The Taxation Alternative
Taxation on fossil fuel electricity (taking care to lessen consumer impact, by various measures as more fully described in the main text) and/or on electrical products based on efficiency, are not only simpler, cheaper, less bureaucratic, more effective and more adaptable ways to cut relevant consumption, they generate Government income at the same time. In turn, Government income can be used to lower energy use and emissions, more than any remaining inefficient product use raises them.

Home energy/insulation schemes, alternative cheaper renewable energy supplies, and/or lower taxes than today on "A" classed efficient products (USA = Energy Star products), all lessen consumer impact, and consumers can still buy products they clearly like to use.

Inefficient products are often cheap and relatively short-lasting, creating a Win-Win situation for pro-ban Governments:
Large revenues can be generated on the one hand, ban-simulating decreases in sales on the other hand.
In fact, the two advantages can be combined, such that a large tax that causes a reduction of sales to say 1/4 of current amounts effectively deals with supposed energy/emission problems, yet still - precisely because of the tax level - generates significant government income.

Moreover, taxation presented to the people as an alternative to bans, and which includes cheaper consumer options, is more acceptable to the public than other forms of taxation, in these times when Governments need money.

See http://www.ceolas.net/#gg3x onwards




Product taxation as an instrument to lower consumption

A product is normally banned because of a safety problem.
Think of lead paint or fireworks.

The ban on ordinary light bulbs is simply about reducing electricity consumption.

Therefore taxation makes much more sense than a ban, for all concerned.
Compare with big duties (taxes) on petrol and alcohol, which controls consumption and gives government income at the same time.

Light bulbs can absorb high taxes and still raise large revenues:

Light bulbs are
cheap (60-70 cents or so - and are also much cheaper than say "energy saving" fluorescents)
popular (19 out of 20 lights bought in the USA, 9 out of 10 lights bought in the EU)
everywhere (4 billion in each of USA and the EU),
short-lived (1000 hours).

BASIC ban analogy principle:
A particularly large tax on light bulbs.

1. Great fall in light bulb sales,
aiming for say 1/4 of today's sales, effectively solving any energy waste associated with light bulbs, also when compared to other wastages and emissions.
The tax can of course subsequently be adjusted to achieve a more exact desired fall in light bulb purchases.
This is a much easier and more efficient way to solve the consumption problem, compared with complicated bans and "replacements".

2. Continued availability
The continued legal availability of ordinary light bulbs, according to the demand left at a higher price, at least in specialty shops, for UV-light sensitive and other keen users.
With the taxation, people would buy far fewer than the 20-25 (EU)/40-45 (USA) light bulbs they on average use in their houses today, but they might still want a couple of the old type of bulbs, perhaps for the warm bright light quality, otherwise for use as dimmers and in unheated areas like garages, porches and the like, where the slow cold response of energy saving lights makes them less useful, and where expensive/directional LED lamps would not seem warranted.

3. Significant government income
A high tax rate giving a big cut in sales can still raise significant income for governments.
For example, the current 2 billion annual sales in USA (and EU) that are cut down to some hundred millions, raises say 1.5- 2 billion dollars or euros annual income for Finance, Energy and Environment Departments, when they need it most in these bad economic times.

With a ban on a popular product, people will always try to get them elsewhere, if possible.
This means local government tax loss and shop revenue losses. It is less likely with taxation on light bulbs, the effort of saving the money involved not being worth it, for most people.
Panic buying and hoarding as bans are put in place again take away from the supposed energy saving benefit. Again this would be less of a problem with the tax alternative, since light bulbs continue to be available.

4. Accepted taxation
National governments are in an ideal position to impose a large tax that the public will accept, unlike other taxation:
Given the publicized ban deliberations, the public will see it as a preferable alternative to a ban. After all, we are talking about an immensely popular product worldwide.
A ban will therefore give resentment and make governments less popular: If people actually believed the savings arguments - and felt that was more important than light bulb usage advantages - then more would have switched already.

5. A win-win situation for a government
If people buy less bulbs = Good for the environment, according to ban proposition logic.
If people buy more bulbs = Governments make more money, can fund energy/environment solutions to problems more than any remaining light bulb usage causes them, or funding can go to any other Budget priorities.

In PRACTICE:
Bulb taxation like on cars, according to efficiency rating
Note: Some taxes are deliberately set high here, given the ban analogy intended in this section!

For example:
Class F/G   (light bulb)  a single + 3 to 4 dollars tax for both classes, or separately ranged between them
Class D/E  (light bulb/halogen)  +2 to 3 dollars
Class B/C  (halogen)  +1 to 1.50 dollars
Class A  (CFL "energy saving"/LED lights)  +0 dollars

The rates are easily adjusted to reach desired income/sales effects between different classes (the reason for a relatively lower halogen addition here is not just their greater efficiency, they also cost more to begin with).

Taxation rates can also speedily and easily be adapted to future electricity markets and new lighting developments.

An important point is that light bulb taxation can and should be seen as temporary:
Once sufficent low emission energy is being provided, there is no reason to hinder consumers in using a product they clearly want to use.
Taxation can then be lifted and choice easily regained, without having stopped manufacturing, as with a ban.

"4 dollars on a class F bulb effectively kills it!"
Well there you go - that is as said the power of taxation, and 2 or 3 dollars may be more relevant if you want to keep a market.
There's a limit to what manufacturers and distributors - as well as consumers - will accept, but even then, the maintained legal status means that such bulbs might be available in one or two special shops in a country, like old radio valves (tubes), perhaps imported from one or two world manufacturers, or they might be made to order for whatever special use. There are also small, special, ornamental, or photographer lamps (not directional) taking inefficient and perhaps unusual types of light bulbs, that would continue to be legally allowed in this way.

Back to new electric politics, product taxation : http://ceolas.net/#gg5x
Back to new electric politics, start: http://ceolas.net/