Edison’s words may have been true in the 1800s. Today, however, we have plenty of rules, thanks to the U.S. Congress. Some are so bizarre that you have to question the judgment of those who come up with them. One rule in particular is probably causing Edison to spin in his grave. His most famous invention, the incandescent light bulb, a mainstay in every American household for over a hundred years, has been banned by an act of Congress and will be replaced with the government-approved compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb.

U.S. Rep. Jane Harman announced in a 2007 news release that her provision “bans Thomas Edison’s favorite oldie, the 100-Watt incandescent, by 2012, and will phase out inefficient light bulbs by 2014. By 2020, it requires that all light bulbs be 300 percent more efficient than today’s incandescents.”

Unfortunately, the federal government’s ban on products that happen to work just fine is nothing new. In writing about government-mandated products, I have noticed remarkable similarities in each case. They proceed through four phases and the light-bulb mandate is no exception.

Phase 1: Bureaucrats, “consumer advocates,” and environmentalists trumpet how wonderful the new product is. The extensive hoopla surrounding it can be boiled down to just two claims: big savings for the consumer and benefits to the environment.

The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to promote CFLs in 1999 with their “Change a Light, Change the World” program. The DOE’s and EPA’s promotional (lobbying?) efforts were directed at members of Congress and governors, plus state and local officials, to encourage their constituents to participate. In 2006 then-Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman said: “Here’s a simple step we can take to preserve energy resources, save money and help the environment.” This is the typical approach that the government uses to influence the marketplace. The government never states that its chosen prod-uct is better.

The “big savings” never refers to the retail price. This is because the government-endorsed products are always more expensive than the consumer-endorsed alternatives. A 75-watt incandescent bulb at my local Kroger store costs 22 cents. The 20-watt CFL (advertized as equivalent to the 75-watt bulb) costs $5.49–25 times more expensive. A three-way incandescent bulb (50-100-150 watts) costs $1.25. A three-way CFL (12-23-32 watts) costs $13.12. That’s ten-and-a-half times more expensive. So when the government, environmentalists, and consumer advocates talk about big savings, they are obviously not talking about the upfront cost. They mean the operating cost over the life of the product. CFLs are advertised to last up to ten times longer than the incandescent bulb and use 75 percent less energy.

In the not-too-distant past, patriotism was exploited by the government to elicit a desired response from its citizens. Today, it is environmentalism. This has become our de facto state religion. When the government says that we need to do something because it is good for the environment, we are expected to take it on faith. We are not to question the government’s motives or logic for taking away our freedom of choice, but are expected to feel good about forgoing our selfish consumer desires because there is no higher calling in this country than saving the environment.

Rejected by Consumers

Phase 2: Consumers weigh the advantages and disadvantages of this wonderful product and decide that it is not really that wonderful after all.

CFLs have been on the market for some time, but so far consumers have not been impressed. Besides being expensive and strange looking, the light quality doesn’t seem to please people. They are not as good for reading as incandescent bulbs are, for example. Many also complain that the bulbs flicker and buzz. Dimming the intensity of CFLs also poses a problem. It would appear that consumers have a very clear choice: They can pay more for the new inferior government bulb or pay far less for a superior existing product. This might help to explain why CFLs made up only 5 percent of the light-bulb market last year, according to H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis.

I have been trying one of these bulbs above the sink in our kitchen. When I get up in the morning to make coffee, I flip the switch—but the light doesn’t really turn on. It starts off with a faint glow that gradually brightens for two to three minutes until fully illuminated. To get the lighting I want I must also turn on the light over the stove (one of those bad incandescent bulbs) because it brightens immediately. So now I am using two lights instead of one. Because turning the CFL on and off is so annoying, it is the one light in the house that we tend to leave on all the time. Why not? It’s so cheap! This situation is analogous to what happened when the government imposed CAFE fuel-efficiency standards: People drove more.

Mandated by Government

Phase 3: Hating to have their recommendations ignored by the ignoramus class, the miffed elitist class takes steps to mandate their beloved product.

Here is a question that never gets a direct or honest answer: If these economical and environment-friendly products are so wonderful, why is it necessary to outlaw competing products? The unsaid answer appears to be: The government, consumer advocates, and environmentalists know what’s best for the consumer.

As Ed Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation, put it, “It’s only inferior or unnecessary products that require congressional intervention to survive. Useful or innovative products thrive on their own.”

When Rep. Harman introduced the bipartisan ban on the Edison light bulb, she said, “Only 10 percent of the power used by today’s incandescent bulbs is emitted as light, while the other 90 percent is released as heat.” Let me see if I have this right. Here in Michigan, where we have long, cold winters, the incandescent light bulbs in our family room actually help keep my wife, daughter, and me warm while we watch TV and read. Since the lights in the rest of the house (except for the light over the sink) are all off, why is this considered a problem? In the summer, when it gets dark later, we hardly use the lights. So I fail to see why this issue demands heavy-handed congressional intervention.

