There is a fundamental framing and analysis challenge that pervades much of the Washington (and national) discussion of moving forward toward better policy. This is true in health care, transportation, prison reform, decriminalization of marijuana (and industrial hemp), clean energy, global warming, and very many other important policy arenas.
At Netroots Nation, on a panel discussing environmental policy, I opened a short statement with a question:
Do compact flourescent light bulbs cost more than incandescents?
Without exception, those who answered the question said (or nodded their head) yes.
And, fundamentally, all of them were utterly wrong.
Thinking through cost ...
While CFLs cost more to buy (perhaps $2-3 bulb vs $0.25-$0.50 for an incandescent), they cost far less to own due to their 73% lower electricity use and their 5-10 times longer expected life. Dependent on usage, payback time for that extra purchase price can be measured in weeks. (Calculate your lighting savings. Here is a discussion/calculation of this looking at CfLs for an apartment building.)
And that, in fact, only looks at the implications for the individual, for one's own pocketbook and the societal implications due to lowering demand on the electricity system and via reducing pollution due to electricity generation.
CtB vs CtB
We tend to look at the "cost to buy" (CtB) rather than the "cost to own" (CtO) a product in our own lives. (Discussion of CtB v CtO. For example, CtB vs CtO and taxis.)
Sadly, this limited thinking often extends into the larger societal discussion.
Health care ...
When it comes to health care reform, there is no valuing of the likely improved productivity (due to lower sick leave, less time spent on health care administrative issues) and likely entreprenourial gains (as people feel more secure in taking the risk to start a business knowing that they have health care) of moving toward a more sensible health care system. And, there is typically no valuing of avoided costs (what change might help prevent from happening). Thus, a CBO report speaking to the "cost" of health care reform has zero accounting of huge potential benefits nor does it adequately place "cost" to the Federal budget against "gain" through reduced costs throughout society.
Climate change & energy
When it comes to climate change and energy, nearly without exception, the analyses and reports are stovepiped and do a poor job of valuing the costs of inaction. Thus, the CBO and EPA reporting on the "costs" of the American Clean Energy & Security (ACES) Act did not account for improved health due to reduced fossil fuel pollution, improved productivity and school performance (due, again, to improve health conditions and better work environments with more energy efficiency), and did not account for the costs of unconstrained climate change.
Even though these studies were so, in fact, pessimistic, too many people (politicians, organizations, others) trumpeted that 'acting on climate change will only cost a postage stamp a day' or other such nonsense. For example, Representative Ed Markey had this to say about a CBO report.
"Americans know that building a clean energy economy has real value, and this CBO analysis proves it. Low-income American families will see a $40 benefit from using more wind and solar energy and less foreign oil. And for the cost of about a postage stamp a day, all American families will see a return on their investment as our nation breaks our dependence on foreign oil, cuts dangerous carbon pollution and creates millions of new clean energy jobs that can't be shipped overseas."
These advocates are doing a disfavor to the American public. And to the cause of serious action to reduce climate change impacts. In fact, the CBO report is almost certainly overstating the actual costs because it, quite explicitly, is understating the benefits of action.
This "cost" places the discussion in the framing of opponents of action, who have been purveying falsehoods with exorbitant cost figures coming from so-called "reports". Stating that 'it will only cost' creates the space for a debate over "how much will it cost". In fact, if one doesn't stove-pipe and considers a fuller range of the costs and benefits, we are not talking about a "postage stamp a day" in costs, but whether the benefits for the average American are the equivalent of a postage stamp or 100 postage stamps every day, day-in and day-out, for generations to come.
By falling into the trap of a stove-piped analysis structure, those advocating for progressive policies undermine their ability to build and maintain support for those policies.
Thus, it is important to remember: CFLs cost less!
Related: Acting on Climate: Benefits, not costs
UPDATE: Despite how the comments have gone, this diary is not, fundamentally, about lighting ...