Incandescent Light Bulbs to Start Being Phased Out in 2012

[Evo]

Protecting the general public from what though? We can build more power plants for the electrical grid. There's a fine line here. I don't see how my using incandescent light bulbs puts your life at risk.

It's supposedly what Americans want, "going green", right?

If every household in the U.S. replaced ONE light bulb with a GE Energy Smart bulb, we would save...
A combined national total of $600 million a year in energy costs.
Enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars.

http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/products/energy_smart.htm#why

 

[Barwick]

The problem is that your actions affect my life. Who protects me from everyone else's bad choices? We should do the same thing to incandescent bulbs that we do for cigarettes - tax them according to their cost to society. This is how we can maintain liberty while still protecting the general public.

Everything affects everything else in some manner. But to say that my choice of light bulbs affects you in any measurable way is an utter absurdity.

Frankly, that is just silly. Sure, we need to allow market corrections, but not when we're facing the greatest crisis since the depression. We simply couldn't afford to take the hit that the collapse of the auto industry would have generated.

The crisis we're in right now was CAUSED by those government policies, not the free market. It was from what's called "Crony Capitalism". When one group goes to government and pushes to get laws passed that benefit their industry, or company.

Government passed laws that encouraged banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford them, and promised that they would buy those mortgages through FNMA. All of a sudden, everyone and their grandmother (literally) were buying houses, so the inflation-adjusted price for a house (a value which for over a century was nearly Kansas-flat) all of a sudden went through the roof. Houses were overpriced, and it had to stop sometime. In 2003, someone said we need to stop this type of lending now, but some other group of people said "you just hate the poor". So nothing was done about it.

Now, all of a sudden someone pulls back the curtain and sees what all these crappy mortgages really are, and all of a sudden, NOBODY buys the government-backed securities from FNMA. Here's where the trouble starts.

Banks can only lend based on how much assets they have on hand. They have a TON of government-backed securities, which are one of the safest form of investments. All of a sudden though, those government-backed securities are worth a fraction of what they once were.

This normally wouldn't be a problem, except for another brilliant Government fix, the Sarbanes-Oxley act, which says you can only claim the "market value" of an asset. Well since nobody bought those Government-backed securities at the market this week, guess what they're worth "at the market"? ZERO. So now guess who has virtually "zero" assets on hand? Banks. So guess who can't loan *any* money anymore for any purpose whatsoever?

Then on top of that, as this gets worse, and people stop buying houses (because nobody has the cash to buy a house, and very few can get loans except from a few select small local banks and credit unions), the value of houses goes through the floor. NOW guess what? Those mortgage backed securities REALLY aren't worth what they're supposed to be worth anymore, and the problem went from "this could be bad" to "oh **** (a slang word for biological waste)"

Now, if you want to look directly at the auto industry, there's some cute little group of laws (again, Government) called "anti-scab laws". Basically what they say is, if a shop is a union shop, and they go on strike for any reason, it is ILLEGAL for the owner of that company to hire workers in their place while those workers are on strike. Doesn't matter if they're getting paid $35 an hour (like they did in the auto industry) plus a benefit package that would make a Senator blush... even if there's a line of 25,000 people outside the door saying "I'll take that job for $6 an hour", the owner of that company can NOT hire those people. It is ILLEGAL.

And so, the unions know it, and the management knows it. The management just wants to get back to making parts so they don't lose their job, so they give in, knowing the deal is unsustainable. The union bosses want to make more money, and they want to keep their members, so they push hard to get them these raises and benefits, knowing it's unsustainable.

But who cares, they all know the government won't let such big companies fail...

And you know why nobody else gets into the business to compete with these big 3? Because it's utterly impossible. Even if you had a 50 mpg full size truck that had the best safety system on the planet, and 500,000 of them were already built, you would need literally millions of dollars to even so much as get a single vehicle to market.

Why? Because of all the government regulations that prohibit market entry. Who do you think pushed the government for all these regulations on the auto industry? I'll give you one hint, one company's name starts with a "G" and ends with "eneral Motors". The other two you can guess... They know they have the resources to deal with those regulations, but upstart companies don't.

I live in Michigan, my business indirectly is dependent on the auto industry, but guess what, those bailouts were the most moronic thing we could have done.

Know what would have been a tremendous thing to happen? If we didn't have these asinine government regulations on the auto industry, the best thing would have been one, two, or all three of these companies breaking up, and their assets being sold to the highest bidder, piece by piece. Then, dozens of small US car manufacturers could start over, without the unfunded liabilities like the ridiculously high pensions and such, and make cars that are the most competitive in the world.

 

[Evo]

Let's stay on the topic of lightbulbs.

 

[Barwick]

How do you discuss a topic without also discussing analogous situations and historical data?

 

[Evo]

How do you discuss a topic without also discussing analogous situations and historical data?

It's called staying *on topic*. Discussing whether an automotive company should have been bailed out has absolutely zero to do with energy saving lightbulbs.

No more dragging the thread off topic by anyone please.

 

[mheslep]

I agree, it's lunacy. Might as well bring back the prohibition while were at it.

Interesting point. At the time in the US people commonly assumed an amendment to the Constitution was required, the 18th, for the federal government to accomplish such a sweeping prohibition, and yet another amendment was required to repeal the first. Now it seems the federal government is said to evolve to do what ever it desires.

 

[Barwick]

Interesting point. At the time in the US people commonly assumed an amendment to the Constitution was required, the 18th, for the federal government to accomplish such a sweeping prohibition, and another amendment to repeal it. Now it seems the federal government is said to evolve to do what ever it desires.

mmmmhmmm... The last time they followed the Constitution on something was the prohibition... it may have been wrong, but at least it was Constitutional.

 

[edward]

It's the same mentality that if your car is more fuel efficient you can drive it more and if it's lower calorie/fat, then you can eat twice as much.

Actually it is a bit more than that. I remember as a kid we had a circular fluorescent bulb in the kitchen. My mom would always say: "just leave the light on, turning it off and on makes it burn out faster."

Now I find this at a GE web site:

Can I use a CFL in applications where I will be turning the lights on/off frequently?
Compact fluorescent light bulbs work best if they are left on for over 15 minutes each time they are turned on. These types of lamps can take up to 3 minutes to warm-up. Warm-up will probably not be noticeable from a user stand point, but the lamp needs to warm-up in order to reach the point of most efficient operation. Frequently switching them on and off will shorten the life of the product. If the life of the lamp is shortened significantly, you will not reap the financial benefits (includes energy & life of lamp), that are common to CFL lamps.

There are other things to keep in mind. For lights with a dimmer switch a special CFL bulb must be used. I think that these are fairly recent.

Don't use CFL's in recessed lighting because they may overheat. That sounds odd, but apparently the plastic base on the bulbs still can get very hot. Some of the CFL's that I have replaced looked like the base was partially melted.

http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/faq_compact.htm

 

[mheslep]

[...]
Don't use CFL's in recessed lighting because they may overheat. That sounds odd, but apparently the plastic base on the bulbs still can get very hot. Some of the CFL's that I have replaced looked like the base was partially melted.

That's because incandescent bulbs, inefficient as they are, radiate a good bit of the waste heat as relatively near IR, or short wave, much of which transits the bulb directly into the room. CFLs, and to a larger degree LED lighting with all their efficiency, radiate heat in the far IR or very long wave. The latter doesn't go directly into the room, but ends up conducted or convected into the housing. Some LED recessed lighting products come with some heat sink attachments as a consequence. Expensive, but then again it lasts ~10 years.

 

[CAC1001]

Two quick questions:

1) Are infrared heat lamps basically lightbulbs that you can't see the light to? (since incandescent lightbulbs emit so much of their energy as heat as opposed to light?).

2) Won't these new CFLs hurt the profits of the lightbulb companies if they last so long? I mean a company I don't think would want a mass-produced product to last too long, right?

 

[WhoWee]

For starters, it could be considered a matter of national security. The safety of the nation depends on our energy supply, and the grid is already stressed.

