Ireland becomes the first country in the world to ban the incandescent lightbulb
independent.ie
independent.ie
As for the mercury issue, fluorescent light bulbs are much more difficult to dispose of safely. I was reading an article by the Sierra Club (an environmental group) which was arguing that if fluorescent light bulbs use 1/3 the energy of incandescents, and all of that energy is produced by burning coal, then the amount of mercury in the bulbs is approximately equal to the amount of coal saved over 5 years (I'm estimating here, but this was the general idea). Not exactly the most flattering numbers if you ask me.
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200707/mrgreen_mailbag.asp
Note the required cleanup procedures. I think they really need to advertise these types of things a little better. My roommate broke one earlier this year and cleaned it up the same way someone would clean up an incandescent.
I disagree with these regulations. The kind of lighting you use in your house greatly effects what it feels like. It's a very personal thing for the government to interfere with-- like banning certain styles of clothing because they're wasteful. Why not just tax incandescent bulbs till they cost more than fluorescents?
- Reducing taxes elsewhere: a carbon tax is likely to be somewhat regressive, since the poor are the least able to quickly go out and buy a Prius.
- Basic research such as alternate energy.
As far as internalization goes, it does have that effect if you are able to calculate what the costs of the externalities are and thus up the price to that level. That, of course, is the tricky part, but cap and trade also involves determining a level to cap at.
It would certainly be a disruptive change, but I think a good public policy hacker could find ways to offset the regressiveness. What we lack is good political leadership.
What we lack is people who understand economics, or have any sense of history-- the "progressive" tax system is what is keeping people poor. A flat tax and no social security would have eliminated poverty in the US 50 years ago, and probably we'd have most of our manufacturing jobs still too...though environmentalist inspired regulation and rampant union violence might have been enough alone to drive it overseas.
The amazing thing to me is how much liberals talk about helping the poor (And conservatives talk about "freedom") while advocating policies that do the opposite, and attacking anyone who actually advocates what they claim to support....
I've long wondered if this was simply because these people have been so deluded that they thinkg up is down and left is right... or if they really actually have another agenda and these causes (poverty and freedom) are just excuses to advocate policies that they know make the problems worse.
The 19th century should have taught you all that socialism and communism will not decrease poverty and will ultimately result in the slaughter of millions of people... and yet you can't turn around without hearing some liberal talk about "global warming" and "externalities" without understanding the first bit of economics... and advocating totalitarian laws to bring about their "dictatorship of the proletariat".
Just modding down.
The cowardly way of those who know they cant' defend their position.
Doubtless your answer would focus on the fact that there is no problem at all because the existence of an externality of some kind disagrees with your ideology.
You might even be right that there is no problem, because it's not an easy subject, but on the other hand, a number of scientists appear to indicate that there is a problem of some kind.
In any case, you started going off about communists and (in another thread) Nazis, so maybe we can call Godwin's law and leave it at that.
Speaking of voting people down, someone seems to have had a go at everything of mine they could get ahold of, including those completely unrelated to this discussion:
No counter argument is needed when someone claims that to say CO2 emissions are bad is to reject the very foundations of science.
No counter argument is needed when someone says employers don't pay payroll taxes.
No counter argument is needed when someone says taxes paid by employees don't affect employer costs.
These are obviously false. The down arrow is a perfectly good response.
The bottom line is, your attempt to internalize externalities is proof that you don't know what you're talking about because externalities by definition cannot be internalized.
All this liberal economics is just like that last wave of liberal economics that resulted in 100 million deaths over the period from 1900-2000, only it isn't united under a common term like "socialism" or "communism" but it amounts to the same-- totalitarianism sold as being "good for you".
If I were to respond in kind, I would say that libertarianism seems to be a willful ignorance of the very concept of a market externality, as understood by mainstream economics. Certainly, reasonable people can agree to disagree on what specific things constitute externalities in which cases, how bad they are, and what measures, if any, should be taken to correct them - and indeed if those corrective measures are worse than the problem they cure.
However, denying the very existence of factors that are not taken into consideration by a free market seems to be letting your beliefs get the better of reason. And comparing any government intervention with communism is a bit beyond the pale, really.
Economics is a science. ITs not uncommon for those who will not make a scientific argument to instead knock down strawmen, as you just have.
Of course, you threw out enough buzzwords that those who don't look too close will believe you made a counter argument.
I am currently being illuminated by an energy saving bulb and although it does take a few seconds get going it is generating a positively warm glow.
The argument for non-smoking in restaurants has always been a safety at work issue for the waiting staff. That is completely ridiculous as there is a market solution: get another job.
Smoking bans are a perfect example of small people getting some bureaucratic power and testing the wall of their box to see how far they can reach. People aren't complaining, so they just push out more and more.
What smells funny (ha ha) in terms of market failure to me is that I know that there are plenty of people like ourselves who don't smoke, and prefer not to have to bear the costs of other people's smoking habit (beyond health, if you choose not to believe in that, simply having to wash everything to get the awful smell out). You would think that there might be one or two places that would cater to that segment of the market. But there are none.
Consider a different element: loud music. The market provides a wide range of places to go, from the silent to the dull-roar where you can't hear yourself think. Don't like loud music? Don't go to those bars, then - everything works out just fine with no regulations.
Smoking doesn't work that way, though - perhaps the business of non-smokers might not be enough to keep a few bars alive, or the pressure of smokers in a mixed group of smoker/non smoker friends would keep them from going there, so restaurants/bars are afraid to even try. With a blanket ban, though, everyone is on a level playing field, and the smokers just go outside.
It's sort of like helmet regulations in sports like hockey or cycling: some people wore helmets beforehand, but since they hinder you in certain conditions, they were the exception rather than the rule. By making everyone wear them, they're all safer, and those who care about taking reasonable measures to keep themselves safe aren't at a disadvantage compared to those who are willing to take that risk, and thus the difference is, as it should be, athletic ability.
You quickly throw out the market, (and claim to understand economics? LOL!) but the reality is- if people preferred it, the restaurants were non-smoking.
Most people, however, don't feel the need to force others to comply with their whims, using violence. Unfortunately, those who do join the government.
they are not getting some buro-cratic power-- they have been exercising the scyth arm for over a century.
Nobody complained when the nazis took over germany or publicly under soviet rule, but eventually both of these tyrannies were overthrown.
This is not a reason to support tyranny!
Personally I like halogen lights best.
It never ceases to amaze me how people are so willing to put guns and violence behind their political ideologies. This is probably because they don't realize that is what they are doing-- but every law is backed up by a guy holding a gun and pointing it at someone who breaks it.
ARe you willing to go to someone's house, and take his incandescent light bulbs and shoot him if he resists? You think that's Moral?
Cause that's what this law does, and it is no more moral if you advocate someone else doing it even if you are unwilling to do it yourself.
Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.