I have no doubt that cleaning and more efficient technologies will win in the long run, but will it be fast enough? Especially considering that we’re subsidizing (directly and indirectly) dirty technologies A LOT. The least we could do would be to level the playing field, but in some cases, it makes a lot of sense to give incentives to make people move faster.

Sorry…
I misunderstood.

I think the freebate thing is reasonable. But it still may be an unneeded government intervention.

For example we didn’t need a tax and rebate to switch from Cassettes to CDs. To most people it just made sense and after a while they quit producing cassettes.

The same thing just happened with VCRs. Some people still use them, the government never outlawed them, but most people saw the benefits of DVD, even though it cost more, and converted using freewill.

I know my examples aren’t about energy, but if CF makes sense economically, people will convert.

That’s why every time I hear an environmentalist politician complain about high gas prices, I laugh. The best possible way to reduce gasoline consumption is sky high prices. It will force people to make changes and waste less energy.

SUVs would disappear if gas was 8 bucks a gallon. Urban sprawl would end.

but again, I’m not promoting that the government raise the price of gasoline via taxation, I’m simply saying high prices will directly promote the changes enviromentalists champion.

They should pray for oil production to drop and prices to soar.

My preference would be to do strong feebates — put a fee on incandescents and use that money to create rebates for CFLs. Incandescents are still available that way..

Incandescents have so many downsides that increasing their price would only be “internalizing” so of their real costs that are currently “externalized” and paid by society as a whole (more energy wasted, more coal plants, more smog, more mercury pollution, more global warming, higher electricity rates, etc).

Talking about not moving to CFLs because some people have problems with them or because they contain a bit of mercury (less than what comes out of coal power plants, btw — see this: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/what_about_merc.php) is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Incandescents affect negatively the whole of society because they are so wasteful, that’s a bigger problem than the few people affected by CFLs (and it’s not like fluorescents are new in commercial buildings…).

This paragraph violates every tenant of human freedom. It is the “forcing by law” that is dangerous. If we use the premise that “being wasteful” is cause to use force (which is what the law is) to change people’s lifestyles, we could ban virtually anything. You name it. Why not ban taking more than one shower a week, a little BO is nothing compared to the amount of energy we’d save.

Again…
I have moved to mostly CF in my home too. I think they are a great invention. However people should be convinced to move to the voluntarily. We should ALWAYS be concerned with rights of the few people negatively affected and be sure to give them options within the free market.

Talking about not moving to CFLs because some people have problems with them or because they contain a bit of mercury (less than what comes out of coal power plants, btw — see this: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/what_about_merc.php) is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Incandescents affect negatively the whole of society because they are so wasteful, that’s a bigger problem than the few people affected by CFLs (and it’s not like fluorescents are new in commercial buildings…).

I know everybody loves a good contrarian story, but be careful.

I’m with you on the CF. I use them too… in most places in my home…but not all.

I think CF is fantastic… but…

Outlawing incandecent bulbs is the issue here. If you wouldn’t use one is a bathroom, what are you to do if incandecent bulbs are outlawed?

It’s the prohibition that bugs me…
Not the technology.