I like that argument - for the need for more nuclear and coal plants.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Does anyone have data on how electricity is actually used? (In the world, the UK, the US, the EU, or whatever.) I imagine lighting isn't that large a portion, and that most of it wasn't incandescent (highway lighting, factory lighting, etc.).

Before I switched out my incandescents my household electricity bill would be dominated by lighting (~50%?) in the spring and fall, but I don't know that I was typical and I'm pretty sure that consumer electricity usage is a small slice of the total.

 

[Evo]

Does anyone have data on how electricity is actually used? (In the world, the UK, the US, the EU, or whatever.) I imagine lighting isn't that large a portion, and that most of it wasn't incandescent (highway lighting, factory lighting, etc.).

Before I switched out my incandescents my household electricity bill would be dominated by lighting (~50%?) in the spring and fall, but I don't know that I was typical and I'm pretty sure that consumer electricity usage is a small slice of the total.

see my post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2939554&postcount=36

 

[CRGreathouse]

Not seeing it, Evo...

 

[Al68]

For starters, it could be considered a matter of national security. The safety of the nation depends on our energy supply, and the grid is already stressed.

LOL. Now that's an pretty extreme example of rationalization to justify violating the constitution.

That's even better than the absurd nonsense right-wing pundits make up as hyperbole to make fun of Democrats.

I hope that was intended as a joke.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

...
There are other things to keep in mind. For lights with a dimmer switch a special CFL bulb must be used. I think that these are fairly recent.

Don't use CFL's in recessed lighting because they may overheat. That sounds odd, but apparently the plastic base on the bulbs still can get very hot. Some of the CFL's that I have replaced looked like the base was partially melted.

http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/faq_compact.htm

Also most CFL bulbs are orientation specific as was alluded to. Most must be positioned base down, to run a horizontal base or a base up position only certain CFLs can be used (check the package). Having a CFL in a highly humid area (bathroom) can also cause major problems (again check the package). Also I have yet to see a CFL that can be used in an oven, freezer, or refrigerator.

Well if this law stands get ready to say good by to plasma TVs. Because it seems with the green movement here in the USA if Europe dose it then about a year later the USA will do it.

 

[ThomasEdison]

Does anyone have data on how electricity is actually used? (In the world, the UK, the US, the EU, or whatever.) I imagine lighting isn't that large a portion, and that most of it wasn't incandescent (highway lighting, factory lighting, etc.).

Before I switched out my incandescents my household electricity bill would be dominated by lighting (~50%?) in the spring and fall, but I don't know that I was typical and I'm pretty sure that consumer electricity usage is a small slice of the total.

Question: How is electricity consumed in U.S. homes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Residential Electricity Consumption by End Use, 2008

End-Use Quadrillion
Btu Billion Kilowatt-
hours Share of Total

Space Cooling 0.77 227 16.5%
Lighting 0.72 212 15.4%
Water Heating 0.43 127 9.2%
Space Heating1 0.42 123 8.9%
Refrigeration 0.38 110 8.0%
Televisions and Set-Top Boxes 0.35 101 7.3%
Clothes Dryers 0.26 77 5.6%
Computers and Related Equipment 0.17 49 3.6%
Cooking 0.11 31 2.2%
Dishwashers 2 0.09 27 2.0%
Freezers 0.08 23 1.7%
Clothes Washers 2 0.03 10 0.7%
Other — Miscellaneous Uses 0.89 260 18.8%

Total Consumption 4.71 1,379

http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electricity_lighting
That was for residential.

I would have thought lighting would have been first at 30% or higher so my assumptions were incorrect as well probably because I think in terms of commerical/industrial and those statistics are for homes.

In most construction jobs installing lights and the branch circuits to support them is a huge portion of the work if not the largest part of it. Next time you are in an office count the amount of lights around you and consider how many bulbs are in each one. I've installed 40 or so 2x4 foot flourescent lights in many rooms that only had a few unused receptacles. Think of all the lighting in hallways and walkways where no other power is being consumed. Not too mention outside lighting.

An odd side effect of mass converting away from incandescant will be that some of the larger buildings will have a greater heating bill because they now lack the waste heat from incandescants. In a residential home you may not notice the heat difference but in a very large building you will.

