CFL Mandate Reveals True Nature of Green

The CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) mandate, introduced by the 110th Congress, will outlaw incandescent light bulbs in an effort to force everyone to contribute to the fight against global warming. 


One can argue that having a government use its monopoly on force to criminalize the use of a light bulb might violate the principles of a country that calls itself free.  However, a new dimension has been added to the issue with the revelation of the potential health hazard of CFLs.  The presence of mercury in these light bulbs carries the risk of exposure if broken and at minimum requires special cleanup. 


The environmental movement was popularized with serious (at least serious looking) problems such as flammable rivers In that context, the movement seemed a sensible solution.  Unfortunately, it is a solution which champions a philosophy that resents human life and technology.  We can see this sentiment in the CFL mandate, which requires us to put ourselves at risk for the sake of the environment. 


Ayn Rand observed this sentiment as early as 1971:


Observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for “harmony with nature”—there is no discussion of man’s needs and the requirements of his survival.  Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears.

Additonally Peter Schwartz, another Randian author, observes the contempt environmentalism has for technology:


The nature of an ideology is not determined by majority vote—but by logic, by analyzing its essence and its necessary implications. The logic of environmentalism, for example, leads to a society without technology . . . even if various environmentalists . . . would deny this . . . The full implications of an ideology’s central principle are often evaded by its adherents.


(as an amusing sidebar, I didn’t know much about Schwartz and thought he was some libertarian.  After a little research, I discovered that was an insult.  Some objectivists and libertarians apparently don’t appreciate how the world sees little difference between the “Tweeddledee of libertarianism and the Tweedledum of Objectivism”)


While the foot soldiers of environmentalism may see it as a benevolent cause, those leading the movement know full well its implications.  Whatever environmental hazards exist today (man-made global warming not being one that can be classified as non-fiction), we can rest assured that the philosophy of environmentalism is not the answer and will only lead us to tyranny.