Item — HN Reader

Maybe you should have read what I wrote. I certainly do not advocate conserving energy no matter the cost.

I'm saying that at the present there is no economic incentive for consumers to save electricity large enough to make them switch to less energy intensive means of lighting.

We certainly won't maximize our standard of living by senselessly wasting energy. When there are two ways to light a room, yielding the same amount of light, but one uses much less energy, it is the superior one.

The tricky question is how to make it the economically sensible one for the consumer, as well.

1 comments

When there are two ways to light a room, yielding the same amount of light, but one uses much less energy, it is the superior one.

Not necessarily. What about manufacturing costs? If manufacturing a CFL/LED is more labour or capital intensive then it's production uses resources that could have been used to produce other goods. If that's the case then a ban on incandescent light bulbs has a hidden cost.

You shouldn't look only at the visible effects but also at those invisible. A great essay That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen [1] by Frederic Bastiat comes to my mind. It explores this kind of situations.

[1] http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

Do you have any evidence that supports the possibility of LED beings more labour or capital intensive, or is this a hypothetical, "well maybe it could be worse" in an effort to confirm your existing opinion?