Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[excaza]

I resent being told I'm not an adult who can make my own responsible choices. Maybe you feel like it's fine for the state to treat you like a child, but I don't.

Why are light bulbs any different from anything else mandated or regulated by the government? I also think you're overestimating the ability of people to act responsibly.

 

[BenBurch]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002ZBJ25G/ref=oh_o01_s00_i00_details

LED light, 50 w equivalent, 20,000 hour life, $11. Quite a good price.

 

[Francesca R]

So yes, the subject here really is bossy, often quite ignorant, politically correct liberals who happen to be trying to tell other people what to do and not do.

You ain't allowed to give that descriptor to something illiberal (like regulating against lights) outside the US politics forum.

 

[mhaze]

You ain't allowed to give that descriptor to something illiberal (like regulating against lights) outside the US politics forum.

Well here I is doing just that. Guess I must be a narrow minded CFL bulb hater. Only in the USA, are such people tolerated. The wide world is wise, with their fine governments staffed by people with degrees in Nanny State Controller ship and Authoritarian Smiley Face Motivational Policies.

All Hail the CFL!

And thus with the CFL will the oceans of the earth begin to recceed, and the planet shall heal itself.



I suggest considering an alternative view, Francesca.

But hey... Whatever.

 

[Francesca R]

Nah, it's just that in the USA you refer to folk who want to curtail liberty as liberal. I am hoping such silliness will stay there.

 

[Ziggurat]

We already have efficiency, safety, and pollution standards for a lot of other products.

-Bri

First off, leave safety out of this. This has nothing to do with safety. Incandescents are safer than many of the replacements being pushed here. And incandescent light bulbs don't pollute. Electricity generation does, but you're not regulating how much energy I can use.

Furthermore, are you assuming that I'm perfectly content with all the other existing regulations? Or do you think that as long as there's precedent, something can't be bad? Because otherwise, I really don't see what your point is here.

 

[mhaze]

Nah, it's just that in the USA you refer to folk who want to curtail liberty as liberal. I am hoping such silliness will stay there.

Well, I have to agree with you that that is quite odd. It's the current situation, but it didn't used to be that way. Liberals here (several decades back) had a bit of big government proclivity, but were seriously concerned with individual rights.

Things have changed.

 

[mhaze]

Why are light bulbs any different from anything else mandated or regulated by the government? I also think you're overestimating the ability of people to act responsibly.

Why are lightbulbs any different than any other inefficient, clumsy and inane intrusion of government into private life or business?

I also think you're overestimating the ability of people in the government to act responsibly.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Did you catch how the industry invested millions in the new equipment in expectation of having the law enforced?

So that constituency is going to push for enforcement regardless of this present ban on enforcement. The law has been established. So it is a matter of time. If the market prefers incandescent, they will need enforcement to stop people from buying incandescent.

You need to get tough on this kind of crime. Mandatory minimums for incandescent use. Three times you're out - life sentence. Execution if it is incandescent use in a bathroom with a toilet that uses more than a gallon of water per flush.

 

[Multivac]

You know, when I had some of those CFLs in my home, I kept wooden sticks and buckets of tar closeby, so that I could lite up a torch going into those areas, and actually have some light to see by, while at the same time being environmentally friendly. But now the CFLs are all gone, thrown in the (regular) trash.

All of the lights in my home are CFLs, yet I have never needed to light torches to provide light. They last as long as incandescent bulbs but use less power and only take 2 or 3 seconds to reach full brightness.

 

[Bri]

First off, leave safety out of this.

Why? My point is that the government sets all sorts of standards for all sorts of products, thus limiting our choices for the common good.

And incandescent light bulbs don't pollute. Electricity generation does, but you're not regulating how much energy I can use.

The government doesn't regulate how often you drive your car either (and therefore doesn't regulate the total amount of pollution you put into the air or how much fuel you burn) but it does regulate how much emissions your car puts out and how fuel-efficient your car is.

If you use an LED bulb (or even a CFL), it results in less pollution than an equivalent incandescent.

Furthermore, are you assuming that I'm perfectly content with all the other existing regulations? Or do you think that as long as there's precedent, something can't be bad? Because otherwise, I really don't see what your point is here.

