Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[DC]

Out of the closet comes the green eco-fascist mentality!

Thank you.

huh? was you not the guy from the other thread that complained about people using labels to discredit others?

must be another mhaze, you seem to love labels.

 

[Ziggurat]

because it is a technology that is very inneficient, and there are alternatives that are far more efficient. and it is time to remove this old technology where it is possible, that that has been done and will be done.

In other words, because you want it, because you don't care if someone else wants something else, and because you don't trust your fellow citizens to be able to make up their own minds but feel confident in making their decisions for them.

It's authoritarianism lite^TM.

 

[therival58]

There are several properties of incandescent lamps that are superior, in some instances, to the other options, as Mhaze mentioned. Dimming is a major one in my view; also the color temperature.

It's one thing to try to promote energy efficiency, and I'm actually a big fan of that, but to do it by excluding other options is not the way to go.

this I can agree with

 

[Ray Brady]

You tell me how I'm supposed to power my Easy-Bake Oven with a CFL bulb! Am I expected to bake my tiny little cakes in an OVEN? Like a CHUMP?

On a less crucial note, I was in Disney World a few weeks ago, and was marveling at how many incandescent bulbs hey have incorporated into their set design. One ride with an old-style movie marquee had hundreds of bulbs in a single sign at the beginning of the ride. I had to wonder how many bulbs they go through in all their parks in a year, and how they go about getting them.

 

[Ziggurat]

I had to wonder how many bulbs they go through in all their parks in a year, and how they go about getting them.

The rate of wear on an incandescent bulb isn't close to linear with its power output. In other words, if you run, say, a 100 Watt bulb at 90 Watt output, it will last a LOT longer. So it's rather easy to design incandescents with very long lifetimes by running at lower temperatures. It's not worth doing that for consumer interior lighting, since that means running with less efficient light output and a more yellow spectrum, but for such marquee signs, it might be.

 

[Babbylonian]

In other words, because you want it, because you don't care if someone else wants something else, and because you don't trust your fellow citizens to be able to make up their own minds but feel confident in making their decisions for them.

It's authoritarianism lite^TM.

Not really. It's a law voted on by representatives of the citizens and signed into law by their elected executive. If it's really an infringement of civil liberties, I'm sure a case will reach the Supreme Court and they can make the final call.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not really. It's a law voted on by representatives of the citizens and signed into law by their elected executive. If it's really an infringement of civil liberties, I'm sure a case will reach the Supreme Court and they can make the final call.

So your position is that there cannot be any problem if it's constitutional? Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

[Babbylonian]

So your position is that there cannot be any problem if it's constitutional? Sorry, I don't buy it.

There can be problems and we can obviously disagree with existing laws (for example, I think I should have a combination liquor/marijuana store in my neighborhood), but calling "authoritarianism" on a relatively innocuous law (it's no Patriot Act and it's full of exemptions) that is an attempt to address what is generally agreed to be a significant problem/issue is way out there.

A Congress was elected and voted to pass the law, a President was elected and decided to sign the law. I don't see any "authoritarianism" in there, "lite" or not.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

1) There are spectra of infrigments
2) Not everyone buys into the concept of negative rights.
3) And generally speaking, civil liberties are dictated by what the government allows. The word is often used in wide variety of terms.

 

[Ziggurat]

A Congress was elected and voted to pass the law, a President was elected and decided to sign the law. I don't see any "authoritarianism" in there, "lite" or not.

So a majority axiomatically cannot be authoritarian? That doesn't make sense either.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why do we need to ban incandescents but don't need to dictate usage? You can offer no coherent explanation of your position.

Again, there is no ban on incandescent light bulbs. There is only going to be a gradual phasing in of energy efficiency requirements beginning January of 2012.

The law has already kick-started more R & D on energy efficient incandescents such that compliant bulbs are already on the market. I expect their efficiency will improve even more, for those who consider the few negatives of CFL bulbs to be an intolerable inconvenience.

ETA: FWIW, incandescent bulbs that will comply with the requirements have been on the market for about a year already.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So a majority axiomatically cannot be authoritarian? That doesn't make sense either.

It seems you've shifted the burden of this "authoritarian" claim off your own shoulders. You made the claim. What's your evidence?

