Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[This is The End]

And you are too.

The important one being "some". Otherwise the statement is equivalent to saying "all the lightbulbs that the past few generations grew up with are soon to be banned"--and that statement isn't true.

I'm pretty sure I can still use the word 'all' instead of 'some'. How about this:

All of the traditional, old-style, 40 to 100 watt light bulbs that the past few generations grew up with are soon to be banned.

Bri's blue car analogy would only be apt if it included a style of cars instead of a color. And if that style of cars was what 99% of people who drove cars used for the past 100 years.

 

[Belz...]

How about we start with something whose adoption is at most a minor inconvenience and whose result will be a tremendous reduction in electricity use (and therefore reliance on the burning of fossil fuels).

If we accept your slippery slope argument, next thing you know the thread will be Godwined.

Oh, I agree we should move to better technologies. I just don't think we should _force_ people to do so.

 

[Belz...]

The fact of the matter is, the light bulbs that the past few generations grew up with are soon to be banned.

So the OP left a couple adjectives out of the Title of this thread (old style / inefficient)....

It's a ban.

Whether or not there are reasons why they are better than the new 'alternatives' doesn't really matter.

That's a fine way to look at laws. "Well, that's the way it is, so that's it !"

 

[Bri]

I'm pretty sure I can still use the word 'all' instead of 'some'. How about this:

All of the traditional, old-style, 40 to 100 watt light bulbs that the past few generations grew up with are soon to be banned.

If you're wanting to give an accurate description that won't be misunderstood, you might add that there are alternatives that comply with the standards, including other incandescent bulbs. You also don't mention anything about the bulbs that are exempt from the standards entirely.

It seems simpler to just say that there are minimum efficiency standards on light bulbs, with reflector and specialty bulbs exempt.

Bri's blue car analogy would only be apt if it included a style of cars instead of a color. And if that style of cars was what 99% of people who drove cars used for the past 100 years.

The analogy is apt in the sense that I think a similar number of people would misunderstand the misleading version in much the same way without further explanation. At any rate, I hope you understand why I don't consider it "doubletalk" to phrase things so that they're not misleading.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Yes, actually I do.

Can you show me where the Constitution mentions your right to use any light bulb you want? If that were the case, the law would have been struck down as unconstitutional when it was reviewed before it was signed by President Bush.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Can you show me where the Constitution mentions your right to use any light bulb you want? If that were the case, the law would have been struck down as unconstitutional when it was reviewed before it was signed by President Bush.

-Bri

Struck down by who, in what review process? That's news to me. Seems more like Congress just does whatever they want without regard to constitutionality.

But leaving that issue aside, law in question does not ban me from USING, nor from stockpiling, light bulbs of any sort. Not that it would make any difference to me if using them was legal or illegal, of course.

 

[mhaze]

30 years? That's odd. Ban or no ban I doubt if incandescents will(would) be popular in 10 years.

I have to pause before answering this post to go throw one of those stupid CFLs in the regular trash can that only lasted a few months.

Now what were you saying?

If you're wanting to give an accurate description that won't be misunderstood, you might add that there are alternatives....i

It looks like you are now boxed into saying "more words are better". But there's a reason why people encapsulate concepts and ideas into short sentences.

• Topless bars have nude women!
• Guns are banned in DC!
• Poll tax laws really did target blacks!
• No dogs on the public buses!
• Communism is evil!

Brevity is, after all, the soul of wit.

And we require comic relief provided by Bulb Truthers!

 

[mhaze]

If you're wanting to give an accurate description that won't be misunderstood, you might add that there are alternatives that comply with the standards, including other incandescent bulbs. You also don't mention anything about the bulbs that are exempt from the standards entirely.

It seems simpler to just say that there are minimum efficiency standards on light bulbs, with reflector and specialty bulbs exempt.

.....i

I think Joe really did hit the thumb with the hammer best when he said...

"We don't want it to sound draconian!"

So, Bri, may I ask why is this issue of light bulbs so important to you? It's not to me. Faced with the ban, I simply stockpiled some of the really good old style bulbs and went on with my life.

Oh, and I have to admit to the group. I'm a very bad person this morning. I'm writing this under 3 of those nice 90 watt banned floodlights dimmed to about 60%. So not only are they already "inefficient" but they are way more inefficient when dimmed.

Oh, the humanity!

 

[Blue Mountain]

..... You may disagree with the law, but you don't have a constitutional right to use any light bulbs you want.

Yes, actually I do.

I believe you are an American. Please show us where in the the Constitution of the United States (article and section, or amendment) you believe you are given the right to use whatever form of lighting you choose.

 

[Bri]

...law in question does not ban me from USING, nor from stockpiling, light bulbs of any sort. Not that it would make any difference to me if using them was legal or illegal, of course.

I didn't say the current law prevented you from using or stockpiling light bulbs. I said that you don't have a constitutional right to use whatever light bulbs you want. That means that the Constitution of the United States doesn't give you the right to use whatever light bulbs you want. In other words, a law could potentially be written to make it illegal to use or even own light bulbs. The current law doesn't do that, of course -- it just established efficiency standards for light bulbs.