No, I have no idea how content you are with other standards. My point is that the light bulb standards are no different than other standards imposed by the government. Personally, I'm happy that the government ensures that various products meet minimum standards because I'm not qualified to test every product I buy.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Well, I have to agree with you that that is quite odd. It's the current situation, but it didn't used to be that way. Liberals here (several decades back) had a bit of big government proclivity, but were seriously concerned with individual rights.

Things have changed.

What do the light bulb standards have to do with liberals? The legislation was passed with bipartisan support, and was signed into law by President Bush.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

What do the light bulb standards have to do with liberals? The legislation was passed with bipartisan support, and was signed into law by President Bush.

-Bri

You are referring to a large bill with hundreds of provisions, some supported by liberals, some by conservatives. That conservatives voted for the package doesn't support your premise.

The whackjob crazy light bulb scheme is an Al Gore scheme.

All Al Gore schemes are crazy liberal scam-style-schemes. Hence the light bulb ban was a liberal scheme.

What part of that is hard to understand?

 

[Piggy]

I don't know where everyone else is buying their bulbs, but all my (relatively) high-wattage CFLs come on instantly, don't flicker, and are indistinguishable from incandescents.

That didn't used to be the case a few years ago, but the current ones are fine.

I have some low-wattage candle-style CFLs that I use in the ceiling fan in the bedroom and they take a few minutes to warm up, but I like that b/c it's kinder on the eyes in the morning.

 

[excaza]

I don't know where everyone else is buying their bulbs, but all my (relatively) high-wattage CFLs come on instantly, don't flicker, and are indistinguishable from incandescents.

Propaganda R'Us

 

[Furcifer]

If you use an LED bulb (or even a CFL), it results in less pollution than an equivalent incandescent.

Not really, no. Mercury is a poison and a pollutant, CO2 not so much. But let's entertain this CO2 as a pollutant claim for now. Where I live only June, July and August have cooling degree days, the entire rest of the year are heating degree days. Basically 9 months out of the year there is no heat wasted from using incandescents. Furthermore, 63.2% of the electricity comes from nuclear, renewables and hydroelectric, which don't contribute to CO2 emissions like coal.

So, does it really result in less pollution? I mean really? Or has it just been shipped over shore and come back as a small amount of mercury?

 

[Belz...]

Indeed, I see that you are trembling at the fearsome option of making your own choices.

I've been wanting the world to switch to the much more eye-friendly fluorescent tubes for decades, but we don't always get what we want.

 

[excaza]

Where I live only June, July and August have cooling degree days, the entire rest of the year are heating degree days. Basically 9 months out of the year there is no heat wasted from using incandescents. Furthermore, 63.2% of the electricity comes from nuclear, renewables and hydroelectric, which don't contribute to CO2 emissions like coal.

Good for you.

 

[Bri]

Not really, no. Mercury is a poison and a pollutant, CO2 not so much. But let's entertain this CO2 as a pollutant claim for now.

Any power plant that produces pollution will produce more pollution per incandescent bulb than per an equivalent LED or CFL bulb (which use far less electricity).

The amount of mercury released from burning coal to produce the extra electricity used by an incandescent bulb exceeds the tiny amount of mercury in a CFL bulb. LED's don't have any mercury.

If you got 100% of your electricity from a source that produces zero pollution, you'd be the exception rather than the rule. Of course, you said that some of your electricity comes from nuclear power, which produces nuclear waste.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

You are referring to a large bill with hundreds of provisions, some supported by liberals, some by conservatives. That conservatives voted for the package doesn't support your premise.

My premise is that Republicans voted for the legislation and Bush signed it into law. You'll have to explain how the complexity of the bill changes that fact.

The whackjob crazy light bulb scheme is an Al Gore scheme.

All Al Gore schemes are crazy liberal scam-style-schemes. Hence the light bulb ban was a liberal scheme.

Are you living in some sort of alternate reality where Al Gore was president and not George Bush when the bill was signed into law?

What part of that is hard to understand?

All of that is hard to understand since it bears no resemblance to reality. Maybe it makes perfect sense in mhaze-world.

-Bri