Energy Conservation

But, How much would it cost to produce more compact flourescents? What is the environmental impact of cf production compated to production of the replaced number of incandescents? What about the opportunity costs of paying $6.00 for a cf bulb as opposed to 75 cents for an incandescent? Is there something I could be doing with that $5.25 that would be more beneficial to the environment?

Regarding the building codes - did the total price of the homes increase by $4.7 billion? or more? or less?

Economics is like whack-a-mole, you knock costs down here, and they pop up over there - the question is how to convert money being spent on expenses into money being invested in resources. Governments have never, ever been as good at figuring that out as well as people working for their own best economic interests can do.

Governments have never, ever been as good at figuring that out as well as people working for their own best economic interests can do.

Good one! I'll remember that as I count the SUVs on my way home this evening.

Governments have never, ever been as good at figuring that out as well as people working for their own best economic interests can do.

Standard libertarian nonsense. I respond with patent medications (banned by the FDA 1937 - led to pharmaceutical science), seatbelts (invented by Ford under McNamara, auto companies claimed consumers didn't want them and were forced to adopt them), air bags (auto companies claimed it would bankrupt them forced to adopt them), and every deregulation of a utility ever. They do not result in lower costs, the "choice" offered consumers is BS, instead you end up with Enron running the grid and screwing everybody.

Let's see, what else. Catalytic converters? Mileage requirents on cars? Unleaded gasoline? Clean water act? Clean air act? Endangered species act? Vaccination requirements for public schools? Building codes? OSHA regulations? Fire codes? Why do we have these things? Were they decided on by consumers? Nope. Nearly every time they were forced on people and corporations by government because industries and individuals would not do the right thing without that evil government telling them to behave, or because some unbelievable idiotic crisis or accident forced us to realize that regulations needed to be put in place.

There are innumerable instances in which government has forced us or corporations to behave responsibly and resulted in a benefit to the greater good that never would have occurred if not for government regulation pushing for it. Regulation often forces innovation that never would have occurred otherwise. I call bullshit, and I think it's clear to most people the only thing that is going to make Americans more environmentally responsible is going to be regulations forcing technology to become more efficient.

"I'll remember that as I count the SUVs on my way home this evening."

I don't know what this means. Do you think the people who drive SUV's want to destroy the environment? Or that they don't have the same priorities that you do. I think it's the latter, so the onus is on you to -convince- them to change their ways. If you feel you have to resort to force, then I guess your argument is not very compelling. Too bad for you. Id think that someone who cares about other people would try very hard to get them to change their minds, not treat them like wayward children who have to be boxed about the ears.

Standard libertarian nonsense.

A standard liberal dismissal.

I respond with patent medications (banned by the FDA 1937 - led to pharmaceutical science),

If you think the FDA is protecting food and drugs, then youve never worked in food or drug manufacturing. I used to do QA and QC in biotech, and it was not the threat of the FDA that made me do a good job, but the idea of who was using the stuff we made. The FDA comes around once every two years to review the paperwork. When the paperwork is OK, they go on to the next company. Smart companies learn how to make the paperwork look right to FDA inspectors, and go ahead and make safe food and effective drugs anyway.

seatbelts (invented by Ford under McNamara, auto companies claimed consumers didn't want them and were forced to adopt them),

Youd buy a car without seatbelts? Why? I use mine every time I ride, because I want to live.

air bags (auto companies claimed it would bankrupt them forced to adopt them),

I know some smaller-sized adults have been killed by air bags, but I think everyone in my family would benefit from them, so I have purchased cars that have them in the past few years. I used to own cars without them, even rolled one car without air bags, and lived to tell the tale. Statistically, I think they are beneficial, however, so, assuming the airbags in my car were properly engineered and made to spec, I hope that when they are needed, they will do their job. Since you- cannot prove they will, I have to trust the people who work for the auto companies and believe they are generally good and want people to live through crashes.

and every deregulation of a utility ever. They do not result in lower costs, the "choice" offered consumers is BS, instead you end up with Enron running the grid and screwing everybody.

What did Enron have to do with deregulating utilities? Enron was a secondary marketer of electricity, but the production of electricity was never deregulated. No new energy plants were ever built during the Enron years, because the building of energy plants was and is still very tightly controlled.

Let's see, what else. Catalytic converters? Mileage requirents on cars? Unleaded gasoline?

I dont know if my Prius exists because of government regulation, or if smart engineers and smart marketers decided that people would buy them. I did, and I dont even feel bad that I dont drive an SUV.

Clean water act? Clean air act?

Where is the clean water and air? East coast forests are dying in the acid rain, and the Colorado River never reaches the ocean. Use of Colorado River water is controlled by government, benefiting certain interest groups (mostly ag) at the expense of everyone else.

Endangered species act?

