Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Congress Likely to Pass Incandescent Bulb Ban
thedailygreen.com — Congress is getting close to passing an energy bill that contains a little-known provision designed to phase out the 125-year-old incandescent light bulb in the next four to 12 years. Instead the future will be lit with next generation energy-efficient lighting.
DigiDave- 1975 diggs
- digg it
- mrbubbleboy, on 12/17/2007, -26/+142i just replaced all of my lightbulbs a few months ago with CFL's. It's amazing how inexpensive they are. It really is something that every household should do.
- georgemason01, on 12/17/2007, -66/+145Good for you, but Congress has no right to tell anyone they cannot use incandescent bulbs.
- 01l0, on 12/17/2007, -33/+74thats true, but congress does in fact have the right to tell manufacturers that they can not sell incandescent bulbs. I doubt if you'll be arrested for using them, though.
- SiNN4R, on 12/17/2007, -12/+46Lightbulb fascist.
- brad3378, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3First they took away Hemp. Now we have to buy clothing made from inferior materials like Cotton, Polyester, etc.
Next they took our toilets. Now we have to smuggle toilets from Canada or flush twice to get the same result.
After Hurricane Katrina, they marched in to the homes of private citizens and took their guns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
After 9/11 they hacked away at our freedom of speech, our privacy, and our faith in the government.
It would cost me hundreds of dollars to replace the dimmable flood lamps in my house with Dimmable LEDs or CFLs. Until the LED/CFL industries can become more competitive with incandescents, I'm planning on paying a few cents more on my electric bill.
I already have CFLs because they make financial sense, however I still don't like the idea of banning incandescents. Sometimes the consumer knows best and the government needs to STFU rather than tell us how to spend our own money.
- brad3378, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3First they took away Hemp. Now we have to buy clothing made from inferior materials like Cotton, Polyester, etc.
- Rahodeb, on 12/17/2007, -3/+22So, are there really CFL's for all lighting types? What about exposed decorative bulbs, like the ones shaped like candle flame? It's not that we can't get by without them, but it seems to me that they are legislating something that should be consumer driven.
- a1532b, on 12/17/2007, -2/+70I work in lighting retail, and they DO have more decorative CFL's. Basically it's the regular CFL bulb with a little cover over them so they look more decorative. Generally the biggest problem with is that they are so big compared to regular bulbs that you have a hard time finding fixtures they don't stick out of!
To be honest though, LED's are going to be replacing CFL's in the next 5 or so years. The bulbrite rep came by a couple months ago showing us this prototype 1 watt light bulb that was brighter than a 50 watt halogen. They are still expensive, but man, they put out no heat at all. You can't even tell the difference between an incandescent and a LED when they are next to each other. It's incredible how far the tech has come along... - RickyBennett, on 12/17/2007, -17/+1to a1532b but due to the bad comment system im putting it right hear
no heat hell my CFL puts off a lot of heat - bmunichman, on 12/17/2007, -1/+18@RickyBennett
I think he meant that LEDs put out no heat - LeeSoong, on 12/17/2007, -1/+7http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9777070/
LEDs are the way to go... - theOster, on 12/17/2007, -1/+24those flame lights should have been banned a long time ago - like before my aunt decorated her entire house
- a1532b, on 12/17/2007, -2/+70I work in lighting retail, and they DO have more decorative CFL's. Basically it's the regular CFL bulb with a little cover over them so they look more decorative. Generally the biggest problem with is that they are so big compared to regular bulbs that you have a hard time finding fixtures they don't stick out of!
- 01l0, on 12/17/2007, -10/+29Those plastic lights shaped like flames are the most retarded thing ever. Use a real candle you terrorist!
- RickyBennett, on 12/17/2007, -16/+4how is using those make you a terrorist! ??
- MarkOfTheDead, on 12/18/2007, -0/+8Because if you aren't with us, you're with them, duh.
- andrew1193, on 12/17/2007, -15/+42"thats true, but congress does in fact have the right to tell manufacturers that they can not sell incandescent bulbs."
Actually no they don't.- Elranzer, on 12/17/2007, -11/+21They tell businesses they can't sell marijuana, absinthe hemp paper. I imagine this would be the same legislation.
- loki49152, on 12/18/2007, -1/+22Yeah, Congress does tell businesses they can't sell those things. They don't have the *right* to do it, they just do it.
