Hey all,
I've been reading stuff about this senator in California that wants to ban incadescent light bulbs because they are inefficient and use up a lot of energy. Sounds good doesn't it? But I would argue that light bulbs aren't the root cause of environmental issues, and banning them won't help in the long run. It might actually hurt. The right thing to do in principle is to put the pain where it belongs... i.e. make environmentally unfriendly plants pay to have things cleaned up. That actually helps so much more long term than banning light bulbs. Here's why:
Let's say you ban light bulbs and save 1 million watts of electricity. Where is this savings gonna come from? You think coal burning plants (I'm gonna use coal burning as an example of something that's environmentally unfriendly) are gonna voluntarily burn less coal? If 1 million less watts are used, electricity prices go down, and the plants that make energy most inefficiently would close. As of right now, I would say stuff like wind energy and alternative energy are less efficient, so it would severly hamper their development. Much like low gas prices hamper the development of hybrids. The higher gas prices actually made hybrids that much more viable, and that's why they're out now.
I'd like to credit Winston with an idea that would help. Remember Space Ship One? There was a $10 million prize for the first team to take a ship to space. There was no government funding at all. So how about a $10 million prize for a working windmill that generates enough electricity to light up a city? Or something like that? My new life goal is to have enough money to be able to fund stuff like this.
I'm with the enviromentalists who want to make sure humans don't screw up the earth. But I want make sure that we're doing things that really help, and not just things that feel good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I remembered there was another project like this and I finally found it. Sounds like someone may have beat you to the punch already:
http://www.virginearth.com/
i really like your idea of prizes for ideas/inventions that use things that are beneficial TO US, HERE ON EARTH, NOW rather than some "unnecesary" items like ships in space...
Great idea Dale! This was a very thought provoking blog! Thanks!
Ships in space are pretty fun too, you hafta admit that!
So who's going to offer this prize? I don't know, I'm kind of luke warm on prizes. I mean, I guess if some independent bazillionaire, like that wacko in Britain who's got a prize for the person who can invent a giant vaccuum to suck all the greenhouse gasses out of the air, wants to waste his money, well, ok I guess. (while he's at it, why not offer a prize for a giant cloud-sucking machine to make sure there are no floods, or the reverse to solve droughts?!) But let's not give the guv-ment any ideas. We already have a mechanism for big prizes for good ideas: it's called the patent. If it's really a value-add for society, then society will pay for it - voluntarily, without government tax dollars. With very few exceptions.
Want to know why light bulbs, fuel additives, ethanol, windmills, AlGore's tradeable pollution credits, Kyoto treaties, etc. get a lot of media hype and government attention? Effective lobbying and pandering politicians. Has nothing to do with whether the idea is actually useful.
Of course, if I'm rich some day, I'd love to buy a ticket for a trip 'round the moon!
Welcome Deeken! Nothing like bringing in an Econ major to comment on Econ-y issues. Although he's definitely as Econ-y as it gets. :)
Dale: Great Post...though I have to agree with Deek. The idea of needing to supply prize money becomes superfluous as long as the government does its job and protects personal property (enforces patents). The only problem with Deek’s assertion is that government has determined that it has a new primary objective, as best evidenced by this statement by New York State Sen. Carl Kruger “Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry”1. A result of the new governmental mandate to protect its citizenry could easily be applied to this situation. The decision that money-grubbing, selfish, rich, corporate predators are withholding necessary societal advancement by forcing people to pay for the new methods of producing electricity would “force” the government to step in, for the good of society. Don’t you understand…poor people can’t afford it…they need it. It is therefore the responsibility of the State to provide it. The government must protect its citizenry, no matter what it is protecting them against. At whose expense? Who are you to ask that question? You invent it and they will steal it…for the good of society. Thank God we have Big Brother out there to look after us.
1 http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/02/07/nyc.ipod.reut/index.html
Gotta love people where you can say two words and it sets them off for paragraphs at a time. :)
Welcome Jesse.
Heres my thoughts Dale:
There is the "ideal way things would work" and then there is the real world.
The real world is driven by economics.... And I know you are a fan of "natural economics". Prizes just are attempts to control the natural supply and demand... and in the end I don't think they are nearly as effective. After all $10MM is really not that much when your talking energy! So the prize really is the value of the develpment itself.
And I gaurantee you that Phillips is not just a co-sponsor of this, but was probably the brains behond the whole thing. And I bet they sell the most florescent bulbs too! While GE has worked on better incandescent bulbs.
Just like when .... who was it? Verizon? Sponsored the bill in NY state that banned talking on your cell phone in the car.... unless you had a hands free headset. In fact if you got a ticket for this you could avoid paying for it by showing a receipt for a hands free headset within 30 days! Guess who sells the most handsfree headsets?! Verizon.... unless it wasn't verizon... but you get the idea. Oh and by the way studies show that handsfree headsets DO NOT reduce accidents.... it is the distraction of talking on a phone itself that is the cause... so the law is useless... except to Verizon...
So complaining about how the government gets things done is one issue.... the other is "does the new light bulb help?"
And while I get what your saying about the coal plant doing better when we conserve power... that just highlights the need to work several efforts at once. Like the effort to curtail emmisions in general. As you say you tax the coal plant.... BUT then new energy sources are needed and as you said more efficient systems require high capital which translates into higher energy cost.... especially if the rate of investment is driven up by coal plants shutting down! SO you need to also REDUCE your need for energy. If switching bulbs = the energy output of 80 coal plants... then SHUT THEM DOWN. Its not about any single solution..... no switching bulbs alone is not going to decrease the chance of humans destroying the planet... no one solution will do that.... its a mix of conservation, efficiency , and all those other buzz words....
And that is why the government must lead this stuff. If they do it right they sponsor an effort to conserve energy the same time they increase the pain for those coal plants. Without the government enforcing that we would never get there, and natural supply and demand will not bring us better choices near quick enough. SO the governments taxes the poluters while rewarding the conservation invention -> theres your prize!
Post a Comment