Ban on incandescent bulbs not bright idea

The federal ban on incandescent light bulbs is a small but illustrative example of everything that’s wrong with environmental policy in this country. Instead of establishing incentives to help Canadians make better choices, the government simply makes our decisions for us, rather than a carbon tax which would do much more efficiently .

This year, the government is phasing out most ordinary incandescent light bulbs. New efficiency standards for 75- watt and 100- watt bulbs now apply to manufacturers , and 40- watt and 60- watt incandescents will be banned at the end of 2014.

For most Canadians, this will be either a regulatory endorsement of their current practice, or a minor inconvenience . There are plenty of exceptions in the rules and for most household uses, it makes sense to go with more energy- efficient lighting. But for some, it’s a source of unforeseen problems created by over- broad regulation.

A carbon tax allows consumers to make their own decisions about how they conserve. The market can be used to encourage everyone to make the best possible choices while maintaining their individual quality of life .

Regulations, on the other hand, require conformity. Yes, most people should be using the most energy- efficient bulbs most of the time. That doesn’t mean that less- efficient bulbs should be banned, any more than tractors or steaks or airplanes should .

But incandescent light bulbs are not merely less efficient than compact fluorescents. They are fundamentally different from compact fluorescents and can serve different purposes. Applying an efficiency standard that bans them is like applying a standard to cars that effectively bans SUVs. There will always be some people who need bigger vehicles, and some people who want warmer light. What matters is the amount of greenhousegas emissions, not how they’re created.

The federal government seems to undermine the need for climate change policy, while it implements regulations that are unnecessarily heavy- handed. It’s an odd, and unhelpful, combination.