HELIOLITH

As much as I applaud and appreciate Lloyd Levine’s chutzpah, I can’t help but laugh at the thought that he is actually proposing to ban regular incandescent light bulbs in California. The Washington Post has a good writeup, if you don’t want to just check the frontpage of Levine’s Homepage.

Personally, about 7 of the 11 lights in my apartment are compact flourescents, the others arent because 1) I haven’t gotten around to replacing the dimmer on one 2) One of the fixtures is too small to permit the most compact CFLs I’ve seen from fitting inside, and one has a lampshade that holds on with one of those regular clamps. I haven’t seen CFLs that are round for sale nearby, but I probably haven’t looked hard enough. I also have a halogen light that’s quite powerful, but I’m not sure how efficient it is. My goal is 100%, and I’ve gone back and forth over time, mostly because of the scarcity of CFLs in general stores, such as the supermarket. Still, I support anything consumers can do toward reducing the consumption and waste that is destroying our world.

The reason I laugh is that I can hardly imagine a ban on anything in the USA that wasn’t directly toxic or lethal, indeed many things that are toxic and lethal are widely available, legal, and popular. Images of hordes of scowling rednecks turning to the incandescent black-market aside, the principle of it does feel a bit extreme, asking the government to regulate something that isn’t directly linked to health or safety. The directness of the link is exactly what is at issue.

With the recent report from the IPCC justly bringing the issue of anthropogenic global warming to the forefront, there are actually many things that could be banned under the associations of causality that are now more and more widely taken as common ground. Perhaps it’s not such a laughable thought. Clearly, everyone should be using CFLs as much as possible. Pure market forces haven’t ever been great shaping forces where the well-being of the Earth is concerned. Anyone of sound mind would agree that causality isn’t debatable, whatever the laissez-faire-loving Economist (or the oil industry channeling at least $10,000 for naysayers’ propaganda) may say. The debate is over.

The CFL bill does clearly look like a bit of a publicity move, trying to get public discourse moving in the right direction. I can’t imagine were I a close enough friend that Levine might confide his inner thoughts to, that he would profess any kind of optimism that his bill would actually pass. I salute him though, for the strength and audacity of his gesture, whether or not he truly believes it could pass.