Joe wrote:
Frank Erskine wrote:

And I thought the function of the "EU" was to promote trade, rather
than banning things.


Why do you feel the two are incompatible? The EU has surely promoted
the European shoe trade by banning many imports.

And you're going to buy a new lamp... surely costing more than the
couple of incandescent bulbs you'd have bought for it during the
rest of its life.

Actually no. The CFL is in general cheaper overall even without the
energy reduction..so why BAN incandescents. CFLs are in MANY cases
cheaper and better..we use them because in general that is the case.
There is no need to BAN anything.

So why ban?

Simple. The EU has powers to prohibit, but no general power to tax.

Governments have two powers to achieve their aims. Taxation (and
subsidising) and powers of prohibition.

Despite the fact that in general most people's purchasing decisions are
extremely price sensitive, and that taxation as such has the greater
effect..they go for banning..Why? because it arouses less political
controversy, and means they don't have to actually do anything themselves.

If the same fuel duties that are applied to road fuel were applied to
domestic and industrial fuel, the first thing that would happen is the
the nuclear industry would be able to borrow all the money it ever
needed to build new reactors, and wind turbines might be effective..and
every single house would be insulated up to the eyeballs, simply because
the economic numbers would make sense..it would cost me £3500 a year
extra to buy heating oil at road prices..

In fact I would almost certainly invest then in an electric boiler and
buy all my electricity from nuclear power plants..because it would be
CHEAPER. CFL's would not be needed..instead I would put in 'winter
bulbs' to heat the house after sunset in winter ;-)

Suddenly aircraft that had to refuel in Europe would be subject to a 3
times fuel price increase. Cheap flights would vanish.

Suddenly the cost benefit of traffic lights everywhere would be called
into question..and they would be removed. Along with all night
illumination of roads etc.

And so on.

As usuasl the political response is not to bite he bullet and really
attempt to change anything at all. It is to spend billions of tax payers
money coming up with an irritating law that changes almost nothing.