Across the blogosphere, various environmental types find it curious that people are so fired up about the light bulb ban. They can’t imagine why people would object to the government banning the quintessential symbol of genius and entrepreneurship. One presumes that when they have an original thought, a compact fluorescent bulb flickers on over head and, after half an hour or so, actually warms up.
Yes, I know, the government hasn’t actually banned incandescent bulbs, they’ve just set “performance standards” that they can’t meet. This is like saying I’m not actually banned from chic nightclubs, I just can’t get past the bouncer: it’s a difference that makes no difference. Or, if I boarded over your bedroom doorway, leaving only a 2-inch slit for you to pass through, I haven’t actually banned you from entering. You just have to squeeze a bit…
Anyway, one person who is not amused by the push to unban the bulb is Nobel Laureate and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. In response to efforts to reverse the government’s ban-that-isn’t-a-ban, Chu put forward his reasoning: “Shut up,” he explained. Actually, according to blogger Paul Gregory, What Chu actually said wasn’t that much better:
“We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money,” spracht Chu.
How very kind of him to define my values for me regarding the quality of my lighting and what I feel comfortable paying for it. Now, if only he’d take away some choices that let the government waste people’s money… that would be progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment