Ed Are light bulb efficiency laws really a rights issue?

[Molinaro]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/11/news/economy/light_bulb_ban/index.htm?iid=HP_River


Looking at the comments makes it seem as if a fair number people consider this an example of the government unnecessarily taking away their rights. I don't get it. It's not as if the need to save energy in the US, and consequently save money is an unknown concept. So why on earth would so many decide to fight against this on the basis of rights infringement?

Some of the comments also make claims that incandescents and compact leds cause headaches, dizziness, nausea and are sources of "DARK light", whatever that is supposed to mean.


*feel free to move this to USA Politics if that's where it belongs, seems like a social issue to me*

 

[Checkmite]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/11/news/economy/light_bulb_ban/index.htm?iid=HP_River


Looking at the comments makes it seem as if a fair number people consider this an example of the government unnecessarily taking away their rights. I don't get it. It's not as if the need to save energy in the US, and consequently save money is an unknown concept. So why on earth would so many decide to fight against this on the basis of rights infringement?

I don't get it, either. The government forbids the manufacture and sale of countless items for numerous reasons; there's no Constitutionally-protected right to expect a certain type of light bulb to be available for sale.

 

[TheNooch]

It's "are". Are light bulb efficiency laws...yada, yada, ...






I wrote this post by candle light

 

[theprestige]

Every act of government is an infringement upon somebody's rights.

Every act of government should be carefully considered in that context, and tolerated only when the good of such infringement can be demonstrated to outweigh the harm.

All laws are really rights issues. It's actually kind of depressing--and disgusting--that some people don't--or won't--understand this.

 

[tesscaline]

Are these same people throwing a hissy fit about automobile efficiency laws? Or emissions laws? Aren't they mad that they can't buy a new car that pollutes the atmosphere for everyone if they want to?

/confused

 

[Molinaro]

It's "are". Are light bulb efficiency laws...yada, yada, ...






I wrote this post by candle light

I can explain that! I first typed out "Is the light bulb efficiency law...", then only partly changed it when I added an 's' to law.

 

[Molinaro]

Every act of government is an infringement upon somebody's rights.

Nonsense. Many acts of government involve the creation of rights. To pretend otherwise is entirely dishonest.

 

[fuelair]

Are these same people throwing a hissy fit about automobile efficiency laws? Or emissions laws? Aren't they mad that they can't buy a new car that pollutes the atmosphere for everyone if they want to?

/confused

Actually, I suspect the efficiency problem rotates around this: Fluorescent bulbs (not the straight line lamps of good ol' shop/office lighting) tend to go out at pretty much the same level/time frame as the Incand.s which cost 1/4 or so the cost of the F's. I have gone back to Incands due to that problem recently. And, I have picked up a small stock to hold me awhile.

 

[TheNooch]

I can explain that! I first typed out "Is the light bulb efficiency law...", then only partly changed it when I added an 's' to law.

Sure, I can see that.

 

[Ray Brady]

Are these same people throwing a hissy fit about automobile efficiency laws? Or emissions laws? Aren't they mad that they can't buy a new car that pollutes the atmosphere for everyone if they want to?

/confused

None of this is relevant to the question at hand. The fact that someone isn't protesting other infringements of their rights doesn't mean that this particular law isn't an infringement.

And obviously it is indeed an infringement. It limits people's rights to make decisions for themselves. The only question is whether it's a necessary infringement or not.

 

[Molinaro]

Just to be clear this law does not ban incandescent lights. It sets efficiency standards. If someone can make them meet the standard, then they can still sell them.

 

[Ray Brady]

Sure, but if I want an inefficient bulb, I can't have it. I know several people who use incandescent bulbs as makeshift space-heaters in places like doghouses. No energy-efficient bulb would generate enough heat to serve this purpose, so they essentially can't have them.

 

[tesscaline]

Actually, I suspect the efficiency problem rotates around this: Fluorescent bulbs (not the straight line lamps of good ol' shop/office lighting) tend to go out at pretty much the same level/time frame as the Incand.s which cost 1/4 or so the cost of the F's. I have gone back to Incands due to that problem recently. And, I have picked up a small stock to hold me awhile.

I haven't had that problem with fluorescents. Mine are actually rated to last about 6 times as long as a regular light bulb. What are you buying?