- spyd3rweb, on 12/18/2007, -1/+13El: that legislation is unconstitutional, they'd have to pass another amendment like the 18th amendment to ban the sale, manufacture and use of incandescent light bulbs.
- merreborn, on 12/18/2007, -1/+11"They tell businesses they can't sell marijuana, absinthe hemp paper. I imagine this would be the same legislation."
That'd be an apt comparison if light bulbs were narcotic. - KingGorilla, on 12/18/2007, -0/+9I need Iight BuIbs for my migraines!!!!
- grumpyrain, on 12/18/2007, -7/+3Most governments around the world can stipulate what is salable and what is not through some legal mechanism. The bigger question here is how to replace the inefficient incandescents, and IMO this should be done using market pressures rather than legislation. That is the whole idea behind a carbon tax - to put a financial cost against carbon emissions so that the more polluting technologies lose their cost advantage.
Now at todays prices, CFLs are cheaper to own and run in a typical room over a 5 year period than incandescent. In a couple of years time, hopefully the same can be said for LEDs. But there are a number of applications (think fridge lights and alike) where CFLs are not appropriate. To spare us the red tape, don't make incandescents illegal, just make them more expensive than the more efficient technologies and let the market dictate the rest. - shawnz, on 12/18/2007, -3/+2@merreborn
i don't see why, considering marijuana and absinthe aren't narcotics - koko775, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3Actually, they do, but - very technically - only if it's being sold across state borders. Read the Constitution. It's in there.
- andrew1193, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1"Actually, they do, but - very technically - only if it's being sold across state borders. Read the Constitution. It's in there."
The commerce clause was meant to ensure that states couldn't set up trade barriers between one another, not so that the federal government could regulate the type of light bulbs people use, or the kind of toilet paper they wipe their asses with.
- almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -5/+14"thats true, but congress does in fact have the right to tell manufacturers that they can not sell incandescent bulbs."
uhh .. I guess they have a right to stop McDonald's from selling Big Macs, too.- cheesehead, on 12/18/2007, -4/+4You terrorist. Do you want to put big pharma out of business?
- smurfsahoy, on 12/18/2007, -2/+3They could claim that the carbon pollution difference between the two affects the environment in a larger-than-one-state area. Thus the externalities are across state lines and Congress has jurisdiction.
- brad3378, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2Perhaps Congress should outlaw using open flame candles first? Surely they are more dangerous than incandescent bulbs while polluting more. Better still - how about letting us decide what makes financial sense for our own situations and getting the government the hell out of every aspect of our lives.
- SiNN4R, on 12/17/2007, -12/+46Lightbulb fascist.
- jpmoney03, on 12/17/2007, -33/+24Actually you being an energy wasting ***** has an effect on my right to cheap electricity and clean air so yea they can eliminate them. Do you think a nuclear power plant should have the right to dump waste in your backyard, well thats pretty much the same idea.
- mooseontheloose, on 12/17/2007, -11/+30Since when do you have a right to cheap electricity and clean air? The irony in all of this is that you probably own a car, which will pollute the earth a million times faster than a little light bulb
- jpmoney03, on 12/17/2007, -16/+10So you have a right to buy incandescent light bulbs but I don't to clean air. You must be pretty special. Also I own a car but I walk to school and work everyday basically I burn as little gas as is possible without having to not see my family. I am still a student but if everybody used the same amount of energy I did we really wouldn't be having these kind of discussions because there would be no problem.
- djbon2112, on 12/17/2007, -4/+13@jpmoney
You don't have a "right" to an incandescent bulb, but why should that choice be denied? Let the market decide which is best. With energy prices continuing to rise people will switch themselves. They don't need bureaucracy to tell them to. - StaticThunder, on 12/17/2007, -12/+10Because the market doesn't take into account externalities, LIKE environmental damage. Thats what government is for. And ultimately, if everybody switched, we lower the cost of electricity, have to build fewer new power plants, so we can use it for more important things.
I can't believe diggers are resistant to mandated EFFICIENCY. Do you just LIKE throwing away money? - Otto, on 12/18/2007, -5/+12StaticThunder: The market *does* take those things into account. If these bulbs are cheaper (and they are), then why don't people switch? You know why? It's because the light they throw off is of a far lower quality than incandescent lights are.