The Energy Independence and Security Act, signed by President Bush in 2007, contained the incandescent ban, but it also included a Consumer Awareness Program, authorizing $40 million to help consumers make energy-efficient lighting “choices.” Thus as the government takes away our freedom of choice, it also spends our money to convince us that we really have a choice.

Bad Product

Phase 4: It becomes clear that the consumer’s reluctance was justified. The product is in fact bad. But it doesn’t matter because the old product that worked has been outlawed.

The DOE guidelines for CFLs suggest that they be left on for at least 15 minutes after they are turned on, prompting Andrew Ferguson of the Weekly Standard to comment, “Odd, isn’t it—an energy-saving device that you’re not supposed to turn off?” It turns out that the lifespan of a CFL depends on how many times you turn it on and off. Failure to keep the light on causes the bulbs to burn out just as fast as the Edison bulbs. There go those big savings. So try to get in the habit of not turning off the lights after using the bathroom, a closet, or the laundry room. However, plan to come back 15 minutes later to turn off the light.

And while CFLs that are left on may last ten times longer than incandescent lights, no one is saying that they will fully perform for that long. A Department of Energy study found that after 40 percent of the advertised service life, a quarter of the CFLs started to become dim bulbs. If you don’t mind having dim bulbs for 60 percent of the service life, then CFLs should make you happy.

While these mandated lights may be great for the environment, they are not so great for humans. In some people they trigger headaches or even migraines because of the nearly imperceptible flickering. The BBC reported that the bulbs can also increase the risk of seizures in people with epilepsy. According to the Winnipeg Free Press, the United Kingdom’s Health Protection Agency recommends that people be no closer than about a foot from these lights for more than an hour a day. The ultraviolet radiation emitted by CFLs is like direct sunlight on bare skin. Thus the government is mandating that we all have miniature sun lamps throughout our homes.

But maybe the government light bulb is not really good for the environment after all. It turns out that the each CFL contains five to ten milligrams of mercury. Mercury is one of the most toxic substances on earth; it can cause serious health problems, including nerve and kidney damage. The mandate will result in millions or billions of CFLs ending up in landfills where the mercury will leach out to contaminate the soil and groundwater.

So how do CFLs fit with the EPA’s recommendation that we purchase mercury-free products? It explains that the amount of mercury in the bulbs is much smaller than the amount in old-fashioned thermometers (which are disappearing from households) and watch batteries. Both statements may be true; however, I have never had a thermometer or watch battery explode, shatter, or break the way a light bulb does. It was also my choice to have, or not to have, a mercury-filled thermometer or watch battery. The EPA’s final defense is that the health and environmental risks of CFLs are insignificant compared to the risk presented by the mercury put out by coal-burning power plants.

So what happens if a CFL next to my daughter’s bed breaks? According to the EPA guidelines, I am to: 1) open the windows and evacuate the room for 15 minutes; 2) shut off the heating or air-conditioning system; 3) carefully scoop up the glass using stiff paper and place it in a glass jar or sealable plastic bag; 4) after vacuuming, wipe the canister and put the bag or debris in a sealed plastic bag; and 5) throw away clothing or bedding that comes in contact with the broken glass or the mercury-containing powder. I must not wash contaminated clothing or bedding because mercury fragments may also contaminate the washing machine or pollute the sewage.

Has this convinced you that the health and environmental risks of CFLs are minor?

As a result of the Energy Independence and Security Act, we will be forced to buy new light bulbs for every room in the house that are more expensive, of lower quality, dangerous to our health, and bad for the environment. Given this government mandate, the consumer has three options. The first is to go out and buy up all the old-fashioned Edison bulbs before they become illegal. The second option is to try to get a family discount on hazmat suits. The final option is to just say no to dim bulbs. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann has proposed the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act. She is facing extensive opposition from the green lobby, big government, and consumer groups. Sadly, fighting for freedom in this country has become an uphill battle.

