Bright Idea

I think I'm going to switch all of the bulbs in my house over to CFL lighting. If it works half as well as advertised, I'll be pleased. It's one of those ideas that makes both ecological, and economic sense.

In an offhand discussion with a friend a few weeks ago, I suggested that these kinds of bulbs should be mandated. I'm not much of a big-government, heavy regulation kind of guy, but this seemed to make sense. Apparently, Australia agrees.

However, when reading a few of the insightful comments in the Slashdot link above, I realized that there is apparently much more to consider than I had anticipated. For instance, CFL bulbs are more efficient because they don't generate as much waste heat. However, in some applications, the waste heat is more important than the light. (Incubators, french fry heat lamps, etc.) Also, a thoughtful poster said that there is no restriction on the amount of energy an individual used, merely a limit on one potential source. Here's the quote:

"Apparently, if I use CFLs, but keep them on ten times as much -- hey, that's fine! If I want to have a HUGE house with enormous heating/cooling requirements -- hey, that's fine! If I want to drive around for no reason whatsoever -- hey, that's fine! If I want to heat my pool -- have at it!"

I wouldn't support limiting the size of houses, or the amount of driving a person could do, but I see the poster's point. It's an example of how legislation that seeks to fix a problem frequently creates another, or otherwise fails to see the big picture. Ask John McCain and Russ Feingold about that one.