 

[Molinaro]

I haven't had that problem with fluorescents. Mine are actually rated to last about 6 times as long as a regular light bulb. What are you buying?

Same here, they've been last far longer than any incandescent.

 

[tesscaline]

None of this is relevant to the question at hand. The fact that someone isn't protesting other infringements of their rights doesn't mean that this particular law isn't an infringement.

And obviously it is indeed an infringement. It limits people's rights to make decisions for themselves. The only question is whether it's a necessary infringement or not.

The problem here is that this infringement is the SAME infringement as the others I've listed. Why aren't we hearing complaints from these same people that their "right to buy whatever they want, no matter how inefficient" is being infringed on THOSE things?

Sure, but if I want an inefficient bulb, I can't have it. I know several people who use incandescent bulbs as makeshift space-heaters in places like doghouses. No energy-efficient bulb would generate enough heat to serve this purpose, so they essentially can't have them.

Do you have a link to the bill in question? The wording of it may allow for special exceptions to specific types of devices like heat-lamps (which are not just normal light bulbs, after all).

 

[Giraffe107]

Actually, I suspect the efficiency problem rotates around this: Fluorescent bulbs (not the straight line lamps of good ol' shop/office lighting) tend to go out at pretty much the same level/time frame as the Incand.s which cost 1/4 or so the cost of the F's. I have gone back to Incands due to that problem recently. And, I have picked up a small stock to hold me awhile.

that is really unlucky! I haven't had that problem at all.
Recently we did some quick sums, even if the CFL did fail in the same time as an incandescent, it saves you $100 (ie, the incadescent cost $100 more to run over the same period). Fair enough if you want to pay that but it seems somewhat strange to want to pay more for the same amount of light. [Disclaimer- figures used were local $/kWh and may not apply to your town/state/country]

 

[Bikewer]

Morning Edition was talking about this issue this morning. They pointed out, as have others on the thread, that many other devices are regulated as to efficiency; cars, appliances, etc.
As well, incandescent bulbs which meet the new standards are either available now or will be shortly for applications where they work better.

According to the segment, the "opposition" seems concerned with government regulation in general; just one more intrusion.... Primarily libertarian or Tea Party types.

I've switched over nearly all my bulbs to florescent; even the big security spotlights I have outside. My experience has been positive; they usually last far longer than any incandescent and give off much less heat as well.

 

[leftysergeant]

And obviously it is indeed an infringement. It limits people's rights to make decisions for themselves. The only question is whether it's a necessary infringement or not.

Of course it is neccessary. There is an upward limit on how much more electricity can be generated without causing harm to the envirionment.

 

[Slimething]

Nonsense. Many acts of government involve the creation of rights. To pretend otherwise is entirely dishonest.

Dunno. It's an ill wind and all that. Can you name one instance where a right has been created that did not go against someone else's interests?

Generally, there is no right in the USC to enable individuals to make any choice they want, even extended to the type of light bulbs they want to use. What we are talking about here is an erosion of liberty, not rights. Rights are legally protected but liberties not so much.

If you want to retain incandecents, write your rep. They don't have to pass a law to make them illegal. If the alterantives are as beneficial as advertized, the incandecents will gradually disappear from the marketplace. My opinion is that the more choice we have the better of we all are, as long as any given option would be harmful to the easily duped.

 

[Furcifer]

Morning Edition was talking about this issue this morning. They pointed out, as have others on the thread, that many other devices are regulated as to efficiency; cars, appliances, etc.
As well, incandescent bulbs which meet the new standards are either available now or will be shortly for applications where they work better.

According to the segment, the "opposition" seems concerned with government regulation in general; just one more intrusion.... Primarily libertarian or Tea Party types.

I've switched over nearly all my bulbs to florescent; even the big security spotlights I have outside. My experience has been positive; they usually last far longer than any incandescent and give off much less heat as well.

I can see the slippery slope argument though. It really is a case of the government trying to micromanage what people can and can't do. There's been no actual empirical evidence the ban has had any net effect on energy consumption. Reading the discussion on this board and talking to people, there are very few people that switched to CFL's that wouldn't have there been no ban. People who want to save money switched and the people who vehemently objected to using CFL's haven't.
It really is a pointless exercise in authority. I can see why some people are questioning the government's motivation in forcing the change.