Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Cactus Wren]

Bolding mine:

"Saving the Planet One Light Bulb At A Time" is a well understood progressive and greenie catchy tune style phrase with 1.7M google hits, so no misrepresentation here.

No, it is not. I did a Google search on the phrase "saving the planet one light bulb at a time" and got "About 1,870 results".



I've just read my way through this entire thread, but it's possible that in my rapid reading I've missed a few postings or a few elements of postings.

First let me make clear my own position: that a law prohibiting sale of socks knitted in a mixture of Fiberglas and asbestos fiber is not "a ban on socks". That said:

Has mhaze produced a single argument that does not fall into one or more of the following four categories?

1. "If I add a line in stereotypically Russian syntax, including a reference to 'the Party', I'm making some kind of point."

2. "Bulb truthers! Bulb truthers! Bulb truthers!"

3. "Encouraging the use of lightbulbs that are not hideously inefficient is the same as racism."

4. "But I WANNNNNNNNNNNNNNT them!"

 

[Ziggurat]

First let me make clear my own position: that a law prohibiting sale of socks knitted in a mixture of Fiberglas and asbestos fiber is not "a ban on socks".

And what's your position on a law prohibiting the sale of socks knitted from cotton?

 

[Furcifer]

It's a ban on a poorly defined version of "inefficiency".

That's the government for you. Short sighted and over simplified.

How they ended up fixated on the measly old light bulb instead of weed whackers and leaf blowers is beyond me. I think there are plenty of energy wasting CO2 sputtering products that deserve banning instead of the frosted 100W but that's just my opinion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And there's a provision in the EISA that anticipates what haze is suggesting is a loophole. While the law provides for petitions to allow lightbulbs that would otherwise be subject to the efficiency standards when it's not feasible to use the alternatives, it also allows anyone to petition the Secretary to establish efficiency standard for excluded lights (i.e. to un-execlude them) if people are trying to use them instead of general service bulbs:

‘‘(i) PETITION.—Any person may petition the Secretary
to establish standards for lamp shapes or bases
that are excluded from the definition of general service
lamps.
‘‘(ii) INCREASED SALES OF EXEMPTED LAMPS.—The
petition shall include evidence that the availability
or sales of exempted incandescent lamps have
increased significantly since the date on which the
standards on general service incandescent lamps were
established.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It's a real serious business. Not to be taken lightly. Saving the Planet One Light Bulb at a Time. You know, Al Gore stuff.

And that's because some liberal authoritarian controllers, such as those on this thread, think they know better than you and I, and want to tell us what to do with our lives.

mhaze,

Does your cognitive dissonance allow you to understand that this so-called ban was signed into law by George Bush ? Is he now historically known as the liberal authortian controller president in your world ?

BTW - do you feel silly for stockpiling bulbs that don't fall under these regulations ?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How they ended up fixated on the measly old light bulb instead of weed whackers and leaf blowers is beyond me.

Probably because there isn't a line of weed whackers and leaf blowers that are as substantially more energy efficient than any others as, for example CFLs and LEDs are compared to traditional incandescents.

But the EISA has pretty huge sections establishing energy efficiency guidelines in cars.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And what's your position on a law prohibiting the sale of socks knitted from cotton?

That it's not a good analogy.

 

[Furcifer]

Probably because there isn't a line of weed whackers and leaf blowers that are as substantially more energy efficient than any others as, for example CFLs and LEDs are compared to traditional incandescents.

But the EISA has pretty huge sections establishing energy efficiency guidelines in cars.

I believe this is incorrect. There are electric weed whackers and leaf blowers that are considerably more "green" than their 2 stroke counter parts. And even electric lawn mowers.
Not to mention these are vanity items, I consider light bulbs essential, perfectly square hedges a luxury.
Banning lawn mowers would be a start to changing behavior, those that could get by with an electric would, those that can't would most likely replace their Kentucky blue with more natural and indigenous grasses that don't require maintenance.
Seems a waste of a good ban if you ask me.

 

[Cactus Wren]

And what's your position on a law prohibiting the sale of socks knitted from cotton?

That's not a ban on socks either.

 

[mhaze]

.....
4. "But I WANNNNNNNNNNNNNNT them!"

Nope, it is somewhat different than that. You don't want me to have them, and you think I should have to justify why I want them.

And I say simply, "screw you, buddy".

 

[mhaze]

Probably because there isn't a line of weed whackers and leaf blowers that are as substantially more energy efficient than any others as, for example CFLs and LEDs are compared to traditional incandescents.

But the EISA has pretty huge sections establishing energy efficiency guidelines in cars.

<<Sigh>> But you are wrong again. 2 cycle is a major source of pollutants, alarmingly so if you believe in Saving the Planet from Global Warming. Very dirty exhaust.

And all you need to do to fix it is use 4 cycle small engines run on propane. No big deal at all. They exist. The gas does not foul up the carb either.

Wait....sorry, I said something complicated. Anyway, back to the subject. Did we decide that so called "efficient" light bulbs have no positive effect on a country's electric consumption or are we going to stick with Joe and Bri's method of ignoring all contrary evidence?

Because the interesting thing about the LAW they support is whether it has ANY effect other than increased authoritarianism, given that the free market natural provides efficiencies.

 

[Cactus Wren]

Nope, it is somewhat different than that. You don't want me to have them, and you think I should have to justify why I want them.

And I say simply, "screw you, buddy".

Exactly. You WANNNNNNNNNNNNNNT them.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Nope, it is somewhat different than that. You don't want me to have them, and you think I should have to justify why I want them.

And I say simply, "screw you, buddy".

How many Norwegians will it take to accomplish this?