I switched two of my lamps to CFL's. When they die, I will be switching them back, the light gives me headaches from the annoying flickering. - init100, on 12/18/2007, -2/+7@Otto
Annoying flickering? Modern CFL uses electronic ballasts, which converts the line frequency into some 20 kHz, and there is no way that you can notice flicker at such a high requency. - Borramakot, on 12/18/2007, -3/+4@JP Money
Pollution is wrong because it dumps pollutants into other peoples property. You have the right to pollute, destroy, or pretty much do whatever to your land. The problem with pollution is that the pollutants don't tend to stay put on your land, they go to everyone Else's.
That being said: light bulbs do not really pollute. Coal power plants do. A polluter pays taxation system on coal power plants would increase the cost of power, and therefore promote CFL's, without banning the freedom of choice by punishing those who actually pollute. An indirect taxation system like this is also completely constitutional (Though spending for environmental cleanup is not). - djbon2112, on 12/18/2007, -1/+5@StaticThunder
No, I don't like throwing money away. But that's not a decision for the government to make. A government should not tell its citizens what they can and can not do with their money. - petrodollar, on 12/18/2007, -3/+0Because congress created that right.
- StaticThunder, on 12/18/2007, -4/+2The market patently does not take into account the externalities of incandescent lighting, SUCH as the mercury spread by coal power plants. Those things are NEVER passed along to the consumers responsible. Either pass those costs along, or quit bitching about being asked to be more efficient.
How exactly are you being charged for the amount of mercury your local power plant emits? Did the government send them a bill recently? - jjsixty6, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1@djbon2112
Many people won't switch because either (a) their store doesn't carry many CFLs or (b) they are just used to choosing incandescent bulbs. It's a bit like IE vs Firefox, more people use IE because they are used to it.
- Dolomite, on 12/17/2007, -3/+24right on bro. wish i could digg you up twice. dumping nuclear waste on someone is exactly equivalent to them using incandescent lighting.
- snapcase, on 12/17/2007, -9/+1Dolomite, I didn't think it was possible but your ignorance actually surpassed that of the person to whom you replied.
A digg down for both of you for A: displaying ignorance on the subject of Nuclear energy, and B: for not understanding the concept of equivalence.- djbon2112, on 12/17/2007, -0/+10I think he was being sarcastic.
- MaxPayne3476, on 12/18/2007, -0/+10Narrator: A gust of wind wooshed over the head of snapcase as he failed to hear the faint cries of sarcasm.
- norman619, on 12/17/2007, -6/+12"my right to cheap electricity and clean air"
Please show me in the constitution where this right is spelled out. Let em guess, it's right next to your right to "free" health care. Am I right?- jpmoney03, on 12/17/2007, -9/+4So you have no problem with me buying the lot next door and storing fecal matter there then. Because by your logic I should have no law saying I can't do that.
- StaticThunder, on 12/17/2007, -6/+6Its right next to the section on your constitutional right to buy inefficient space heating light bulbs.
However, clean air has the virtue of falling under the life part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - norman619, on 12/17/2007, -3/+7@jpmoney03:
Nope. If it's legal you are free to do so. Just like I am free to move. :-) I used to live in a really nice quiet location until one day someone bought the lot directly across the street from my place and guess what they built? An auto repair shop. I had to kiss sleeping in good-bye due to the noise that came from that place. Did I bitch and complain? Nope. The owner of the lot was fully within his legal rights. I endured it for a while but eventually opted to move to a more quiet location. Come on man. Turn your brain on. People should only be allowed to do what is LEGAL. If that means opening a pig farm next to where I live so be it. I am also free to move if I don't like it. This is why this is a free country. I love the attitude of "it's a free country only until I am inconvenienced." - venom8599, on 12/18/2007, -0/+5The Constitution doesn't spell out the only rights we have. It merely lists some rights which are inalienable, spells out some powers that are delegated to the government, and reserves the rest for the states and the people. Just because a right isn't spelled out in that document doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
- Borramakot, on 12/18/2007, -1/+7Can we all stop pretending we have a right to specifics? We each have one right: To do as we damn well please, unless we encroach on anyones' right to do the same. Rape, murder, theft, fraud, etc. harm others. As does pollution. Including noise pollution, by interfering with the ability to sleep in. What the auto-shop does is its business. The instant that sound leaves their property, it interferes with your life in an unpleasant way. Likewise, it I may light my home as I damn well please. I may purchase power as I damn well please. The power company, however, may not pollute anyone else's land, air, or water. The power companies are at fault here, not the light bulb owners or manufacturers.
