Following Canada’s lead (banning traditional light bulbs), the Conservative party in the United Kingdom is proposing “banning plasma screens and other energy-guzzling electrical goods.”
The ideas come from a Conservative group set up by David Cameron to develop policies to protect the environment and although the measures to make household electrical appliances more energy efficient are not binding on Mr Cameron, they are thought likely to be warmly received by the Tory leader.
Wait - It gets better!
The group will also suggest scrapping Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a measure of the nation’s success in favour of a model that measures people’s happiness drawn up up by Friends of the Earth.
And you thought they were serious…
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
I really do not understand why you need to be so cynical about this idea, Greg. Reducing an entire nation’s electrical consumption by up to 2% just by slowly eliminating the stand-by feature on electrical appliances is nothing to be sneezed at. Whether you think Global Warming is real or not, small reductions in energy consumption multiplied by millions of people does have a pretty large impact on consumption (and the resulting impact on pollution and infrastructure), especially given the rising costs of providing energy to consumers who keep increasing their demand.
One of the large arguments against improving energy efficiency is the detrimental effect it could have on the economy. OK, true enough. Large scale change over short periods of time could have a negative impact (until the market adjusted and equilibrium was restored). However, policies such as this are designed to reduce negative economic impacts by: providing incentives to consumers to make better decisions (i.e. increasing consumption), and encouraging enterprise to use technological improvements to meet new consumption standards (i.e. increased demand for those who wish to remain competitive under a new energy efficiency framework). Incremental improvements over time could see our reliance on energy decrease, while seeing our quality and standard of living increase. The money that governments save on energy infrastructure could be used elsewhere (or to give you a tax cut), and isn’t that what good governance is all about? Plus, if consumers spend less on energy, they will have more money to spend / save / invest elsewhere, which is NOT bad for the economy at all.
At current energy prices, the house I just bought consumes less than $1200 of energy every year (which is less than half of what I spend now – and not bad, considering that Canadians spend a large portion of their year in the dark and cold). The extra $1600 I save in electricity and natural gas can be spent / invested elsewhere, which will improve the quality of my life quite a bit.
So the British may lose their “right†to buy a new plasma television for a few years. Oh no! However, this move could encourage television companies to develop a super energy efficient television that fills the same consumer demand. Oh yeah! And in the meantime, their power bill will be smaller. Oh shucks!
It will be interesting to see if this indeed gets implemented.
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 11:43 am | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
Banning light-bulbs or plasma screens or any other energy-guzzling appliance is ridiculous because there is nothing inherently immoral about using thos specific appliances. The energy wasted on having the government bureaucrats micro-manage the economy would likely be a hidden cost that never gets calculated!
If you want to discourage the over-consumption of energy — although, it is not the only way of tackling the “problem” — you could just raise the price of energy instead. You know: prices go up and volume goes down, sort of thing.
“However, this move could encourage television companies to develop a super energy efficient television that fills the same consumer demand. Oh yeah! And in the meantime, their power bill will be smaller. Oh shucks!”
Well, with that logic, why not just have a government bureaucrat tell us what healthy food we are allowed to eat too!
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
smarter than balbie wrote:
I suggest we ban the electric can opener, every little bit helps you know.
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 12:17 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Who said anything about morality? I am talking dollars and cents. You are right, deregulating energy and allowing the price to increase until consumers demand more energy efficient products could have the same impact. However, it also ends up hurting the most vulnerable (i.e. the poor who are NOT consuming energy with their plasma televisions). How moral is that?
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 12:21 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
“Well, with that logic, why not just have a government bureaucrat tell us what healthy food we are allowed to eat too!”
They already do. Ever heard of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency?
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/toce.shtml
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 12:26 pm | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
“Ever heard of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency?”
Who cares?? What in the world are you saying?? Are you really suggesting that government has a moral authority to regulate our lives?? Sheesh!
Are you saying that just because the Canadian Food Inspection Agency exists, there is a moral authority to tells us what we are not allowed to eat??
You must think that just because the AdScam existed that the government has a moral authority to spend our money on advertizing campaigns!!!
“Who said anything about morality? I am talking dollars and cents.”
If not morality, what is your underlying justification for the government meddling in the market?????
“However, it also ends up hurting the most vulnerable (i.e. the poor who are NOT consuming energy with their plasma televisions). How moral is that?”
Give them a subsidy — problem solved.
