Get Energy Smart! NOW!

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.

My response: you are utterly wrong.

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 CFL purchase price can be measured in weeks.

We tend to look at the “cost to buy” rather than the “cost to own” a product in our own lives.

Sadly, this limited thinking often extends into the larger societal discussion.

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.

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 accounting 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. 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.

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!