Doesnt seem to be working very well, considering how many species have gone extinct since it started.

Vaccination requirements for public schools?

Since my kids dont go to public schools, I dont know if this is good or not. At the schools my kids do go to, parents report if their kids are vaccinated or not (mine are) but no one is required to do it. Usually the ones who dont are somewhat woo-woo about it and come around with respectful discussion about the pros and cons.

Building codes?

Would you buy a building that is not safe? If so, why? I would not, and I dont write insurance for them, either.

When I look at a building to buy, I hire trained professionals to inspect it and tell me about its level of safety. When I work in someone elses building, I expect their self-interest to be at least equal to mine, and think that if they will stay there, I can too.

OSHA regulations?

Would you work in a job that isnt safe? If so, why?

I used to be a military safety inspector. When people were shown that what they were doing was unsafe, they changed their ways, not because it was required by regulation, but because they had self-interest in protecting their own lives. I never had to make anyone do something safely.

Fire codes?

Why would you live in a firetrap? Try getting insurance if you would I wont sell it to you, it would be too much of a risk for my company.

Why do we have these things? Were they decided on by consumers? Nope. Nearly every time they were forced on people and corporations by government because industries and individuals would not do the right thing without that evil government telling them to behave, or because some unbelievable idiotic crisis or accident forced us to realize that regulations needed to be put in place.

There are innumerable instances in which government has forced us or corporations to behave responsibly and resulted in a benefit to the greater good that never would have occurred if not for government regulation pushing for it. Regulation often forces innovation that never would have occurred otherwise. I call bullshit, and I think it's clear to most people the only thing that is going to make Americans more environmentally responsible is going to be regulations forcing technology to become more efficient.

I dont know how you could prove that it never would have happened if government had not been involved. This argument is very much like the rare earth arguments that creationists make: If god (or government) had not intervened, we wouldnt have this utopia we live in today. Since we dont know, really, what would have happened had government not intervened, we dont know if things really would have been worse, or if they would have been better without it. I do know that there are many, many areas where people benefit without any kind of government intervention, and I expect that if all- the costs were taken into account, not much benefit is derived from the burden of regulation.

For example, how many people continue to drive old, belching, gas guzzlers because new cars cost too much? How many people die during the 10 year development cycle required for new drugs? How many people really vaccinate their kids because it is required by law, and not because they love their kids and want them to live?

What the free market proves is that even with the costs of government regulation, entrepreneurs can figure out how to make things people want at a price most people can afford.

Wow, funny that I'm being accused of being unscientific when you just present denialist arguments.

If you think the FDA is protecting food and drugs, then you�ve never worked in food or drug manufacturing. I used to do QA and QC in biotech, and it was not the threat of the FDA that made me do a good job, but the idea of who was using the stuff we made. The FDA comes around once every two years to review the paperwork.

I suppose it was just the absence of good conscientious employees like you that lead to over a hundred people being killed by a patent medication containing ethylene glycol in the 30s (which led to the regulation of medications)? And I'm sure it was the consumers that wanted tainted beef 30 years before that when the government started regulating slaughterhouses? It was clearly consumer choice doing its best work when Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle.

You�d buy a car without seatbelts? Why? I use mine every time I ride, because I want to live.

Sorry, when were you born? You don't have a choice about seatbelts because the government forced companies to place them against their will. Only one company had them (Ford), then discontinued installing them when there was no demand.

I know some smaller-sized adults have been killed by air bags, but I think everyone in my family would benefit from them, so I have purchased cars that have them in the past few years. I used to own cars without them, even rolled one car without air bags, and lived to tell the tale. Statistically, I think they are beneficial, however, so, assuming the airbags in my car were properly engineered and made to spec, I hope that when they are needed, they will do their job. Since �you- cannot prove they will, I have to trust the people who work for the auto companies and believe they are generally good and want people to live through crashes.

This has nothing to do with the fact that when people were given the choice they did not choose cars with advanced safety features. Red Herring.

What did Enron have to do with deregulating utilities? Enron was a secondary marketer of electricity, but the production of electricity was never deregulated. No new energy plants were ever built during the Enron years, because the building of energy plants was and is still very tightly controlled.

California deregulated their energy supply which allowed Enron to purposefully manipulate the market and generate a fake energy crisis, this is well established. Again, nice going entrepeneurs. They figured out a unique way to screw tens of millions of people due to foolish deregulation.

I don�t know if my Prius exists because of government regulation, or if smart engineers and smart marketers decided that people would buy them. I did, and I don�t even feel bad that I don�t drive an SUV.

The Prius and other more efficient vehicles are a response to higher fuel-efficiency standards enforced by the government which requires auto manufacturers to produce an average efficiency of their fleet above a certain level. They are not a response to consumer demand. Wrong again.

