Left into the light.

That's a truly horrible title. I apologize. Still, one of the most notable things about the wave of bans on the incandescent lightbulbs (besides pending Nova Scotia and Ontario bans, the federal NDP is trying to insert one into the Conservatives' Clean Air Act) is how little sound and fury it has provoked from business interests and the (mainly conservative) politicians who represent them. The National Post is certainly taking it in stride -- quoting one flaky sounding lighting designer about the sad loss of the right to choose, but otherwise sounding pretty positive about the idea. This Red Herring article sniffs a bit about how markets don't like regulations and government-driven changes in demand. But I haven't found much in the way of sturm and drang. Hell, the whole thing was kicked off by the three-year phase out implemented by Australia's extremely conservative government, with the more pro-government opposition parties naturally on board. Germany's Angela Merkel is also a proponent.

The neat thing to me is that the ban on incandescents is a pretty pefect example of when draconian regulation of business (i.e. bans on certain technologies) is good and useful. The concensus seems to be that the household-use fluorescent replacement technology is just about there, so that the demand stimulus from the bans could push it over the edge. Moreover, there's no real risk to consumers. Under the ban, more of the cost of lighting your home is moved upfront when you actually buy a bulb, but saved later because the fluorescents last longer, produce less heat and consume less energy. But of course it's those upfront costs that keep people buying incandescents. I buy lightbulbs when one burns out leaving me in darkness in the flat -- and that 99c price tag that will let me get back to work or cook dinner or whatever is a siren song. I don't care about my landlord's power bill just at that moment. I'm not thinking long term. So, yes, I need the government to force me to behave better. There are both consumer irrationality and public good arguments at work here. And the relatively low net consumer costs involved mean there's just not much real risk of crushing nanny-state overreach.

But a whole political class of people seem to find the idea of limiting choice offensive on the merits. Moreover the lightbulb -- totally ubiquitous and a national symbol for both Canadians and Americans of our plucky historical innovation and progress (the American who "invented" the incandescent bulb bought the incomplete patent off a couple of Canadians) -- seems like the perfect outrage catalyst. It's the most in-you-face environmental regulation probably since the CFC ban, which was a long time ago now. So why aren't the usual suspects making more noise? Is it just a matter of time? Or could it be another sign that, as Larry Summers said recently, the pendulum really is swinging left (in the U.S. as in the world?) Does it mean that draconian regulation of HMOs isn't far behind? Let's hope.