I'm biased towards flourescent because I am one of the very few people (in fact I've met nobody else) who actually prefers white flourescent light for the light.

 

[CAC1001]

Here is an interesting article: http://homerepair.about.com/od/electricalrepair/ss/2007_energybill.htm

Also: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html ($5 a bulb for high-efficiency incandescents!?)

 

[JaredJames]

I'm seeing two arguments here:

1) I don't want the government deciding what I can and can't buy.

2) I don't mind the government deciding because it's a more efficient techology.

The problem I have is that the first group of people, so far (unless I've missed it) haven't given a valid argument as to why they want to remain using an inefficient technology. Now let's not get bogged down in whether or not they are more efficient because this debate is essentially about the government deciding what you can and cannot buy. For the purposes of now, let's assume they are more efficient.

Now, the reason I bring up this issue I have with the first argument is because it appears the first group of people aren't arguing about efficiency and whether or not the product is better, but more about the constitution.

For some reason I note people dislike the government saying "don't use incandescent light bulbs", but how would they react to a private company saying this? What if all the private companies boycotted incandescents and sold only the new variety?
You end up in an identical situation, the only difference is who made the decision and what you could do about it.

You could equally argue that car manufacturers shouldn't bother making cars more efficient. The old ones do the job, why not just keep pumping them out of the factories and not waste money on new designs when people like the old ones so much? When a car manufacturer comes up with a new set of designs and brings out some new vehicles, getting rid of the old ones, why does no one throw their toys out and attack them for giving them no choice in which new cars they can buy? For making them have to go for their new designs?

(And before anyone throws up the 'petrol's running out' argument, bare in mind just how overstretched the power grids are. The UK is running at 80+% capacity per plant which means one going out can have serious repercussions when compensating with others, given the current system, but that's another issue.)

This is something of a rant, but I'm very curious about it.

The government does something you don't like (banning these bulbs) you can do something about it, you have a course of action to challenge the decision. A private company does the same thing (not so much banning but simply stop selling) and you have no course of action.

Please, tear this post apart and explain (very carefully) why I'm wrong here. I would be very interested to know. I'm rather undecided on the matter so far at this point (despite the above) and perhaps you could help clear this issue up for me.

 

[Barwick]

I'm seeing two arguments here:

1) I don't want the government deciding what I can and can't buy.

2) I don't mind the government deciding because it's a more efficient techology.

The problem I have is that the first group of people, so far (unless I've missed it) haven't given a valid argument as to why they want to remain using an inefficient technology.
{snip}
Now, the reason I bring up this issue I have with the first argument is because it appears the first group of people aren't arguing about efficiency and whether or not the product is better, but more about the constitution.

For some reason I note people dislike the government saying "don't use incandescent light bulbs", but how would they react to a private company saying this? What if all the private companies boycotted incandescents and sold only the new variety?
You end up in an identical situation, the only difference is who made the decision and what you could do about it.
{snip}
The government does something you don't like (banning these bulbs) you can do something about it, you have a course of action to challenge the decision. A private company does the same thing (not so much banning but simply stop selling) and you have no course of action.

Please, tear this post apart and explain (very carefully) why I'm wrong here. I would be very interested to know. I'm rather undecided on the matter so far at this point (despite the above) and perhaps you could help clear this issue up for me.

I like you :) An open mind asking good questions.

The problem is, the 2nd to last paragraph (in the quote above anyway).

The difference between Government saying you *have* to do something, and a private company (or companies) doing that is:

When Government says something, EVERYONE *has* to comply. If they do not, they face fines, penalties, or eventually if you don't pay those, confiscation of property or jail time.

Private companies cannot force you to buy something, no matter how hard they try. If they do, it's illegal. They cannot put a gun to your head and say "Buy this or else" like the government can. Even if ALL companies colluded together to only sell swirly-bulbs, then I guarantee you within 6 months a new company would spring up selling incandescent bulbs, and if they went public, their IPO would bring in over a billion dollars; a testament to market demand.

