Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[mhaze]

Back to this? Really?..... My understanding is that the regulatory agency can (under specific conditions) change the status of certain categories of bulbs that are currently exempt, making them no longer exempt. They cannot enact an outright ban on the sale of any type of bulb they choose. It would take an act of Congress to do that.

-Bri

Because maybe you should, like, go read the law before talking?

But don't do that if you want the law to "APPEAR TO NOT BE DRACONIAN". Just continue saying things that are not true.

Thanks for that nice phrase goes to Joe!

 

[Bri]

They cannot enact an outright ban on the sale of any type of bulb they choose. It would take an act of Congress to do that.

Because maybe you should, like, go read the law before talking?

Please cite the part of the law that you think indicates that the DOE is given the ability to "enact outright bans on the sale of any type of bulb they choose" as you indicated in the post to which I was responding.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

....I can point to a very small percentage of accidents where the use of a seat belt prevented a victim from being thrown clear and therefore resulted in injuries that might not otherwise have occurred. However, in the vast majority of accidents the use of seat belts clearly prevent injuries. So would you consider it "false both on it's premises, and in the logic leading to it's conclusion" that overall it's better to wear seat belts to prevent injuries in accidents?

-Bri

Sure. There is no federal law on seatbelt wearing, they are state laws. Many things are constitutionally allowed to the states, which are questionable at the federal level. Everyone knows this.

Then I'd point out that a better analogy is the controversy over whether bikers should be required by law to wear helmets, which varies by state laws.

Your logic on mercury being less with CFL <blah blah blah> would be sounder if it excluded states with low percent of energy production via coal plants, by the way. Particularly if it gave states options as to how to save energy, more efficient bulbs being one acceptable means.

Your logic would also be sounder in the case of simply taxing mercury use in products, as was done with Freon after the 1991 Montreal Protocols. But that would make CFL MORE EXPENSIVE, and you want to spread their use.

But wait. There's more. What is the actual status of the "problem of mercury due to coal power plants?"

http://volokh.com/2011/03/20/epas-new-mercury-controls/

the EPA’s Report on the Environment shows between 1990–93 and 2005, mercury emissions declined by 58 percent. Coal-burning facilities — which are covered by the new rule — represent the lion’s share of the rest.

The emission trends are positive. So, too, are trends in blood mercury levels. As the same EPA report shows blood mercury levels in women have declined, particularly among those at the 90th and 95th percentiles. From the EPA report: “during the 1999–2000 survey, 10 percent (i.e., 90th percentile value) of surveyed women age 16 to 49 had blood mercury levels of 4.9 µg/L or higher. In the 2007–2008 survey, however, the 90th percentile value had decreased to 2.7 µg/L.” That’s a significant drop for those with among the highest levels in the country.
​

Rather than mercury from power plants being the Alarming Crisis that you say it is that justifies CFLs, in reality it's lower than it ever was historically. And what is the greenie central, the EPA, going to do?

They are going to fine coal power plants in accordance with the level of mercury they produce. And this kooky wacko scheme (like it or not) invalidates your entire argument about CFLs being important to energy efficiency, since that will limit mercury emissions overall...because the EPA is going to directly attack the problem.

....while leaving CFLs, which present a direct danger to the consumer, not taxed or regulated for their dangers.

 

[Bri]

Sure. There is no federal law on seatbelt wearing, they are state laws. Many things are constitutionally allowed to the states, which are questionable at the federal level. Everyone knows this.

You completely missed the point. Let's try again. Look at the following argument:

PREMISE: A vast majority of cheetahs are faster than the average house cat.

PREMISE: A tiny number of cheetahs are slower than the average house cat.

CONCLUSION: Overall, cheetahs are faster than house cats.

Would you consider it "false both on it's premises, and in the logic leading to it's conclusion" that overall cheetahs are faster than house cats? Why or why not?

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

You completely missed the point. Let's try again. ....

It's not impossible that I could have missed a point. Sometimes it is hard to extract signals from noise.

Okay, so state....

• the argument to be made
• the premises
• the logic leading to the conclusion
• the conclusion

But first, a question.

Are you pro-choice?

Wait....this is cool...

Subcategory: "We are not banning incandescent light bulbs. We are just making it so you can't buy them anymore".

Oh, I forgot.

Aren't electric cars bad?

They run from coal power so they put mercury in the air so they should be banned.

 

[mhaze]

There's STILL TIME, folks, to stock up on the good bulbs.

I know you want to.

 

[phelix]

I doubt they would ban all incandescent lights. Energy saving lights make me feel dizzy, and I doubt I'm the only one. There would be some mega complaints if we were forced to be dizzy everywhere.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's STILL TIME, folks, to stock up on the good bulbs.

I know you want to.

And the market's still ripe for buggy whips!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I doubt they would ban all incandescent lights.

They won't. That's primarily what this thread has been discussing.

Energy saving lights make me feel dizzy, and I doubt I'm the only one. There would be some mega complaints if we were forced to be dizzy everywhere.

I doubt all energy saving light bulbs make you dizzy. I'd be willing to bet in a blinded test, you wouldn't be able to tell whether a bulb you couldn't see directly was a CFL, a halogen, or a traditional incandescent. I understand there are good LED bulbs now too, though I've not yet seen them myself.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Subcategory: "We are not banning incandescent light bulbs. We are just making it so you can't buy them anymore".