ETA: Blue Mountain beat me to it.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

I didn't say the current law prevented you from using or stockpiling light bulbs. I said that you don't have a constitutional right to use whatever light bulbs you want. That means that the Constitution of the United States doesn't give you the right to use whatever light bulbs you want. In other words, a law could potentially be written to make it illegal to use or even own light bulbs. The current law doesn't do that, of course -- it just established efficiency standards for light bulbs.

ETA: Blue Mountain beat me to it.

-Bri

First of all, as I have previously noted with challenges to poll tax, topless bars, and redlining, we have a history of legal precedent on the use of "smell tests" to establish actual intent. So let's disburse with the argument bolded above. We've heard you and Joe say the same thing two dozen times now and seen you ignore all contrary evidence. On a legal basis, you don't have an argument. The intent of the law is to ban traditional incandescent bulbs.

Second, there is this thing we call "separation of powers" in the US of A, and the passage of a law on any subject is not related to it's constitutionality. In fact, the prior examples I gave, some of them were of laws passed which were, on examination, found to be unconstitutional.

Thirdly, there is a little problem of negative versus positive liberties and the way they are explicitly outlined in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Ziggarut actually laid this out quite earlier in this thread, but perhaps not using these phrases.

 

[Bri]

It looks like you are now boxed into saying "more words are better". But there's a reason why people encapsulate concepts and ideas into short sentences.

The very next sentence of the post you cited says:

It seems simpler to just say that there are minimum efficiency standards on light bulbs, with reflector and specialty bulbs exempt.​

If you wanted to be even briefer, you could say "efficiency standards on some light bulbs." Or even "some bulbs banned!"

Accuracy isn't rocket science, mhaze. I suspect you chose your inaccurate phrasing as hyperbole and you knew that the majority of people don't really mind more efficient light bulbs. This is further evidenced by your continued objection when it's been pointed out why your description of the standards is inaccurate and the suggestion that you add a single word "some" to it.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

The very next sentence of the post you cited says:

It seems simpler to just say that there are minimum efficiency standards on light bulbs, with reflector and specialty bulbs exempt.​

If you wanted to be even briefer, you could say "efficiency standards on some light bulbs." Or even "some bulbs banned!"

Accuracy isn't rocket science, mhaze. I suspect you chose your inaccurate phrasing as hyperbole and you knew that the majority of people don't really mind more efficient light bulbs. This is further evidenced by your continued objection when it's been pointed out why your description of the standards is inaccurate and the suggestion that you add a single word "some" to it.

-Bri

Because "some" does not accurately reflect 99% of 100%. But you'd like to have the phrase "some" used because, well...it sounds less Draconian.



Here is what happened in New Zealand when guys like you tried to tell people what to do with their light bulbs. Toppled the government, you see. And please note that your and Joe's arguments....ummm...didn't fly too well....

The short story: This Government, in stark contrast to the previous Government and the previous Minister of Energy, David Parker, rejects the idea that the Government knows best and must constantly meddle in the lives of New Zealanders.

The full dialogue:

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/B..._00000012-12-Incandescent-Light-Bulbs-Ban.htm

12. Incandescent Light Bulbs—Ban

[Volume:651;Page:728]
12. AARON GILMORE (National) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will the Government be moving to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) : I am delighted to inform the House that I have issued firm instructions to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to stop its plans to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs. This Government, in stark contrast to the previous Government and the previous Minister of Energy, David Parker, rejects the idea that the Government knows best and must constantly meddle in the lives of New Zealanders. If people wish to buy incandescent light bulbs, then this Government will not stop them from doing so.
Aaron Gilmore: Why is the Government not going to ban incandescent light bulbs?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are a number of excellent reasons why we have not moved to ban those light bulbs. The first is that this Government believes that choice not compulsion, and the ability for individuals to make their own decisions about what sorts of lives they want to lead and what contribution they want to make to climate change, is far better than nanny State telling them what to do.
Hon Pete Hodgson: Can the Minister confirm that it has never been a New Zealand Government policy to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs, but, rather, to phase out some incandescent light bulbs as a range of identically performing high-efficiency alternatives come on to the market, and that that policy has just been adopted across the European Union, saving the equivalent of the entire electricity consumption of Romania; if he can confirm that, would he care to tell the House why he is ramming this country into reverse gear?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Supplementary question. [Interruption] Oh, sorry! No. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister in reply.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have answered.
Hon Members: We didn’t hear.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I gave the House an answer.

​

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

All of the traditional, old-style, 40 to 100 watt light bulbs that the past few generations grew up with are soon to be banned.

As long as you define "ban" as meaning a ban on production (not on the sale or use), and as long as by "soon" you mean over a 2 year period as detailed in a law passed 2 nearly 4 years ago, and as long as you further point out that many types of traditional old-style 40 to 100 watt light bulbs are exempt from the new energy efficiency standards.

But of course, at that point the word "all" becomes pretty silly, doesn't it?