So in short, Government can force everyone (and usually does). Businesses cannot put a gun to your head like Government can.

 

[Jack21222]

Barwick:

Your assertion that an incandescent light bulb company would be worth a billion dollars is firmly rooted in some mystical fantasyland where there is a high demand for old, inefficient light bulbs.

Go to a store that sells light bulbs. Other than small specialty bulbs, what do you see more of? Incandescent or florescent?

 

[JaredJames]

So in short, Government can force everyone (and usually does). Businesses cannot put a gun to your head like Government can.

I understand the issue regarding the government forcing people to do things. However, if people don't like something they have the power to do something about it when it comes to the government. This is not so with private companies (unless you boycot them, but then if they're all working towards the same goal how do you boycott all companies and still access required products?).

There is always a course of action when it comes to legal matters such as this. The people can fight it. If anything, my current view tells me that it's better to have a government where you can at least have a say in issues, deciding on things such as this, than have all of the MNC's simply decide it for you and then give you no option.

Then again, I live in the UK, where the government (especially now) doesn't listen to the people anyway. And in certain cases now, are actively lying to the people. But again, that's another issue.

 

[Barwick]

I understand the issue regarding the government forcing people to do things. However, if people don't like something they have the power to do something about it when it comes to the government. This is not so with private companies (unless you boycot them, but then if they're all working towards the same goal how do you boycott all companies and still access required products?).

There is always a course of action when it comes to legal matters such as this. The people can fight it. If anything, my current view tells me that it's better to have a government where you can at least have a say in issues, deciding on things such as this, than have all of the MNC's simply decide it for you and then give you no option.

Then again, I live in the UK, where the government (especially now) doesn't listen to the people anyway. And in certain cases now, are actively lying to the people. But again, that's another issue.

When it comes to government, if you are in the *majority* you can do something about it. If you were black in the south, you could do nothing about government failing to enact justice by prosecuting slave holders (which is what Government should do).

The difference is, like I said before, unless there is coercion and threats (by companies or by government laws), there will *never* fail to be a company to produce some form of product that people want. If people want incandescent light bulbs, they'll make them.

Case in point, in the early 20th century, blacksmiths and carriage makers were all over the place. Henry Ford made the automobile inexpensively and still maintained a profit. Within not too many years, blacksmiths and carriage makers became a thing of the past. BUT, they're still in existence today, and serve a purpose in a specialty market.

By the "ban the light bulb" reasoning, if Government said "these horses are dirty, they crap all over the street, and they're a very inefficient use of resources", and banned horseshoes and carriages, do you understand the havok that would have wreaked and would still be witnessing today?

 

[Evo]

When it comes to government, if you are in the *majority* you can do something about it. If you were black in the south, you could do nothing about government failing to enact justice by prosecuting slave holders (which is what Government should do).

The difference is, like I said before, unless there is coercion and threats (by companies or by government laws), there will *never* fail to be a company to produce some form of product that people want. If people want incandescent light bulbs, they'll make them.

Case in point, in the early 20th century, blacksmiths and carriage makers were all over the place. Henry Ford made the automobile inexpensively and still maintained a profit. Within not too many years, blacksmiths and carriage makers became a thing of the past. BUT, they're still in existence today, and serve a purpose in a specialty market.

By the "ban the light bulb" reasoning, if Government said "these horses are dirty, they crap all over the street, and they're a very inefficient use of resources", and banned horseshoes and carriages, do you understand the havok that would have wreaked and would still be witnessing today?

Do you understand the reasoning behind the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007? It was pushed by environmental groups such as the NRDC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007#Opposition_to_the_bill

Incandescent lights

Under the law, incandescent bulbs that produce 310–2600 lumens of light are effectively phased out between 2012 and 2014. Bulbs outside this range (roughly, light bulbs currently less than 40 watts or more than 150 watts) are exempt from the ban. Also exempt are several classes of speciality lights, including appliance lamps, "rough service" bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, and plant lights.[23]

[/B]The phase-out of incandescent light bulbs was supported by the Alliance to Save Energy, a coalition of light bulb manufacturers, electric utilities and conservation groups. The group estimated that lighting accounts for 22% of total U.S. electricity usage, and that eliminating incandescent bulbs completely would save $18 billion per year (equivalent to the output of 80 coal plants).[24] Light bulb manufacturers also hoped a single national standard would prevent the enactment of conflicting bans and efficiency standards by state governments.

