Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[mhaze]

How many Norwegians will it take to accomplish this?

Well, given that I saw 7 South Africans take a full 8 hour day to install one light bulb in 2006, I just don't know much at all anymore.

How about this one: How many light bulbs can a Bulb Truther convince people to change from Bad types to Good? Think of it this way: Each Good bulb is a little baby Gaia in a bottle.

And there's a provision in the EISA that anticipates what haze is suggesting is a loophole.<<other extensions of authoritarian control in law that Joe trumpets as non-Draconian >>

So the Real Joe comes out of the closet? First you argue over and over that all kinds of bulbs are excluded, including ones that I may possibly be able to use. And so "it's not a ban", and it doesn't "look Draconian". And now you want to trumpet what, exactly?

By the way....I haven't seen you comment on This Inconvenient Truth.

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.

 

[Furcifer]

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

Worse yet it doesn't seem to be particularly effective. I mean if you're going to remove the public from having a say you would expect it to be so obvious a solution that putting it to a vote would be redundant.

 

[This is The End]

OK, let's think about this clearly. Correct me if I'm wrong (Bri, or i guess Joe if Bri isn't available ).

One or more stores/eBay entrepreneurs can do 1 of 3 things.

Continue to manufacture the old style bulbs and just:

1: Put 'For Heat' on the packaging
2: Put 'For OutSide' on the packaging
or
3: Stockpile and not even have to change the packaging.

We can argue about this, but I'm fairly certain that there will continue to be huge demand for old style bulbs.

If we can at least somewhat agree on these points, I would almost guarantee that we will still be able to buy all of these bulbs for many years to come.

 

[This is The End]

After posting the last post I thought that there could be a possibility that it is just repealed instead.

I went to google and searched _overturn light bulb_ (no quotes), and there are many recent articles, some state, and some federal. This is a federal one: (sorry, it is a Fox site and, yes, there is a Rand Paul quote, but it was the first link on google).

Congress Wants to Overturn Light Bulb Legislation

Published : Wednesday, 23 Mar 2011, 8:14 AM EDT

There is a move by Republicans on Capitol Hill to overturn legislation passed by Congress in 2007, and signed by President Bush, requiring all 100-watt incandescent light bulbs to be almost 30-percent more energy efficient by 2012.

<snip>

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) says it's "insulting" for the government to tell consumers what light bulbs they can buy.

<snip>

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) says, "To take out an entire class of light bulbs which have served this country very, very well and the consumers very, very well for over 100 years, it's not necessary and we don't think it makes any economic sense at all:"

<snip>

 

[mhaze]

After posting the last post I thought that there could be a possibility that it is just repealed instead.

I went to google and searched _overturn light bulb_ (no quotes), and there are many recent articles, some state, and some federal. This is a federal one: (sorry, it is a Fox site and, yes, there is a Rand Paul quote, but it was the first link on google).

Congress Wants to Overturn Light Bulb Legislation

Joe Barton has been wanting to do this for some time. I haven't read the bill, but believe it is only the light bulb part of the EISA law. This will quite likely happen after 2012 elections.

It's not a far out libertarian bill at all, and has wide support. Earlier I posted a link to a rather interesting story about the 2008 New Zealand issue. Their whole government was overturned over voter outrage about the attempt to cram CFLs at them.

One thing I don't understand is this. Let's say that I'm going to toss CFLs into the trash can. I'm not going to bother one bit to take them to a recycling center, blah blah blah. Now for doing this I am "bad". I know that it contaminates land fills. But this is simply what I'm going to do. I don't need that one extra complication to my life.

Now, given this....why would anyone, even a rabid environmentalist, want to force me to use CFLs? That makes NO SENSE. Clearly the result for the planet is worse than if I just stuck with incandescent.

 

[mhaze]

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

That's been a basic premise in communist nations. For example the Soviets used to market their economic system by noting that there wasn't any need for 20 different types of toilet paper to be on store shelves, that was inefficient use of industrial resources. Similarly the Chinese had one thing to wear, the blue pants suit.

In large part of what defines "totalitarianism" is the arm of the state extending into the smallest details of personal life. Well described by Nelson DeMille in his book "The Charm School".

 

[mhaze]

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 ?....

The light bulb issue is small part of a very large bill. I don't have reason to think that the entire bill should have seen a presidential veto for this small part. And FYI, it was a Republican committee chair that was behind the light bulb crusade...Upton was his name. Today he's not well looked on by Republicans for that.

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

Actually, I'm thinking of stockpiling yet more. And your ad hom based on incorrect conclusions has also incorrect facts. Like I said, what I stockpiled was what became unavailable in local stores.