At any rate, even the (incomplete and inaccurate) statement you made isn't as draconian-sounding as the blanket statement that the law will ban incandescents.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because "some" does not accurately reflect 99% of 100%. But you'd like to have the phrase "some" used because, well...it sounds less Draconian.

No. It's because the use of "some" is true and the use of "all" is false.

The fact that one sounds draconian and one does not is evidence that the two are not interchangeable.

And where did you get the 99% figure from? Isn't that something you just made up?

 

[Bri]

So, Bri, may I ask why is this issue of light bulbs so important to you? It's not to me. Faced with the ban, I simply stockpiled some of the really good old style bulbs and went on with my life.

I hadn't really thought much of the new standards until recently. I used CFL's before I knew about the standards, so I wasn't terribly affected. I happen to agree with the standards because I think they're going to increase the demand for better energy-efficient bulbs which will help to improve them. And if they also help the environment, save consumers money, and/or reduce our dependence on foreign fuel sources, all the better.

I got involved in this discussion because you were complaining about the standards and having to stockpile old style bulbs because of the standards. At the time I assumed you were stockpiling out of perceived necessity because of the standards you were complaining about, so I wanted to know what your needs were that couldn't be met by anything other than inefficient bulbs. It turns out, of course, that the bulbs you're stockpiling are exempt from the standards, so I guess you're stockpiling for the sheer joy of it, yet still complaining about the standards.

So I'm glad that you "went on with your life" without a second thought!

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Because "some" does not accurately reflect 99% of 100%. But you'd like to have the phrase "some" used because, well...it sounds less Draconian.

No, as I said, I'd like you to add "some" because it's more accurate and less misleading. If you really wanted to get the point across that the old-style incandescent light bulbs aren't efficient enough to meet the standards, but that other incandescents are, you could easily have done so without being inaccurate and misleading!

Here is what happened in New Zealand when guys like you tried to tell people what to do with their light bulbs.

I'm not a member of Congress, so it wasn't "guys like me" who made the law in this country. I simply support it.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Accuracy isn't rocket science, mhaze. I suspect you chose your inaccurate phrasing as hyperbole and you knew that the majority of people don't really mind more efficient light bulbs. This is further evidenced by your continued objection when it's been pointed out why your description of the standards is inaccurate and the suggestion that you add a single word "some" to it.

My speculation is that haze was among those who really did believe the law was going to ban incandescents. Sadly, even after he learned the facts, he seems incapable of admitting he was misinformed, so instead he's dug in his heels and continued arguing his original position (including such absurd and desperate arguments as the heating-the-house-with-lightbulbs argument). I've noticed this pattern before. (Even in this thread, he won't admit that he thought "snarky" meant something it doesn't.)

But this is just speculation. I have no clue as to why he continues to insist on an inaccurate characterization of the law. I'm willing to be he has yet to read the section of the law in question. Fairly recently he seemed to think making a 101w lightbulb would allow manufacturers to continue producing traditional incandescent bulbs that would otherwise be subject to the energy efficiency standards.

 

[Bri]

First of all, as I have previously noted with challenges to poll tax, topless bars, and redlining, we have a history of legal precedent on the use of "smell tests" to establish actual intent. So let's disburse with the argument bolded above. We've heard you and Joe say the same thing two dozen times now and seen you ignore all contrary evidence. On a legal basis, you don't have an argument. The intent of the law is to ban traditional incandescent bulbs.

(bold mine) And why do you think anyone would want to ban traditional incandescent bulbs other than because they are incredibly inefficient? Clearly, the intent of the law is to set minimum efficiency standards for light bulbs. If the intent was to ban traditional incandescent bulbs for some other reason, it wouldn't have set the efficiency standards for ALL bulbs. These standards are very similar to efficiency standards for cars.

Second, there is this thing we call "separation of powers" in the US of A, and the passage of a law on any subject is not related to it's constitutionality. In fact, the prior examples I gave, some of them were of laws passed which were, on examination, found to be unconstitutional.

Correct, if a law is later found to be unconstitutional, it will be stricken.

By the way, I was wrong earlier in my assumption that the law would have necessarily undergone review before being passed. Review of a bill to determine whether it's likely to later be found unconstitutional isn't mandatory.

I don't know whether this one was reviewed or not, but this law will not later be found to be unconstitutional because being able to use any type of light bulb you want isn't a constitutional right in this country. It's such a clear cut case that I doubt anyone will even challenge it. But I'd love to see you challenge it, mhaze! Maybe it will go to the Supreme Court!

Thirdly, there is a little problem of negative versus positive liberties and the way they are explicitly outlined in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Ziggarut actually laid this out quite earlier in this thread, but perhaps not using these phrases.

Again, nearly every law restricts your "liberties" to do something in some way. A law against assault restricts your liberty to stab people randomly. Laws that restrict liberties are only unconstitutional if they restrict liberties that are guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to own inefficient light bulbs is not guaranteed by the Constitution.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not a member of Congress, so it wasn't "guys like me" who made the law in this country.

There's that point as well. In his first post to this thread, haze also attributed the law liberals despite the fact that it passed Congress with bipartisan support and was signed into law by Bush.