Individual Benefit v. Societal Benefit of Sustainable Products
In an editorial on January 2, the Wall Street Journal argues that the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs required by the recent federal energy bill exists only to increase the profit margins of compact fluorescent bulb makers like Philips and GE. As is typical of the WSJ, the editorial advocates letting the marketplace sort out which is the better bulb for the price. The feds are just meddling to force consumers to pay higher costs, says the Journal. As is common with naysayers about climate change, this argument values individual, short-term benefit (a cheaper light bulb) to the exclusion of the greater societal benefit to society (reduction of the risks caused by global warming). By that same rationale, cheap and dangerous toys, lead-based paint and CFC-based aerosol spray cans should all still be available too, but few would dispute that society as a whole is better served by phasing out these products and effectively forcing consumers to buy their slightly more expensive, but more benign, replacements. The incandescent light-bulb should rightly go the way of leaded gasoline and its cohorts, into the dustbin of history.
Posted by David J. Petersen, partner practicing in the Sustainability and Real Estate & Land Use Practice Groups.
