there is no problem; well, if there is a problem, it is being exaggerated by the left; okay, there is a serious problem, but government has no role to play in finding a solution -- only the magic of the market can do that. They were wrong then, they are wrong now on all counts.

One prominent blog has the headline, "If energy needs to be saved, there are good ways to do it. Government product regulation is not one of them." Note the question of whether we even need to save energy. That is rather odd in itself since the idea that we need to save energy and become energy self-sufficient has been a bipartisan position since the Nixon administration. The parties split is on how to achieve the goal.

So where does the bulb phaseout fit into this debate? The phaseout has actually been in progress since 2007, when Congress passed and George Bush signed into law an energy bill that placed new efficiency standards on light bulbs. In 2012, the manufacturing of the familiar tungsten-filament 100 watt bulb was discontinued. In 2013 that ban included 75 watt bulbs. In January, the manufacturing ban was extended to 40 watt and 60 watt bulbs. All older-style bulbs can be sold until supplies run out.

Just as with the rather ridiculous and exaggerated claims about the calamities that would befall all of us if we removed lead from gasoline, we hear similar refrains about the catastrophic consequences of eliminating incandescent bulbs. And yet, just as with lead removal, the economy did not collapse as the bulb phaseout was implemented. Consumers did not starve in order to afford new bulbs. The government did not come marching in black boots into our living rooms to remove old bulbs. And just as with lead, right wing opponents ignore or deny the obvious benefits derived from the regulations, benefits that would not be forthcoming if market forces alone were brought to bear on the problem.

In spite of the significant benefits of moving away from an early-industrial- age product, even in the face of clear benefits to energy self-sufficiency and national security, even in light of the enormous environmental benefits, the right wing remains stuck in sclerotic opposition, learning nothing from their earlier failures. The Heritage Foundation loudly proclaimed that "the government's taking away your light bulbs on Jan. 1." Think how absurd this headline would be if it read, "the government's taking away the lead in your gasoline on Jan 1." The original quote will seem equally absurd in a few years' time.

Government regulations can and very often do indeed go too far; laws can overreach. Implementation and enforcement can be expensive, inefficient and intrusive. All of that is true, which means we must always be diligent and fight against government excess. But knee-jerk reactions to all government regulation, even those essential and reasonable, destroy any credibility in fighting regulations that legitimately should be resisted. Fighting against actions that clearly benefit individuals and society alike does nothing but delay what should and needs to be done. Los Angeles does not look like Beijing only because of government regulation, forcing the auto industry into adopting catalytic converters and regulating tailpipe emissions (along with regulations of the energy industry as well). I lived in southern California throughout the 1960s and 1970s, when the air was thick and tasted like metal. The air is breathable now exclusively and solely due to "excessive" government regulation. No market forces would lead to that outcome. If you are among those who believe government has no business regulating industry, then live in China for six months and see if you retain your beliefs. Traffic deaths are down significantly because the government makes you wear seat-belts in a car and helmets on a bike. You can eat food in restaurants and produce from grocery stores with confidence because those industries are regulated by government. Hot dogs contain meat instead of rat hair and feces because of government regulation. Air travel is safe because of government regulation of airline maintenance and duty cycle rules for pilots. Water is safe to drink because of government oversight and regulation. Buildings and freeways withstand earthquakes because of government regulation. The drugs you take are the safest in the world because of government regulation.

The government rightfully banned incandescent bulbs. Get over it; stop the whining, learn from the past about ridiculous opposition to reasonable regulation, and focus instead on problems of real government overreach -- you know, like starting a war based on fabricated intelligence. The move to LEDs should not be fodder for partisan politics and is only because the right opposes all regulations without thought. Time to start thinking.



This article is brought to you by the author who owns the copyright to the text.

Should you want to support the author’s creative work you can use the PayPal “Donate” button below.

Your donation is a transaction between you and the author. The proceeds go directly to the author’s PayPal account in full less PayPal’s commission.

Facts & Arts neither receives information about you, nor of your donation, nor does Facts & Arts receive a commission.

Facts & Arts does not pay the author, nor takes paid by the author, for the posting of the author's material on Facts & Arts. Facts & Arts finances its operations by selling advertising space.



Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Jun 19th 2021
EXTRACT: "Xi Jinping’s call for friendship gives us an opportunity to examine Chinese politics on both the domestic and international stage. On the face of it, it suggests the possibility of rapprochement between the rich liberal democracies represented by the G7 and the authoritarian Chinese state. However, despite appearances of a call for a closer relationship, there is more than one way of being friends – and Xi’s idea might be somewhat different to what many in countries attending the G7 might expect."
Jun 12th 2021
EXTRACT: "China’s recently published census, showing that its population has almost stopped growing, brought warnings of severe problems for the country. “Such numbers make grim reading for the party,” reported The Economist. This “could have a disastrous impact on the country,” wrote Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization in Beijing, in the Financial Times. But a comment posted on China’s Weibo was more insightful. “The declining fertility rate actually reflects the progress in the thinking of Chinese people – women are no longer a fertility tool.” "
Jun 12th 2021
EXTRACT: " I remember recounting fellow leaders of the story of a Rwanda schoolboy caught up in the genocide of the 1990s and now immortalized in the Kigali Genocide Memorial museum, where, in a section devoted to children, one can find his photograph and a plaque that reads: ----- David, age 11 ...... Ambition: to be a doctor ...... Favorite sport: football ...... Favorite hobby: making people laugh ...... Death: by mutilation ...... Last words: the UN are coming to save us ----- In his idealism and innocence, David believed the international community would save him and his mother. We didn’t. "
Jun 8th 2021
EXTRACT: " While many conservative Republicans opposed Trump and saw that he posed a danger to their party and democracy itself, they were hesitant to buck the mass movement they had created, fearing that it would turn against them. Some of these same conservatives assumed that with Trump's defeat, the horror of January 6th, and the former president's banishment from social media, the time had come to restore sanity to their party. But the GOP leadership’s continued cowering in the face of what they now call "Trump's base" has caused them to circle the wagons and purge their ranks of those who call for sanity. "
May 26th 2021
Editor's Note: This article is about the Federal Reserve, inflation in the 1970's, and possible similarities to today.
May 25th 2021
EXTRACT: "Netanyahu claims to be acting in the name of the Jewish people. He certainly is not. Many Jews around the world, including me, despise Netanyahu’s racist politics. As an American, I am also deeply troubled by the US government’s knee-jerk support of Israel. Fortunately, I am not alone in this view. A growing number of Democratic Congressmen, Jews and non-Jews alike, have called on the United States to stop supporting Israel’s lawlessness. The truth is that the US government’s uncritical support for Israel has come to depend more on evangelical Christians, such as former US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, than on American Jews, who are deeply divided by Netanyahu’s actions. And the evangelicals’ real interest in Zionism is not Jews’ security, but Armageddon, the end of the world, which they believe will come only when all Jews are in Israel."
May 18th 2021
EXTRACT: "This period in US history could go down as the moment when America’s democratic system for electing a president – the most consequential duty of US citizens – was broken, perhaps for good."
May 16th 2021
EXTRACT: "While reading Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) monumental report “A Threshold Crossed,” I felt a range of emotions. It also left me with one big question. I was deeply impressed by the report’s rigorous scholarship. At the same time, it brought to the surface feelings of anger and profound sadness. It’s an extraordinarily complete study detailing not only the many ways Israel has violated a broad range of Palestinian human rights, but the ideology of racial superiority and entitlement that Israel has used to justify its repression." ..... "My advice to both Israel’s defenders and weak-kneed liberals is​, “Read the damn report.” "
May 16th 2021
EXTRACTS: .... "He transformed a transitioning market economy into a stable statist project that rests on an alliance of his inner circle," ..... "He transformed Russia from a respected member of the international community into a rogue state" .... ". He energized NATO by providing it with the adversary it lacked after the end of the cold war," ..... "He befriended hopelessly corrupt, dysfunctional, and unstable dictatorships..." ..... "He forged a quasi-alliance with China, thereby enhancing Russia’s dependence on the one country that might have reason to appropriate those Russian territories inhabited by Chinese."
May 15th 2021
