It's not the bulb, it's the government mandate

Over at TIME, Bryan Walsh has an article blasting conservatives for opposing the idiotic efficiency standards imposed by the 100w incandescent bulb ban signed by Bush-43. His predictable, misguided point is that the Earth is over crowded, over heated, and short on resources so why isn't a mandate for the use of efficient bulbs good for the collective?

If Bryan had stopped preaching smug environmentalism long enough to ask, he would have found that it isn't the efficient bulb we oppose, it's the heavy-handed government ban of the incandescent bulb used to force consumers to buy something we don't want, that we oppose. If Obama's pal at GE, Jeffery Immelt, could manufacture a better, more efficient bulb and at a competitive price, I'd be the first one in line to buy it. But it's not a proper function of government to ban one perfectly good product in order to force consumers to purchase an inferior, more expensive product that couldn't otherwise compete in the market place, in order to specifically benefit a political friend.

Bryan Walsh ignores the fact that Earth hasn't warmed in 15 years because it negates the need to keep the planet cool so as not to discomfort the polar bears. He also ignores the very, very limited role of government in a thriving market economy. But intellectually superior liberals always think that if it sounds like a good idea to them, then it's OK for government to force that idea on everybody.