- petrodollar, on 12/18/2007, -3/+0Congress can create "rights" as it sees fit, as long as it doesn't run afoul of the Constitution in doing so. Hope this helps.
- theOster, on 12/17/2007, -4/+2i'm reminded of Lois when Peter came home and said he had been raped:
chuckling: "What?!"
- mooseontheloose, on 12/17/2007, -11/+30Since when do you have a right to cheap electricity and clean air? The irony in all of this is that you probably own a car, which will pollute the earth a million times faster than a little light bulb
- 955701, on 12/17/2007, -7/+11Agreed. An incandescent bulb may be the only heat source some people have. Should they start a fire and send some co2 into the air instead?
- init100, on 12/18/2007, -1/+5"Should they start a fire and send some co2 into the air instead?"
Why not? If you burn wood you do not make any net contribution of CO2 to the environment. The CO2 released by the fire would have been released by the decomposition process when the tree died anyway. - merreborn, on 12/18/2007, -0/+13"An incandescent bulb may be the only heat source some people have"
It's also the only heat source lava lamps have. A CFL-driven lava lamp wouldn't work.- chrisbarr, on 12/18/2007, -0/+11Oh crap, bury this story if you love lava lamps!
- init100, on 12/18/2007, -1/+5"Should they start a fire and send some co2 into the air instead?"
- StaticThunder, on 12/17/2007, -17/+8Or tell people they can't buy steroids, marijuana, or pass laws regarding the use of lead paint on children's toys, or about what speed limit the roads will have. Take your idiocy elsewhere.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1I'm not really for lead paint on kids toys or steroids, but I do enjoy packing a bowl before bed and I haven't hurt anyone with that.
- blast_flame, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1The roads thing is a simple property rights issue. Do they own the road? The owner gets to set the rules. The rest should be allowed. Something being a bad idea is not evidence enough to ban it.
- StaticThunder, on 12/18/2007, -1/+0I own the air downwind of a coal-fired power plant. Congress is acting on my behalf. It would be better if they just forced coal plants not to emit anything, but that would cause riots with the spike in electric bills.
- blast_flame, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1@staticThunder
In a free market you could sue for the amount of damage that coal power plant caused if you could prove that damage. - StaticThunder, on 12/19/2007, -1/+0How much does it cost to proceed with a lawsuit. Why is it my responsibility to track down and force everyone who ever harms me to pay. Shouldn't they just be prevented from harm in the first place? Quit putting the burden of getting redress on the individual, who seldom has the resources to legally take on a large company, and would get nickled and dimed to death trying to take on everyone who would exploit them if not for the government taking on the role of law enforcer.
- blast_flame, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1@staticthunder
I agree that it should be cheaper to get justice in the legal system. Changes should be made to the legal process to ensure this.
- theOster, on 12/17/2007, -3/+20exactly - i'm sticking to my 48 whale-oil lanterns
- nickaster, on 12/17/2007, -5/+12Well, the alternative is this - Congress stops subsidizing new power plants (as they should), then the price of electricity skyrockets and people start buying CFLs anyway. Frankly I don't care which way it's done so long as we avoid new power plants and get people turned on to efficiency. But just getting rid of inefficient bulbs would be pretty un-painful. Cranking up the price of electricity will cause riots.
- m00n1, on 12/18/2007, -5/+5Yeah, anyone should be able to create as much pollution as they want. Screw the impact it has on the global economy and global environment. THIS IS AMERICA. WE HAVE RIGHTS.
- elmafudd, on 12/18/2007, -5/+2Congress has no right to tell anybody they can't rape and kill people either!
- 01l0, on 12/17/2007, -33/+74thats true, but congress does in fact have the right to tell manufacturers that they can not sell incandescent bulbs. I doubt if you'll be arrested for using them, though.
- deadhead05, on 12/17/2007, -27/+41Inexpensive? Where I am they are like 4-5$ each, I'm a student. ***** that. I can get 12 bulbs for 3$.
- BobTrips, on 12/17/2007, -13/+40Better sign up for a basic business/investment/math course next term.
Your ignorance of things money is showing....- smurfsahoy, on 12/18/2007, -1/+7Students don't generally pay their electric bills - or at least its a flat rate from their tuition.