 

[JaredJames]

Just for the record, the only reason I'm not a fan of these bulbs so far is that they don't seem to perform as well as conventional bulbs.

The ones we have in my house are no where near as bright as their incandescent equivalent and have a 'warm up' time. I'm not saying the latest ones are like that, but it has certainly had an effect on how I view them and has discouraged me from swapping out all my bulbs for them.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

Fluorescent bulbs make me feel uneasy and agitated. I think it's the 60 Hz flickering and the lack of a true thermal spectrum. This is why I always buy conventional, incandescent bulbs.

I hadn't heard of this upcoming ban before, but this is disappointing news. Now my home will be forced to feel like an office environment or a hospital. Thanks, gov't.

Edit: Also, mercury vapor? Mmm, my favorite!

 

[BobG]

Barwick:

Your assertion that an incandescent light bulb company would be worth a billion dollars is firmly rooted in some mystical fantasyland where there is a high demand for old, inefficient light bulbs.

Go to a store that sells light bulbs. Other than small specialty bulbs, what do you see more of? Incandescent or florescent?

He must be living in the same fantasyland where consumers would buy big inefficient SUVs just because they were exempt from the fuel efficiency standards of your regular car.

This must be the same fantasyland where consumers would prefer a big, inefficient 3.5 gallon toilet water tank over the 1.6 gallon low flow toilets that were mandated in the 1992 Energy Policy Act.

Efficiency isn't the only factor in buying decisions. Some people care a great deal about the ambience created by their lights; not just by whether they can see well enough to read. Some people care about the disposal problems associated with CFLs. I can almost guarantee that most people buying CFLs don't even realize there are restrictions affecting disposal of flourescent bulbs, let alone follow them.

The alternatives to CFLs are a more promising solution and it's almost certain that the new policies will result in those alternatives being improved to the point that they will probably squeeze CFLs out of the market, so the policies aren't all bad.

Neither was the mandate to switch to 1.6 gallon toilet tanks. It prompted a surge in toilet flushing technology that eventually resulted in effective toilets that also saved water.

The difference is that pushing these limits when CFLs are the alternative to traditional incandescent bulbs creates a whole new problem to replace the energy inefficiency. The government is going to have to turn around and ban CFLs sometime in the future to encourage consumers to switch to a different energy efficienct bulb that's not so environmentally unfriendly.

 

[Evo]

Also, the ban is phased, only 100 watt bulbs will be phased out in 2012.

 

[mheslep]

Does anyone have data on how electricity is actually used? (In the world, the UK, the US, the EU, or whatever.) I imagine lighting isn't that large a portion, and that most of it wasn't incandescent (highway lighting, factory lighting, etc.).

Before I switched out my incandescents my household electricity bill would be dominated by lighting (~50%?) in the spring and fall, but I don't know that I was typical and I'm pretty sure that consumer electricity usage is a small slice of the total.

Wiki has some energy breakouts for the US, which mixes electric usage w/ all energy usage. I haven't checked the Wiki references, but this looks correct. Distributed electricity only is about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USEnFlow02-quads.gif"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Current_consumption" is
32% space heating
13% water heating
12% lighting
11% air conditioning
8% refrigeration
5% electronics
5% wet-clean (mostly clothes dryers)

Deduct much of space and water heating, which is largely gas heat, to leave just electric use above.

Then physicist D. McCay has an online book detailing energy usage (all types) in the UK. He tallies about 195 kWh/day/person for all energy consumption - heat, lighting, transportation, etc. Of that, about 5 kWh/day/person goes to lighting - all lighting everywhere in the country - residential, office, street, etc. Usage is shown in red on the left based on data. Possible energy sources (conjecture) shown in green on the left.