Where is the clean water and air? East coast forests are dying in the acid rain, and the Colorado River never reaches the ocean. Use of Colorado River water is controlled by government, benefiting certain interest groups (mostly ag) at the expense of everyone else.

When were you born? You clearly have no idea how bad air quality, and water quality were that it forced Nixon of all people to create these acts. Did you miss out on all those pre-catalytic converter years, and there was that time that lake Erie caught fire, oh, and the Cuyahoga river caught fire too as a result, my mom told me about that (she's from Ohio). That led to the Clean Water act.

�Endangered species act?�

Doesn�t seem to be working very well, considering how many species have gone extinct since it started.

Umm, where do you get your facts? Species may be going extinct all the time, but species under the sphere of control of US regulations have undergone a resurgence, just ask the bald Eagle and Stephen Colbert.

Would you buy a building that is not safe? If so, why? I would not, and I don�t write insurance for them, either.

Before building codes people did buy buildings that were unsafe. Again a complete ignorance of history. Ever here of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory? You know, that fire that killed 146 workers that led to modern building and fire codes for multi-story buildings? Or how about the Code of Hammurabi? People have recognized the need for building codes for centuries.

Would you work in a job that isn�t safe? If so, why?

Let's see, coalmining? Farming? Construction? Lot's of people work those jobs. The latest new need for regulation comes from factory farming and the giant methane-producing pits they produce. Farmers keep sending their undocumented immigrants to unplug the sump-pumps that keep them stirring and they succumb to the gas, fall in and die. Kept on happening, states like California are passing laws and holding farmers liable because the market doesn't have much interest in protecting dispensible workers.

I don�t know how you could prove that it �never would have happened� if government had not been involved. This argument is very much like the �rare earth� arguments that creationists make: �If god (or government) had not intervened, we wouldn�t have this utopia we live in today.� Since we don�t know, really, what would have happened had government not intervened, we don�t know if things really would have been worse, or if they would have been better without it. I do know that there are many, many areas where people benefit without any kind of government intervention, and I expect that if �all- the costs were taken into account, not much benefit is derived from the burden of regulation.

Again, bullshit, historically ignorant, and frighteningly naive (see above).

How about some data? Tell me how energy deregulation worked out for California? Or Maryland? Or Virginia? Or New York?

Tell me how individual consumers would figure out a way to eliminate CFC emissions? Or adopt international treaties to prevent pollution? Tell me how individual consumers figured out that Vioxx was poison?

This wierd libertarian idea that every consumer everywhere can be a jack-of-all-trades and protect themselves by knowing everything about everything all the time is just BS. Throughout our history there are examples of catastrophes from lack of intelligent regulation and government responses to correct the mess created by an unregulated market.

Would you fly in a plane run on software that wasn't approved by the FAA? Would you individually check every line of code before flying to ensure that it was safe? Would you use banks that weren't regulated by the SEC, FTC, and every other damn regulatory body that makes sure you don't get robbed? Were all those people who lost their savings in the great depression just clueless consumers or people who just got screwed by a completely unregulated market that allowed irresponsible investment and complete collapse of the economy?

You know, we tried these ideas, they failed, miserably. The depression nearly destroyed this country due to the absence of financial regulation. Do you want to go back to no FDIC insurance? No SEC to monitor the markets? No FTC to prevent interstate and international fraud? Are you going to hunt down some fraudster in another state who refuses to send you goods you bought because you are the all-powerful libertarian consumer? Or are you going to call the FTC and get a federal authority involved?

Before the creation of each federal regulatory agency and authority there was a disaster. Just look up the history of these agencies and you'll see. They were created out of necessity, not out of some insane fiat of liberal busybodies. They were created out of the failure of the market to regulate itself.

Oh, and as a postscript, your anti-efficiency argument is totally silly. It is not a law of physics that efficiency can neither be created or destroyed, there are lots of technologies that through efficiency save money and reduce waste (the lightbulbs are a great example).

Leave it to the market, and most people will go for what's cheap up front - even if it's damaging, unsafe, or whatever. That's not because they can't see that the products are crap, but because there's always somewhere you need to spend money right now.

And, of course, as long as people are willing to buy shit, someone'll happily make it.

Regulation is one of the most effective ways to break that chain - in some instances, perhaps the only way. (An alternative is to work the cost-benefit angle through taxation, of course, and actually that's the path I favour in many cases - effectively, however, it's the same principle.)

That having been said, questions such as How much would it cost to produce more compact flourescents? and What is the environmental impact of cf production compared to production of the replaced number of incandescents? are worth asking - indeed, must be asked.

'[H]ow to convert money being spent on expenses into money being invested in resources' is a red herring, though: the difference between expenses and resources depends on where you're standing, as does what constitutes and expense and what a resource.

Thanks for the great debate. I've tried to respond to a few of these issues in my most recent post...