- jpmoney03, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3Well then they wouldn't pay for the light bulb either.
- smurfsahoy, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Depends. My room has a big light in it, but it's a crappy one thats all sickly looking and broken. So I went and bought my own lamp from Target, which I needed to furnish with my own bulbs, CFL or incandescent. Probably about half the students I know use their own lamps primarily like this.
- smurfsahoy, on 12/18/2007, -1/+7Students don't generally pay their electric bills - or at least its a flat rate from their tuition.
- MrStoned1, on 12/17/2007, -4/+25what bob means, is that by getting a CFL you dont have to replace it for years on end, ending up saving more money,
and with lower power costs, you save more money.- edwartica, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1Whatever. I have never seem a CFL that lasted more than 6 months.
- jpmoney03, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1I have two in my room right now that are 3 years old and have survived through several moves. Also in my current house we replaced all the bulbs with CFL when we moved in 1 year ago and the only one that has had to be replaced was in the basement because somebody ran into with there head playing ping pong.
- edwartica, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1Whatever. I have never seem a CFL that lasted more than 6 months.
- RickyBennett, on 12/17/2007, -7/+1its the same down hear $5 for 1 60w but is as bright as a 100w one
- itsthebrod, on 12/17/2007, -2/+16I'm a poor student too but seriously, if you worry about being able to buy light bulbs in 12 years, you've got much bigger issues.
- smurfsahoy, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1Couldn't I say you have just as many issues if you're worried about the tiny electricity differences acquired by changing lightbulbs? The scale of the issue is equal for both sides of the debate
- 298th_Scat, on 12/17/2007, -5/+10That is not accurate mr stoned. I have been using them for years and they never last as long as they claim I am lucky to get over 1 year on a bulb. With the amount of money I am spending replacing these stupid things it is costing me more then my energy savings. Not to mention the much more harmful chemicals that end up in a landfil when your done with these bulbs..
- djbon2112, on 12/17/2007, -5/+5I agree. I see CFLs die before their lifetime rating all the time, in fact much more often than I see incandescents die before their lifetime rating. I had a CFL at my house go a week after putting it in. If that cost me $5, where's the ignorance of money now?
- pintomp3, on 12/18/2007, -2/+7i replaced almost all of my light bulbs (except where i used dimmers) about 4 years ago and haven't had to replace a single one.
- johndi, on 12/18/2007, -0/+13Your either buying shoddy bulbs, using them in fixtures they weren't designed for, or you have electrical problems in your home. CFLs should last much longer.
- drwatson, on 12/18/2007, -2/+2The CFL's for recessed lighting suck. I had all 4 burn out btw 1-9 months.
- johndi, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1You have to buy special CFL bulbs for recessed lighting and cold weather applications. The problem is they don't advertise it too well. I see CFL as a stopgap measure. I can't wait for good LED bulbs to make it where now. I can't seem to find them for 220V.
- dood, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1I've contacted a manufacturer when a CFL didn't last as long as it was supposed to. They sent out a replacement. I don't remember their name now, unfortunately, but they sell bulbs through Fry's.
- djbon2112, on 12/17/2007, -5/+5I agree. I see CFLs die before their lifetime rating all the time, in fact much more often than I see incandescents die before their lifetime rating. I had a CFL at my house go a week after putting it in. If that cost me $5, where's the ignorance of money now?
- RX8SaxMan, on 12/17/2007, -4/+10I'm a college student too, and the fact is that a lot of us are living on such a tight budget that it is hard to think about the long-term costs of something, especially when we'll be moving out of our current residence in a pretty short time. I don't have that mindset, and I'm doing quite well financially for a college student, but I'm definitely not the norm here.
That said, deadhead05 brings up a good point. Americans in general have a hard time thinking about long-term costs and tend to only think about what something costs them *right now* based on what it is their bank account (or credit limit) *right now*. This is why we have the huge mortgage crisis right now. People bought houses at subprime rates not thinking about what would happen a few years down the line (because those things just "work themselves out", right?).
A lot of people are going to resist a move away from cheap incandescent bulbs because "why would I want to pay $4 for something I can get for $0.40". It doesn't matter that over the course of 5 years they''ll actually be saving money, these people will only look at the immediate cost (i.e. the price tag).- trickyt, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3Unfortunately, when the government creates plans to bail out the people who think things just "work themselves out", it only proves them right, and adds to their ranks.