Also, where do you draw the line between reasonable regulation and "authoritarianism"? [ETA: Do you find CAFE standards for car efficiency to be "authoritarianism"?]


And finally, how much of your "authoritarianism" claim relies on the false premise that the EISA comprises a ban on incandescent light bulbs?

 

[Babbylonian]

So a majority axiomatically cannot be authoritarian? That doesn't make sense either.

Just a sec...

It seems you've shifted the burden of this "authoritarian" claim off your own shoulders. You made the claim. What's your evidence?

Exactly.

Also, where do you draw the line between reasonable regulation and "authoritarianism"?

Excellent question.

I took a few minutes to look up definitions of the word "authoritarianism" and none of them apply to laws passed by elected representatives, approved by elected executives, and subject to review by an independent judiciary.

At best, Ziggurat, your use of the word is incorrect; at worst, it's ridiculous hyperbole intended to make a mountain out of the proverbial molehill.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

At best, Ziggurat, your use of the word is incorrect; at worst, it's ridiculous hyperbole intended to make a mountain out of the proverbial molehill.

I've heard worse in another discussion I've been having on this very topic (on my local rehabber's list). There, the "ban on incandescents" (which doesn't exist) has been called a "nazi-style total ban" and my pointing out that the specifics of the law and debunking factual misconceptions about it has been called a "1984-like" defense of the law. Those were both from the same person, who used "nazi-style" several times. Others have referred to it as a "total ban" or a "complete ban" on incandescent lights, which of course is false as a matter of fact and probably is the misconception that leads to all this "authoritarianism" talk.

 

[Disco]

PolitiFact has rated the 'ban on incandescents' claim as 'Pants on Fire':

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...vative-pac-claims-democrats-banned-incandesc/

So, I guess the burden is on those who claim there's a ban to show this banning language in the legislation?

 

[DC]

In other words, because you want it, because you don't care if someone else wants something else, and because you don't trust your fellow citizens to be able to make up their own minds but feel confident in making their decisions for them.

It's authoritarianism lite^TM.

no we need it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

PolitiFact has rated the 'ban on incandescents' claim as 'Pants on Fire':

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...vative-pac-claims-democrats-banned-incandesc/

So, I guess the burden is on those who claim there's a ban to show this banning language in the legislation?

Amen!

It's what I've been saying throughout this entire thread, but few people seem to pay any attention to pesky things like facts.

 

[mhaze]

I've heard worse in another discussion I've been having on this very topic (on my local rehabber's list). There, the "ban on incandescents" (which doesn't exist) has been called a "nazi-style total ban" and my pointing out that the specifics of the law and debunking factual misconceptions about it has been called a "1984-like" defense of the law. Those were both from the same person, who used "nazi-style" several times. Others have referred to it as a "total ban" or a "complete ban" on incandescent lights, which of course is false as a matter of fact and probably is the misconception that leads to all this "authoritarianism" talk.

Joe. The reason your double talk, obfuscation and denial don't work is because I earlier in this thread, mentioned stockpiling 90 and 150 watt incadescent bulbs for applications which needed them. Why did I do that if they were not banned? They disappeared from store shelves due to government regulation.

There's something of a disconnect with reality between these simple facts, and what you are saying.

Meanwhile, I've got my stockpile of bulbs. And you've got words.

 

[johnny karate]

Just to drive the point home, from the Politifact link:

It's true that the current versions of incandescent light bulbs will be phased out of existence. Compact fluorescent and LED bulbs offer more efficient alternatives, but if incandescent light is your thing, the major light bulb makers have you covered. They have developed and shipped halogen incandescent bulbs that meet the new efficiency standards, so there is no basis in fact to claim they have been banned in favor of fluorescent bulbs.

 

[leftysergeant]

In other words, because you want it, because you don't care if someone else wants something else, and because you don't trust your fellow citizens to be able to make up their own minds but feel confident in making their decisions for them.

When they can create their own electricity off the grid, witrhout releasing additional soot, mercury and sulphur into the environment, they are welcome to use whatever kind of power-hungry light bulbs they want. I have a greater right to have pink salmon running up the rivers than some doofus in Utah has to have a tungsten filament light bulb over his desk.