Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Babbylonian]

Understanding YOUR position on matters that you will not explain is not MY homework. I'm asking you to explain whether your OWN stated justifications for the ban on light bulbs can be extended to far more restrictive prohibitions and controls, and if not, why not. This question is apparently of no interest to you. Is it that you don't want to explain yourself, that you don't have an answer, or that you haven't even thought about it?

You want me to explain a slippery slope fallacy that I haven't previously endorsed? You're right, I haven't thought about it.

 

[Babbylonian]

That does not take into account the heavy lobbying by the light bulb industry on the CFL issue. They knew that would mean big money for them. GE was heavily involved, with their 20M lobbying budget.

So I think it isn't factually correct to say the light bulb industry was extremely resistant to change in this case. Quite the reverse.

Good for GE then. If that's the case, then I'm with them on this one and concede that particular point.

 

[lionking]

I recall hearing many of these arguments about the "draconian, expensive and unfair" changes to car exhaust systems to make them less polluting.

 

[lionking]

I can just see all of these householders trekking to the recycling centre with burned out CFCs in hand and resisting the temptation to just drop it in the rubbish bin.

I know this is a while ago, but don't you have household recycling bins in the US, collected by local government? We have three, one for normal garbage, one for green waste and one for glass, plastic and metal recycling.

 

[dtugg]

I know this is a while ago, but don't you have household recycling bins in the US, collected by local government? We have three, one for normal garbage, one for green waste and one for glass, plastic and metal recycling.

Depends entirely on the city. In the City and County of Honolulu we have pretty much the same thing as you, although I doubt that very many people put lightbulbs in the blue bin (is that even something you should do; it is not like lightbulbs are the same as a bottle or something). In the last city I lived in in Arizona, there was only one bin. If you wanted to recycle you had to take the stuff to a center yourself.

 

[Disco]

I know this is a while ago, but don't you have household recycling bins in the US, collected by local government? We have three, one for normal garbage, one for green waste and one for glass, plastic and metal recycling.

I live in a rural part of California, so we don't even have trash pick-up. We have to haul all garbage to the area dump. the company that runs it claims they go through the refuse for recycling. I can't vouch for that.

 

[DC]

I live in a rural part of California, so we don't even have trash pick-up. We have to haul all garbage to the area dump. the company that runs it claims they go through the refuse for recycling. I can't vouch for that.

they surely pick out certain things as it really pays off.

 

[Disco]

they surely pick out certain things as it really pays off.

Prolly.

 

[dtugg]

Hell I see people going around and picking bottles and cans out of the trash in parks, ect for (I think) 5 cents each. I can't be bothered to save cans and bottles for 5 cents each but if some homeless person wants to go collect them, good for him.

 

[psionl0]

I recall hearing many of these arguments about the "draconian, expensive and unfair" changes to car exhaust systems to make them less polluting.

And the result of these "Governments do it better" style emission laws? Manufacturers added miles of extra tubing to motor vehicle engines that achieved reduced emissions but also made vehicles more sluggish and less fuel efficient. Many car owners actually removed the pollution reduction measures so they could reduce their fuel bill.

Electronic fuel management systems were only a few years away. Left to its own devices, the market would have produced less polluting vehicles as electronics improved the efficiency of motor vehicles anyway.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

A wide class of incandescents are banned under the law. How is that not a ban on incandescents? Yes, it's not a ban on all incandescents, and it would be wrong to suggest otherwise, but it's also wrong to suggest that there aren't any incandescents which are banned.



If you outlaw people from owning four-legged mammals over 20 pounds, that's a ban on dogs.

Only assuming that there are no dogs under 20 pounds.

Again, the law doesn't ban incandescents. It establishes energy efficiency requirements. I've already pointed out several times that there are indeed already compliant incandescent bulbs on the market. And even if there weren't yet, the law would not ban any future incandescent bulbs that satisfy the energy efficiency requirements. That's how it's not a ban on incandescents.

It's not that complicated.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's nothing but a lie, because they are not on the store shelves as a result of the law we discuss. You may be referring to some technical language in the law, and what it "allows", but that is total bs. As a result of the bill, the 90 and 150 watt incandescent floodlight are not on the store shelves today. Only the 65 watt.