 

[mhaze]

And there's a provision in the EISA that anticipates what haze is suggesting is a loophole. ....

So more people need to stockpile more bulbs?

 

[Ziggurat]

That's not a ban on socks either.

Then why didn't you use that example in the first place, since that's the equivalent here? Cotton socks are, after all, the old, heavily-used technology that consumers are comfortable with, just like incandescents. Your example is a technology that has never been used at all. I can only assume that you wanted to imply something about the stupidity of using incandescents, but you badly overreached on that point, and it's irrelevant to the point you were trying to make about it not being a ban.

 

[Ziggurat]

That it's not a good analogy.

It's far better than the one given. Cotton socks are a well-established technology that consumers are comfortable with. They are, however, inferior to various newer, more expensive synthetic fabrics and fabric blends in many respects. That's a pretty good analogy for traditional incandescents versus more recent, higher tech alternatives. Whereas the analogy given was for a technology that has never, ever been used, which is completely unlike incandescent lightbulbs. Yet you complain about MY analogy, and not his? What on earth for? That makes no sense. If you want to say that sock analogies aren't really relevant at all, fine. If you want to point out that analogies are never perfect because, well, they're just analogies, hell, I'd agree with that completely. But as an analogy, mine was clearly superior to his.

 

[Ziggurat]

I believe this is incorrect. There are electric weed whackers and leaf blowers that are considerably more "green" than their 2 stroke counter parts. And even electric lawn mowers.
Not to mention these are vanity items, I consider light bulbs essential, perfectly square hedges a luxury.
Banning lawn mowers would be a start to changing behavior, those that could get by with an electric would, those that can't would most likely replace their Kentucky blue with more natural and indigenous grasses that don't require maintenance.
Seems a waste of a good ban if you ask me.

Nobody with a lick of sense trims their hedges with a weed whacker. I suspect there are plenty of farmers who don't consider them luxury items either. And for any heavy-duty use, electric weed whackers are simply not a substitute for gas-powered models.

As for lawn mowers being a luxury, let me ask you: have you EVER taken a vacation anywhere that required air travel? Because I guarantee that if you have, you burned a hell of a lot more fuel on that vacation than I do mowing my lawn. Shall we simply ban vacation travel? It is bad for the environment, after all.

Where exactly do you want to draw the line in terms of what restrictions on freedoms you'll accept in the name of environmentalism?

 

[Furcifer]

Nobody with a lick of sense trims their hedges with a weed whacker.

That was more a comment on the practice of manicuring than an observation. People who have perfectly square hedges usually have an arsenal of lawn care equipment including weed whackers.

I suspect there are plenty of farmers who don't consider them luxury items either.

Maybe hobby farmers, I've never seen them on an actual farm. Usually it's a 48" cutting deck on the PTO run along the ditch, no trimming. YMMV.

And for any heavy-duty use, electric weed whackers are simply not a substitute for gas-powered models.

But for "heavy duty" use I can imagine something like a municipality having access to gas equipment, maybe some commercial uses, but why for residential? The electrics they have now are more than powerful enough.

As for lawn mowers being a luxury, let me ask you: have you EVER taken a vacation anywhere that required air travel? Because I guarantee that if you have, you burned a hell of a lot more fuel on that vacation than I do mowing my lawn. Shall we simply ban vacation travel? It is bad for the environment, after all.

I think if it was put to a study you'd find vacations are essential, well manicured lawns aren't.
As for banning vacations, who knows I mean 20 years ago could you imagine a ban on the light bulb?

Where exactly do you want to draw the line in terms of what restrictions on freedoms you'll accept in the name of environmentalism?

See this is what bugs me about this ban on incandescent light bulbs. It never seemed to go to a popular vote. If I had to choose, I'd ban gas powered garden equipment before the light bulb. You may disagree and that's your choice. You would present your case, I would present mine, we'd discuss it and then it would be put to a vote based on the merits of each proposal.

For some reason this light bulb thing never did. That's what I don't like about it.

 

[Ziggurat]

See this is what bugs me about this ban on incandescent light bulbs. It never seemed to go to a popular vote. If I had to choose, I'd ban gas powered garden equipment before the light bulb. You may disagree and that's your choice. You would present your case, I would present mine, we'd discuss it and then it would be put to a vote based on the merits of each proposal.

For some reason this light bulb thing never did. That's what I don't like about it.

Indeed, it's part of a disturbing mentality that the public shouldn't even have a role in deciding such issues.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Nope, it is somewhat different than that. You don't want me to have them, and you think I should have to justify why I want them.

And I say simply, "screw you, buddy".


​

Exactly. You WANNNNNNNNNNNNNNT them.

Actually if you read back through the thread, you'll find I have a LOT of LED bulbs of various sorts, CFL, halogen, as well as incandescent. But this thread is about the incandescent, and the wacko liberals trying to ban them.

Now let's go to your mis statement. My two statements above do not equate to "I want them". I want all kinds of things which are none of your business. I also may randomly try out different things. I may also buy things I don't want but need. Etc. None of your business.

However, my statement "screw you buddy" is in reference to your trying to tell me what to do, how to do it, or when to do it. Or anything else you want to tell me, including, as it would appear, your trying to tell me what I'm thinking.

So..."screw you, buddy".

.... But as an analogy, mine was clearly superior to his.

It is either an intellectual conceit, or some sort of argumentation method, that Joe and Bri find ALL analogies presented in this thread by their "opponents" to be "false analogies".

ALL.

Just go back and look. So not only do they want to tell you what kind of light bulbs you can use, but also what kind of analogies.

I wonder where it ends with this sort of thinking. Well, there's a bill in committee now to repeal this bulb nonsense anyway. So maybe that's the way it ends.