I've said it before and I'll say it again: when you find yourself inventing fake quotes and putting those words into your opponent's mouth, it's a pretty good sign you're arguing against a straw man.

This debate about whether or not the EISA is a law "banning incandescent light bulbs" hinges on a couple of points.

One is simple ignorance. Some people really did think the new energy efficiency standards will apply to ALL incandescent bulbs or even ALL traditional incandescent bulbs.

Others are claiming that saying this is a law "banning incandescent light bulbs" is the same as saying it is a law "banning some incandescent light bulbs", and that's just not supported by conventions of logic and language. In fact, saying it's a law "banning incandescent light bulbs" is logically and conventionally equivalent to saying it's a law "banning all incandescent light bulbs".

It's clear from your made up quotation that you're still pretending that "banning incandescent lightbulbs" is equivalent to "banning some incandescent light bulbs". At the very least, you should admit that there is an ambiguity.

And this is without even quibbling on what is meant by "ban"--nobody will ever force you to change a lightbulb based on this law. And yes, there are people who mistakenly thought that that's what is meant by "ban".

 

[Bri]

Aren't electric cars bad?

They run from coal power so they put mercury in the air so they should be banned.

Electric cars do indeed put mercury into the air from coal power, essentially transferring emissions from the car to the smoke stack of the power plant. However, most of the studies I've seen have concluded that electric cars are more efficient and result in less emissions than gasoline powered cars.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Electric cars do indeed put mercury into the air from coal power, essentially transferring emissions from the car to the smoke stack of the power plant. However, most of the studies I've seen have concluded that electric cars are more efficient and result in less emissions than gasoline powered cars.

To make that analogy complete, let's imagine there are 2 types of electric cars: one that will put small amounts of mercury into the environment when their batteries go bad and only if they are improperly disposed of but is some ten times more efficient than the other type (which doesn't have mercury in its batteries).

Further, let's add to the hypothetical that the amount of mercury in these batteries has already been reduced by about 1/4, and their energy efficiency continues to improve (while that of the other type of car has reached its best efficiency, and it's terribly inefficient).

If we were already relying solely on electric cars, and these two kinds of cars existed, I would be in favor of establishing energy efficiency standards that would lead to the inefficient car being forced off the market through attrition. I would insist however that the legislation not favor the mercury-battery car by precluding other energy-efficient car technology to be developed. If it complies with the standard, the law should allow it.

 

[Belz...]

However legislation could, in theory, make it so that only one kind of car could ever conform.

 

[Bri]

However legislation could, in theory, make it so that only bicycles could ever conform.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

However legislation could, in theory, make it so that only one kind of car could ever conform.

And legislation could also make it so only one type of light bulb could ever comply, but the legislation in question doesn't do that.

ETA: That's exactly why I said, "I would insist however that the legislation not favor the mercury-battery car by precluding other energy-efficient car technology to be developed."

 

[mhaze]

....I doubt all energy saving light bulbs make you dizzy. I'd be willing to bet in a blinded test, you wouldn't be able to tell whether a bulb you couldn't see directly was a CFL, a halogen, or a traditional incandescent. I understand there are good LED bulbs now too, though I've not yet seen them myself.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed inappropriate content.

You actually think you know more about someone than they do about their own perceptions (leaving aside scientific research in this area and practical, real world considerations)...

Wow.....

 

[mhaze]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:....."banning..... "banning....banning....."banning....banning...."banning ...."banning...."ban... "ban".

Wow, you use the word "ban" and "banning" a lot!

Most people would read that kind of thing and come away thinking, "Yeah, that Joe, he's the one for banning all those light bulbs"...

Then you could argue against that and use the word "ban" another dozen times.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Do not misleadingly edit other members' posts.

 

[mhaze]

I doubt they would ban all incandescent lights. Energy saving lights make me feel dizzy, and I doubt I'm the only one. There would be some mega complaints if we were forced to be dizzy everywhere.

Yep, you can see from this thread the attitude of those who would force you to use some type of bulb or another.

Better stock up on the ones you, yourself, like!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You actually think you know more about someone than they do about their own perceptions (leaving aside scientific research in this area and practical, real world considerations)...

Yes. I think I know people who claim "Head-on" really works are wrong. I think I know people who claim to be sensitive to EMF in the environment are wrong.

I also know a vegan who claims to be so sensitive to lactose that exposure to one single molecule causes her a severe reaction, and I think I know she is wrong.

I am willing to bet that phelix would not be able to distinguish among the various types of light bulbs if exposed to them in such a way that the bulb type wasn't apparent. I suggest that phelix's statement was the result of confirmation bias (failure to look for the evidence that would be required to substantiate the claim). The statement might even have been based on phelix having experienced dizziness while being exposed to maybe an earlier generation of CFL (that had a discernible flicker, perhaps).

But I doubt very much phelix gets dizzy whenever exposed to fluorescent (or other energy-efficient) lights, since they have been the rule rather than the exception in stores, offices, and so on for a long time.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yep, you can see from this thread the attitude of those who would force you to use some type of bulb or another.

That's a lie, since no one in this thread or anywhere else is trying to "force" anyone to use any particular type of bulb.

You are continuing to mischaracterize the position you are attempting to refute. This is a classic strawman argument.

Even though the law doesn't force anyone to use any particular type of light bulb, if you mischaracterize it that way, your mischaracterization seems to support your claim that the law is authoritarian.

Please read up on this, because you are wont to commit it: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html