The law says outdoor lightbulbs (which includes floodlights) are exempt. So are reflector lightbulbs. I can quote you that language and yes, it is sufficient to make the case that the law doesn't ban those bulbs either. And therefore the law isn't the reason why you can't find them on the shelves. (Last time I looked, there was a broad selection of traditional incandescent floodlights.)

I'm not sure what part of this is hard for you to understand.

Quit trying to be patronizing. You're the one who obviously hasn't done his homework. I've got you claiming the Halogena isn't incandescent, when it is. You claim it's not dimmable, when it is.

I am talking about going in the store, finding something isn't there anymore, and having to order them off ebay and stock them. Why is it not in the store? Because of the law and the regulations of the law.

If you're still talking about floodlights, that's simply not true.

And no, halogens will not work for these applications. Halogens have been around for many years, and I think we all understand the merits and limitations of them.

You obviously don't, since you claim they're not incandescent bulbs using tungsten filaments.

That does not take into account the heavy lobbying by the light bulb industry on the CFL issue. They knew that would mean big money for them. GE was heavily involved, with their 20M lobbying budget.

Reasonable minds can disagree on whether or not this law was the best way to handle the problem. However, nothing you say here changes the fact that the law is not a ban on incandescent bulbs.

The halogen incandescent bulbs that comply with the new energy efficiency regulations have been on the market for roughly one year now. (Funny to hear you first claiming they're not on the market--to support your claim that the law bans incandescents, and now claiming they've been there for years. Or are you still denying that halogen bulbs have filaments?)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And the result of these "Governments do it better" style emission laws? Manufacturers added miles of extra tubing to motor vehicle engines that achieved reduced emissions but also made vehicles more sluggish and less fuel efficient. Many car owners actually removed the pollution reduction measures so they could reduce their fuel bill.

About all you're saying here is that emission controls and gas mileage are in a trade-off relationship (in regular, non-hybrid, gasoline powered cars). Government regulations, however, have required improving both.

 

[psionl0]

About all you're saying here is that emission controls and gas mileage are in a trade-off relationship (in regular, non-hybrid, gasoline powered cars). Government regulations, however, have required improving both.

On the contrary - efficiency and reduced emission go hand in hand. However it takes more technology than existed in the 70's to make this happen. All the government did was force manufacturers to jump the gun with less than optimal results. The same thing is happening with CFCs.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

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.

So called "rough duty" light bulbs sold in the US for, say, auto repair trouble lights, are actually 220v lights underdriven by 110/120v.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

All the government did was force manufacturers to jump the gun with less than optimal results. The same thing is happening with CFCs.

You are entitled to assert your opinion, but I have yet to see anyone offer anything to support that view besides false claims and misinformation.

 

[lionking]

On the contrary - efficiency and reduced emission go hand in hand. However it takes more technology than existed in the 70's to make this happen. All the government did was force manufacturers to jump the gun with less than optimal results. The same thing is happening with CFCs.

And how many lives were saved by the government "jumping the gun"? I remember the 70s very well, where visiting a large city was a health hazard. People were dying because of car generated pollution.

 

[psionl0]

And how many lives were saved by the government "jumping the gun"? I remember the 70s very well, where visiting a large city was a health hazard. People were dying because of car generated pollution.

I can't imagine the 70's style design rules helping very much. In order to reduce fuel emissions, the cars needed to be tuned perfectly - something that not many owners were willing to go through the expense for - especially if the car was running "all right".

If there was any reduction in vehicle emissions, the government reversed that by cutting down on public transport and building more roads and traffic lights.

 

[Bilbo]

Hell I see people going around and picking bottles and cans out of the trash in parks, ect for (I think) 5 cents each. I can't be bothered to save cans and bottles for 5 cents each but if some homeless person wants to go collect them, good for him.

You sound classist...you need to move to a nicer neighborhood where they don't allow the peasants to take your returnables and cash them in.

I almost detest the poor life you must living.

Move out of the ghetto and live within your class. You will enjoy yourself moar.

 

[JoelKatz]

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.

Unfortunately, that's not how our system works. In our system, the Supreme Court gives great deference to Congress' assumed determination that a law is Constitutional or it wouldn't have passed it, and Congress assumes that if it's unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will overturn it and so doesn't really consider the Constitutionality of the bills it passes. It is nobody's job to actually make the call.

http://xrlq.com/2010/04/05/double-deference/