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 1:39 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
“Give them a subsidy — problem solved.”
You mean, like providing incentives to buy energy efficient appliances? Good idea!
“What is your underlying justification for the government meddling in the market?????”
There are a lot of reasons why governments “meddle” in the market (and, they do it all the time - the Bank of Canada, for example, sets prime interest rates to regulate inflation - in fact, “the state of the economy” is one of the largest reasons governments are elected or unelected). Economists and political scientists call it market failure, where the market is unable to make the changes required to improve outcomes (be they social or financial).
In this case, the policy option is to improve energy efficiency and incrementally reduce electricy consumption by regulating the types of products that are made avaiable to consumers (and before you go all ape shit about governments reducing your choice, they do ALL the time - be it food that we import, the type of programming you can and cannot watch in Canada, or the porn you can and cannot buy, ensuring that electronics meet minimum Canadian standards, building codes, the list is endless) since drastic changes could have adverse effects on the economy. It also takes into account the ability of all energy consumers to pay for electricity (especailly those who have the most to lose in a deregulated system - the poor, who are not over-comsumers to start with) and allows tax payers dollars to flow to change the behavior (i.e. over consumption of electricity) by providing incentives to buy more energy efficient products for those who do over-consume, rather than giving the poor a hand out so they can afford more expensive electricity. Furthermore, over the long run, it is a much more efficient use of scarce government resources, because it is cheaper. A reduction in infrastructure expansion to meet increasing demands, and at the same time, you don’t have to protect the poor from rising costs (which is very costly over the long run, and could get the party booted out come a next election).
From an economic, political and policy perspective, this idea makes a lot of sense.
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 2:06 pm | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
You clearly do not know the definition of a subsidy.
However, thank you for proving my point. Everything in your post discusses moral decisions. For starters:
“the changes required to improve outcomes (be they social or financial).”
“you can and cannot watch”
“adverse effects on the economy”
“it is a much more efficient”
These are all moral evaluations. Now, I ask: what is your fundamental moral basis for policy decisions?
Just as an addendum, market failures only exist in the world of crony friends of government. What Are You Calling Failure?
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 3:01 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
“You clearly do not know the definition of a subsidy.”
A subsidy is a type of financial government assistance, such as a grant, tax break, or trade barrier, in order to encourage the production or purchase of a good.
So, yes, providing a financial incentive to purchase energy efficient appliances is indeed a subsidy.
“What is your fundamental moral basis for policy decisions?”
I don’t understand what you mean by “moral basis for policy decisions”. If you mean that governments do not have divine authority to make their decisions, then, nothing governments do will ever be moral. If, by moral basis, you mean that governments get their legitimacy from the people, who elected them, then I am more inclined to the latter.
There are two different methods of policy analysis, and therefore two different types of poilcy decision making: Deductive and Inductive.
Deductive decision making attempts to apply universal maxims where policy rationales are constructed from the top down. On the other hand inductive theories build their arguments from the bottom up, and start at the research and data level. On this spectrum, I also have to choose the later. Many would acuse me of being a moral relativist, in this regard; however, I don’t really consider that an insult.
Again, since I don’t understand what you mean, a better explanation may be warrented. What is your definition or “moral” since you try to provide examples from my writing, where no morality was intended.
Btw, interesting link, but I disagree with the chemical engineer. His reasoning is deductive, and starts from a flawed premise.
On a final note, and I have said this 1000 times here at thepolitic, government bureaucrats don’t make decisions, politicians do. Government bureaucrats implement their decisions, and they are fired when they don’t. So don’t knock the bureaucrats when it is actually the decision makers you should be taking aim at - at least that is how democracy was taught to me back in the good old days.
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
I cannot believe I just got sucked into an argument about government decision making with an anarchist. Ugh. The morality question threw me for a loop. Usually it is the bible thumpers who throw that term around. Good smoke and mirrors trick Charles, bravo.
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 6:35 pm | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
Sorry about that but your assumptions are categorically wrong and naive.
“What is your definition or “moral†since you try to provide examples from my writing,”
My definition of “moral” is the same as everybody else’s: determining right and wrong.
“where no morality was intended.”
I do not give a damn about your intentions, your actions. You just have a hard time admitting that you have an underlying morality.
You see, you can not justify your policy on the environment or banning things or whatever without accepting an Achilles heel: you have to identify your moral authority.