EXTRACT: "On the face of it, the latest escalation of violence is following the template of all inter-ethnic wars. Muslims observing Ramadan shouted nationalist slogans and clashed with Israeli right-wing groups chanting “Death to the Arabs.” The Israelis haughtily marched with their national flag on Jerusalem Day, marking Israel’s capture in 1967 of East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, the site of the biblical Second Temple, and of Al-Aqsa, completed in the year 705. Battles in and around the Al-Aqsa compound erupted, with worshipers inside throwing stones at the Israeli police, who responded by firing rubber-tipped bullets and other projectiles, wounding hundreds."
May 13th 2021
"Regardless of how the current and future violent conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians in Jerusalem will end, there will be no Israeli-Palestinian peace unless East Jerusalem becomes the capital of a Palestinian state while the city remains united."
May 7th 2021
EXTRACT: " Would the United States be prepared to risk a catastrophic war with the People’s Republic of China to protect the Republic of China, better known as Taiwan? "
May 5th 2021
EXTRACT: "Human history, ancient and contemporary, is replete with instances of genocide – that is, the effort to eradicate a people, erase their history, denigrate their culture, and destroy their physical presence. Many of these atrocities have been recognized by the victims and other nations who support them. But, with the notable exception of the German acknowledgment of the Holocaust, rarely have the perpetrators of these crimes accepted responsibility and offer recompense "
May 2nd 2021
EXTRACT: "The best way to defend liberal democracy is to practice it at home and abroad with the “courage and self-confidence” that Kennan touted at the dawn of the Cold War. This is also the best way to ensure the survival of our own conception of human freedom. And survive it will."
May 1st 2021
EXTRACT: "Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – Sammy Roth at the LA Times/ Boiling Point Newsletter reports that California’s main power grid was powered for several hours last Saturday by 90% renewables. For just four seconds that day, the grid, which covers 4/5s of the state, reached 94.5% generation by green energy. California is the world’s fifth largest economy. The main grid does not cover Los Angeles County. On the other hand, these figures do not include the electricity generated by the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which is not counted as renewable but which is also very low-carbon."
Apr 23rd 2021
EXTRACT: "It is no accident that there has been an economic divergence in Central and Eastern Europe. Those countries that have joined the European Union have improved their economic governance, and GDP has begun to converge with Western Europe. Between 2014 and 2019, Hungary, Poland, and Romania grew at an annual average rate of 3.9%, 4.1%, and 4.7%, respectively. Meanwhile, Belarus and Ukraine experienced minimal growth during this period, and Russia’s economy expanded at an average annual rate of just 0.7%. Though Russia had a higher per capita GDP (in terms of purchasing power parity) than Croatia, Poland, Romania, and Turkey as recently as 2009, all of these countries have since overtaken it. Russians today are shocked to learn that they are worse off than Romanians and Turks. Among EU member states, only Bulgaria is still poorer than Russia. With its close proximity to the EU single market, Russia could have had higher growth if it had pursued sound economic policies. Instead,..... "
Apr 22nd 2021
EXTRACT: "As far as anyone can tell, the US military is not on the verge of an internal breakdown, let alone primed to stage a coup d’état. But few predicted anything like the US Capitol riot before protesters equipped with body armor, stun guns, and zip-ties breached the building. Before the US is blindsided again, its leaders must act resolutely to root out extremism in the military."
Apr 17th 2021
EXTRACT: "The new report on 2020 by the International Renewable Energy Agency reveals that the world’s renewable energy generation capacity increased by an astonishing 10.3% in 2020 despite the global economic slowdown during the coronavirus pandemic." .... "In 2020, the global net increase in renewables was 261 gigawatts (GW). That is the nameplate capacity of some 300 nuclear power plants! There are actually only 440 nuclear power plants in the whole world, with a generation capacity of 390 gigwatts. So let’s just underline this point. The world put in 2/3s as much renewable energy in one year as is produced by all the existing nuclear plants!"
Apr 16th 2021
EXTRACT: "When we examined the development of nations worldwide since 1820, we found that among rich Western countries like the United States, the Netherlands and France, improvements in income, education, safety and health tracked or even outpaced rising gross domestic product for over a century. But in the 1950s, even as economic growth accelerated after World War II, well-being in these countries lagged.
Apr 11th 2021
EXTRACT: "Some presidents indulge in the “Mount Rushmore syndrome” making an obvious effort to achieve greatness. Normally soft-spoken and apparently modest Biden is making his own bid for immortality."