According to Deborah Miller of the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI), “the DOE, in its own words, ‘rushed’ to publish a proposed new rule. It cut short the comment period; new analyses were injected into the record with only nine days left in this abbreviated period; it ignored its statutory mandate to balance economic interests in the rulemaking; failed to consult the Department of Justice on the impact 13 SEER would have on competition; and published a new rule of 13 SEER ‘literally in the final minutes of the last administration.’”¹

On January 22, 2001, the last day on which Clinton administration regulations could be published, the final rule mandating a 30-percent increase in the heating and cooling standards appeared in the Federal Register.² From a political standpoint, this administrative legerdemain was pure genius. By throwing these restrictive regulations over the fence, the outgoing administration’s legacy of being “for the environment” was preserved without any of the negative green baggage that so often evokes the wrath of consumers. Nevertheless, under the new, more-stringent environmental standards, the cost of air conditioners and heat pumps will go up $274 to $687.³

The incoming Bush administration had three options (all unsatisfactory) in dealing with the left-behind hot potato.

Option 1:

Just say no and repeal the regulation. Benefit: Momentarily keeps one onerous regulation at bay. Downside: High risk (99.99 percent) of being branded “anti-environment” by the media, environmentalists, and the Earth-first politicians. (Remember what happened with the arsenic-in-water standard?)

Option 2:

Hold your nose and simply accept it as written. Benefit: An absence of negative media coverage. Downside: Consumers are saddled with still more restrictive environmental regulations of dubious value. Ironically, the label “pro-environment” does not come with this option. The best that can happen is that the phrase “anti-environment” will not be used as frequently.

Option 3:

Propose a watered-down or “lite” alternative. Benefit: Although still bad, this is not so bad as the regulation proposed. Downside: High risk (99.98 percent) of still being branded “anti-environment” by the media and environmentalists. It is interesting that the vitriolic response accompanying this option is exactly the same as if the regulation had been withdrawn. Since there is never any distinction made between the out-and-out repeal and the watering down of a bad environmental regulation, why ever settle for half measures?

As it turns out, Option 3 was the path that the Bush administration chose. On April 13, 2001, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced its intention to raise the existing standards by 20 percent instead of the proposed 30 percent. The SEER value would be raised from 10 to 12 (instead of 13). The higher standards would take effect January 2006.

How was this 20 percent increase in the SEER value received? The Natural Resources Defense Council was typical: “This latest rollback . . . hurts the consumer and the environment.”⁴ Only in Washington is a 20 percent increase called a rollback.

What seems to be lost in the debate over heating and cooling standards is the consumer. There are two possible questions that could be asked. The appropriate question is: What does the consumer want? The inappropriate and elitist question is: What is best for the consumer?

The answer to the first question is always the same, no matter what the product. Consumers want choices. They want a number of options so that each buyer can pick the most suitable product. When it comes to purchasing an air conditioner or a heat pump, these options relate to the upfront cost, annual operating cost, aesthetics and special features, size of the unit, reliability, and performance. Other factors that influence a consumer’s choice include his or her age, family size, financial status, and location.

Consumer Forgotten

Unfortunately the federal government never asks, nor does it want to hear, what the consumer really wants. Since it is predisposed to solutions based on central planning, should it come as any surprise that officials turn only to like-minded advocates of central planning for advice, guidance, and direction? The government’s summary dismissal of the true interests of consumers is legitimized by a self-appointed coalition that thinks it knows best: the “consumer advocates” and environmentalists.

According to Andrew deLaski of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, more than a hundred organizations support the SEER 13 standard.⁵ It would be interesting to know how many of these consumer-advocate groups even bothered to survey people on what they really want. Maybe the public is not interested in what these “consumer advocates” are advocating: fewer choices and higher prices. As Thomas Sowell put it, “Indeed, there are no requirements for any knowledge whatsoever to become an environmentalist or a consumer advocate. There are more qualifications required to become a taxi driver or a meter maid than to engage in any of a number of busybody occupations that are taken seriously in the media, as if they represented expertise on something.”⁶

When viewed in total, the evolution of government-mandated products, whether the toilet, the washing machine, or the air conditioner and heat pump, displays several disturbing principles⁷:

First, the right to choose is anathema to proponents of central planning. The elimination of the consumer choice is based on the attitude that people are not bright enough or informed enough to make the “correct” decision when left to their own devices.

There is nothing high-tech or mysterious about either the 20 percent increase or the 30 percent increase in efficiency standards. According to the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (one of the standard’s advocates), “manufacturers have successfully marketed SEER 13 air conditioners, now considered “mid-efficiency” units, for more than a decade. The most efficient units available reach SEER 16 or higher.”⁸ (Apparently the free market works just fine without government mandates.) The real problem is that consumers have chosen to ignore the government and environmentalist endorsement of the more-expensive systems for the reasons mentioned. The consumers’ rejection helps explain why government products are mandated while preferred, free-market products are outlawed.

Second, central planning, by definition and in practice, undermines competition and innovation. The Department of Justice concluded that the SEER 13 mandate would have “a disproportionate impact on smaller manufacturers. Currently less than 20 percent of the total product lines meet the proposed government standards.