If you read, you will see that I've noted the stores have started to restock a similar item in "rugged service 130 volt" style. And Joe has mentioned that a petition should or could be developed to stop this.

Actually, Joe has missed the point of the clause which allows a single individual to petition for bans of currently excluded bulbs. That the agency has the power to modify the list of banned bulbs.

The law has the actual effect of handing the entire decision making process over to a regulatory agency of what light bulbs you can or cannot use. Congress is out of the loop.

Big difference.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Fair enough, and I agree with you that these noisy garden tools are wasteful luxuries. (Though the fact that 2-stroke motors are especially dirty, doesn't mean they are so very energy inefficient. I'm not sure how they compare to burning fossil fuels to produce electricity to use on electric weed whackers. If I had to guess, I would assume they're comparable for energy efficiency. I think using poorly defined words like "green" conflates different things--energy efficiency and overall environmental impact like say from air pollution and noise pollution. Remember the law in question is the Energy Independence and Security Act.)

At any rate the argument that this law is not good or is authoritarian because some hypothesized other law doesn't exist is not valid reasoning.

Would it be wrong to arrest and prosecute one murderer simply because we haven't arrested and prosecuted all murderers?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, I'm thinking of stockpiling yet more. And your ad hom based on incorrect conclusions has also incorrect facts. Like I said, what I stockpiled was what became unavailable in local stores.

Nope. You argued that your stockpiling bulbs was proof that these bulbs were banned. You also argued that they weren't available in local stores because of this law, even though the bulbs are excluded from the new standards that will start to take effect in January.

It would only be an ad hominem fallacy if it were irrelevant to the discussion. YOU, haze, made it relevant by submitting your behavior as evidence of your claim that the law is a ban on incandescents.

Actually, Joe has missed the point of the clause which allows a single individual to petition for bans of currently excluded bulbs.

That is a false statement. It's evidence that you're not reading my posts.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

But there is no national interest associated with a ban on cotton socks. In the analogy offered a ban on socks made of asbestos would help keep potentially dangerous fibers from harming people (you know--"Think of the children!!!!"). Of course the weakness in the analogy is that there is no such thing as asbestos socks.

How about a ban on asbestos siding shingles? Is that equivalent to "a ban on siding shingles"?

And the argument is that a ban on some socks is equivalent to saying it is a ban on socks is not logical. If you like, I could cite logic books that point out that in conventional language saying "Xs" is the same as saying "all Xs". So again, of the two statements I have listed at least a couple of times, at the very least, one is a more accurate characterization of the law. The other is arguably a false statement. (And I've shown that it's not a matter of nitpicking, because at least some people do indeed mistakenly think the law is a ban on all incandescents. Indeed haze's stockpiling of excluded bulbs and submitting that as proof that the law is a ban on incandescents makes that case.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The light bulb issue is small part of a very large bill. I don't have reason to think that the entire bill should have seen a presidential veto for this small part. And FYI, it was a Republican committee chair that was behind the light bulb crusade...Upton was his name. Today he's not well looked on by Republicans for that.

This does absolutely NOTHING to support your claim that this was a liberal law.

The law has the actual effect of handing the entire decision making process over to a regulatory agency of what light bulbs you can or cannot use. Congress is out of the loop.

Big difference.

Yes, there is a big difference between what you said here and your claim that the law is a ban on incandescents. However, I don't think you have this new characterization quite right. It does not hand "the entire decision making process" over. It sets out in a great deal of specificity limits, guidelines, rules, and timetables for that decision making. (Remember, that "legalese" you so object to? You know, the sort of language you improperly referred to as "snarky"?)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

OK, let's think about this clearly. Correct me if I'm wrong (Bri, or i guess Joe if Bri isn't available ).

One or more stores/eBay entrepreneurs can do 1 of 3 things.

Continue to manufacture the old style bulbs and just:

1: Put 'For Heat' on the packaging
2: Put 'For OutSide' on the packaging
or
3: Stockpile and not even have to change the packaging.

We can argue about this, but I'm fairly certain that there will continue to be huge demand for old style bulbs.

If we can at least somewhat agree on these points, I would almost guarantee that we will still be able to buy all of these bulbs for many years to come.

I've already addressed this in talking about the suggested scheme to produce 101w traditional incandescent bulbs (that would otherwise not be excluded from the new requirements). Part of the definition of bulbs subject to the standards is that it be intended for general service light. Also as I mentioned, the law anticipates the attempt at just selling lightbulbs actually designed for other purposes to be used as general purpose lights by allowing anyone to petition for including them in the standards if it turns out that sales show that they're being re-purposed that way.