 

[Barwick]

Do you understand the reasoning behind the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007? It was pushed by environmental groups such as the NRDC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007#Opposition_to_the_bill

I bought some swirley-bulbs for my house about 4 months ago because I saw them at a store for like a buck a piece for 100 watt bulbs. It seemed pretty cheap to me, and for the reduced power consumption, was a benefit, so I bought them. When they're the right price and provide what I'm looking for, I buy things. That's how freedom works.

But on to your quote, I still have to ask the question "So what?" This nation was founded on the principles of individual freedom. The very fact that we're even debating this, with honest, good people claiming that government banning a certain product in the interest of "efficiency" is a good thing, is testament to the fact that most people do not comprehend the concept of "individual liberty".

Individual Liberty is the basis for every advancement we've seen in society. Out of 1.2 billion Chinese people, do you honestly think that there isn't ONE Thomas Edison in there? I'll tell you why he hasn't surfaced yet, because in China, you do not have Individual Liberty like you had in the United States in the 1800's.

Individual Liberty means that I can choose what works best for MY life, without government central planners deciding what's best for everyone as a whole. Central planning of an economy, or even sectors of an economy has never, EVER worked in the entire history of human existence. Worse yet, the only way to ultimately enforce central planning when not everyone complies, as we saw with Josef Stalin and the slaughter of the Ukranians in the 1930's, is to force them to comply.

Are we going to see the slaughter of people for buying incandescent light bulbs? No. But banning light bulbs is 5% of the way down the path toward central planning, and if we're willing to accept that, and everyone claims it was a "resounding success", why not accept the next 5% of that step, and the next, and the next?

 

[Barwick]

He must be living in the same fantasyland where consumers would buy big inefficient SUVs just because they were exempt from the fuel efficiency standards of your regular car.

This must be the same fantasyland where consumers would prefer a big, inefficient 3.5 gallon toilet water tank over the 1.6 gallon low flow toilets that were mandated in the 1992 Energy Policy Act.

Efficiency isn't the only factor in buying decisions. Some people care a great deal about the ambience created by their lights; not just by whether they can see well enough to read. Some people care about the disposal problems associated with CFLs. I can almost guarantee that most people buying CFLs don't even realize there are restrictions affecting disposal of flourescent bulbs, let alone follow them.

The alternatives to CFLs are a more promising solution and it's almost certain that the new policies will result in those alternatives being improved to the point that they will probably squeeze CFLs out of the market, so the policies aren't all bad.

Neither was the mandate to switch to 1.6 gallon toilet tanks. It prompted a surge in toilet flushing technology that eventually resulted in effective toilets that also saved water.

The difference is that pushing these limits when CFLs are the alternative to traditional incandescent bulbs creates a whole new problem to replace the energy inefficiency. The government is going to have to turn around and ban CFLs sometime in the future to encourage consumers to switch to a different energy efficienct bulb that's not so environmentally unfriendly.

Thanks Bob, you saved me a lot of writing, but that's exactly my point.

 

[Evo]

Thanks Bob, you saved me a lot of writing, but that's exactly my point.

I believe Bob was arguing against you. Which of his points do you agree with?

 

[JaredJames]

I can choose what works best for MY life, without government central planners deciding what's best for everyone as a whole.

And to hell with the consequences I suppose?

Killing all those that p*** me off and disagrees with me might be best for "MY life", but is that what's best for everyone else?

You can't make a rational argument that you should be able to do everything good for your life. Society can't function like that.

Do people really have a problem with the government bringing in more efficient technologies?

Perhaps we should rise up and force them to bring back leaded petrol?

 

[Evo]

Here in the US CFL's are just one option, aside from the incadescent bulbs which will remain available, we also have halogen and LED as options.

I can't see using CFL's for the bathroom or closets which are usully turned on and off within a couple of minutes, not outside in winter (found that out the hard way) when it's cold, they just won't light up other than a faint glow after warming for 20 minutes, worthless.

 

[Gokul43201]

And to hell with the consequences I suppose?

I'd like to see someone in this thread list some of the main consequences (pros and cons). That will make for a more streamlined discussion I think.