“Many would acuse me of being a moral relativist, in this regard; however, I don’t really consider that an insult.”
Lame. When you admit to being a moral relativist you are simply saying you do not care to justify a moral authority and you are giving your opponents EQUAL authority to oppose you WITHOUT a justification of their own.
“If, by moral basis, you mean that governments get their legitimacy from the people, who elected them, then I am more inclined to the latter.”
If that is the biggest concession you provide for a moral authority, you are in a very weak position. Your opponents just have to convince enough of the population that you are wrong through whatever means available to them. The science and your pseudo-economics-concealed-politics do not matter.
By the way, you include everything under the sun as a subsidy in your definition. With your moral basis and your definitions, we may as well give you our wallet and credit cards too.
Posted on 11-Sep-07 at 6:06 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
“By the way, you include everything under the sun as a subsidy in your definition.”
Yeah, don’t dictionaries suck, they are so ambiguous. Seriously, that is a pretty standard definition.
“You see, you can not justify your policy on the environment or banning things or whatever without accepting an Achilles heel: you have to identify your moral authority.”
Actually, that isn’t true. In fact, people who require a moral justification for something that has been arrived at after proper policy analysis (which I define as evidence-based decision making) are usually ideologues who would rather parrot the words of someone else, rather than take the time to think through a problem for themselves.
So, I will outline the argument in a rudamentary fashion one last time following the proper protocol for policy analysis.
Background
1. Britian is having a problem maintaining their electrical infrastructure because of an increasing demand from a) population growth; and b) energy inefficient heating (most heat in Britain is electric); and c) the popularity of energy guzzlers (i.e. plazma televisions) is only exacerbating an already difficult problem.
2. Research and analysis of power use in Britain has illustrated that up to 2% of total consumption comes from appliances that are not being used or have stand-by features.
3. Furthermore, government officials have studied the energy consumption of electrical appliances in order to determine which are more efficient than others (much like the energuide program in Canada which compares the average annual energy consumption of a particular product to others). The evidence suggests that some appliances are extremely energy inefficient compared to others.
Considerations
1. Britain’s electrical infrastructure is old, and requires updating. However, the cost to develop new infrastructure is expensive, and takes time. In the meantime, demand is still increasing, at a rate faster than new infrastructure can be developed, and more than the current system can handle. This is in large part due to the explosion in the popularity of energy inefficient appliances, and to a lesser degree from the popularity of appliances that use electrical energy while not in use.
2. The deregulation of electicity in Britain would slow the demand; however, not from those who currently are high users. Furthermore, higher energy costs will hurt those who are already struggling to make ends meet. These people tend to be low-energy users.
3. Governments are expected to find a solution to the energy problem, given their control over the regulation and administration of the electrical system.
Options
1. Deregulate / Privatize electrical system in Britain and let the market do the rest. This would require governments to step away from the problem, and to form new partnerships with industry in order to meet the electrical needs of citizens.
Pros
- gets government off the hook
Cons
- no guarantee that private industry will step in, as the capital cost of developing infrastructure is a large investment that may not see returns right away. may be required to subsidize industry.
- something would be required to help those who cannot afford deregulated electricity (i.e. subsidy): subsidies are expensive, and would increase every time the cost of electricity increases.
2. Reduce electrical consumption while building new infrastructure.
Pros
- governments retain control over electrical system and therefore can regulate prices to ensure affordable energy for all citizens.
- the price of encouraging citizens to reduce consumption is relatively inexpensive (awareness / information)
- regulating the types of appliances available in Britain is also inexpensive, and analysis has already been done to identify where a great deal of reduction can already be made quickly.
- industry would be able to adapt to changes in regulation more than they could to taking over the energy industry.
Cons
-reduces consumer choice in the short run.
3. Do nothing - the market will take care of it.
Pros - governments don’t have to do anything, which costs nothing.
Cons - does not address the immediate shortage of the current supply nor the increasing demand.
If you actually have better suggestions, I would love to hear them. There is no right or wrong in policy analysis - which is why I don’t think it is moral. Policy analysis is about developing options, and then doing cost-benefit analysis and seeing who the winners and losers are in each option. The rest, after that, is all about politics, and is up to policy makers to decide.
Posted on 11-Sep-07 at 7:35 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Btw, this is kinda cool!
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/s.....water.html
Posted on 11-Sep-07 at 7:58 am | Permalink