But yes, they're free to stockpile bulbs and sell them as long as stocks last. I've pointed out that for big stores and chains, holding large inventories of pretty much anything is a huge cost, so I doubt anyone will do it. Also, demand for the inefficient bulbs is and has been plummeting already, so it wouldn't be very smart to stockpile them in any substantial quantity. As haze has pointed out, even many inefficient bulbs NOT subject to the new standards are getting harder to find.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

You're kidding, right? The law was passed by Congress. There was pretty much publicity about it, and all the various versions of the bill--especially the controversial attempt to repeal some of the tax breaks for oil companies--are all matters of public record. What makes this law different than any other law passed by Congress and signed by the President?

Surely you guys aren't suggesting we do away with Congress and set up a system where all national laws are passed by plebiscite?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In large part of what defines "totalitarianism" is the arm of the state extending into the smallest details of personal life.

I disagree. I think what matters more is that there are limits to the authority of government. These limits aren't just about the subject matter of what laws can be passed, but also that we can vote out of office people in most positions of authority. (And the division of authority into three branches with checks and balances among them also serve to limit authority.)

Are you actually arguing that the U.S. is a totalitarian state?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

why would anyone, even a rabid environmentalist, want to force me to use CFLs? That makes NO SENSE.

I agree.

Good thing there is no federal law that will force you to use CFLs.

So your question here looks like an attempt to beg the question. For your question to be relevant, your mischaracterization of the law as forcing you to use CFLs would have to be assumed correct.

 

[Ziggurat]

But there is no national interest associated with a ban on cotton socks.

Sure there is. Cotton stains more easily than synthetics, so it has to be washed more thoroughly. That uses up more....

(wait for it)


Energy!

Edit: they also take considerably more energy to dry than synthetics.

And the argument is that a ban on some socks is equivalent to saying it is a ban on socks is not logical.

And since that's the line of argumentation, it doesn't even matter what kind of socks you're banning. So why overreach with the analogy?

 

[Bri]

We can argue about this, but I'm fairly certain that there will continue to be huge demand for old style bulbs.

My guess is that there won't continue be a demand for old style bulbs indefinitely. I think you overestimate the number of people who care about the old bulbs. College-age kids and younger have grown up with CFL's for enough of their lives that I don't think they hold much nostalgia for incandescents.

If we can at least somewhat agree on these points, I would almost guarantee that we will still be able to buy all of these bulbs for many years to come.

Time will tell. I think they'll be available for a while as some die-hard fans of the old bulbs are willing to pay more and more for them. But in my opinion they will indeed be phased out as demands drops.

I also think that LED technology will put the last nails in the coffin of incandescents (and probably CFL's for that matter).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

After posting the last post I thought that there could be a possibility that it is just repealed instead.

I went to google and searched _overturn light bulb_ (no quotes), and there are many recent articles, some state, and some federal. This is a federal one: (sorry, it is a Fox site and, yes, there is a Rand Paul quote, but it was the first link on google).

Congress Wants to Overturn Light Bulb Legislation

In my opinion, I think the 2007 legislation has already done what it was intended to do. Even if the law is repealed, people are already aware of the advantages of efficient bulbs, and the industry has already invested the resources to improve the CFL and to develop LED technologies. I think incandescents will eventually disappear due to lack of demand (except for specialty uses like heat lamps where they will be much more expensive), although perhaps sooner if the legislation is left in place.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

One thing I don't understand is this. Let's say that I'm going to toss CFLs into the trash can. I'm not going to bother one bit to take them to a recycling center, blah blah blah. Now for doing this I am "bad". I know that it contaminates land fills. But this is simply what I'm going to do. I don't need that one extra complication to my life.

Now, given this....why would anyone, even a rabid environmentalist, want to force me to use CFLs? That makes NO SENSE. Clearly the result for the planet is worse than if I just stuck with incandescent.

As Joe pointed out, nobody is forcing you to use CFL's.

And I think we already discussed this, but even if everyone threw their CFL's into the trash as you suggest, they would still amount to a net reduction in mercury in the environment. The mercury released into the environment by power plants in the U.S. for the amount of electricity saved by a CFL exceeds the tiny amount of mercury in a CFL.

Plus, LED and other bulb technologies don't contain mercury.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

If you read, you will see that I've noted the stores have started to restock a similar item in "rugged service 130 volt" style. And Joe has mentioned that a petition should or could be developed to stop this.

Your anecdotal evidence differs from mine in this regard. I've seen no evidence of this in the Walmart, Target, Lowe's, and Home Depot stores near me, where the shelves are still stocked with a vast majority of high-efficiency bulbs, plus some specialty bulbs and some old incandescents.

-Bri