- crocodilexp, on 12/18/2007, -2/+1$1 now is significantly more valuable than $1 in 5 years. There are many reasons, starting with inflation and involving many risks.
What if I'm hit by a car or have a catastrophic emergency demanding *all* my funds? Then I'd surely be happy to have money *now* instead of some hypothetical long-term savings.- jpmoney03, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1That only works if you invest the money you saved up front. But nice try.
- unorginalityftw, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3Note to people who may be experiencing CFL burn-outs: are they in a washroom or an area with a lot of moisture? If so, then they will burn out-- they aren't good for those places. Might be the problem.
- forkthis, on 12/18/2007, -2/+0$5 times 12 lights is $62. To many that's a real sunk cost. I grew up in that environment, and $60 for my family in 1990 would have directly affected our caloric intake. Absent government subsidies, this will be expensive for many. It goes without saying that many ventures could be run more efficiently (e.g., cheaper in the long run) if we had access to unlimited capital up front.
As to shifting demand for energy down (ostensibly reducing price -- don't forget that energy is an economy of scale), the demand for fluorescents will rise significantly. Their price will increase, making it even more expensive for poor families.
- BobTrips, on 12/17/2007, -13/+40Better sign up for a basic business/investment/math course next term.
- snapcase, on 12/17/2007, -8/+45Try putting one of those CFL's in an outdoor fixture. When they get cold they won't work for *****. This is an impractical provision. Yes I think they should perhaps educate the public that for general purpose that alternative bulbs are more efficient and worth the effort and maybe even offer an incentive (though I'd have mixed feelings about that). There are, simply put, things that incandescents can do that other bulbs can't. And for that reason alone they should stay available. Also, try putting a CFL on a light that uses a dimmer switch. Yet another indoor application that they won't work for.
And I agree with georgemason01. Congress doesn't have the right.- StaticThunder, on 12/17/2007, -6/+12The newer ones handle the cold better, and they have dimmable CFLs now, you just need to look for them.
- snugglebear, on 12/17/2007, -3/+8And the dimmable ones suck. They aren't half as good as the incandescent ones.
- StaticThunder, on 12/17/2007, -7/+2I give up. I'm sorry that efficiency offends your sense of aesthetics. Clearly if there is to be any sacrifice at all, you should be exempted because you want your house suitably dim.
- snapcase, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1StaticThunder, you seem to only be capable of using the word "efficiency" in one sense of the word. Not only is there energy efficiency but there's also lighting efficiency. Different types and levels of light are needed for a vast array of applications. Right now alternatives to Incandescents can't completely fill in all of these roles. There are also plenty of professional applications where precise types and levels of light are needed that require incandescent lights.
Now apparently you can't read all that well otherwise you'd have realized that neither I nor snugglebear ever said "never use CFL's or any other alternative to incandescent lights". All I was doing was pointing out that for the time being we still do need Incandescent lights. We will have applications for them without suitable alternatives for quite a long while too. I support the use of CFL's for any application for which they are suitable along with other more efficient lighting methods. But the key there is suitability. And if what snugglebear said is true (i've never seen those particular CFL's or used them to know from experience), then all it means is there's room for improvement before they are a suitable alternative to incandescents. It's all simple logic really. When the alternatives that offer better energy and lighting efficiency can take over all of the applications of their predecessors then they will become the primary rather than the alternative. But trying to force the transition before that point is reached is just pointless because then they simply won't be able to perform the needed tasks.
But then again, I guess you just feel so self important that you can hop up on your soap box and start talking down to people without thinking about what they are saying first. In the future try not to take things other people say as a personal affront, and realize that they are usually saying what they are saying for an actual reason. Consider the reasons and the logic behind the given situation, and THEN join in on the conversation.
And in reply to your original post.... I've not seen these CFL's that can supposedly handle the cold and be dimmed. I'll have to look for them the next time I go down that aisle in the store. - illegalcortex, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1As I posted in another comment which I can't seem to find now, I love CFLs. However, they just don't work in my climate for outdoor lights. The one in the unheated sunroom and the floodlight both take far too long to warm up. I live in a state where the weather has highs in the teens right now. The outdoor floodlight just glows purple for about the first 10 minutes I turn it on. My only option is to leave it on constantly. I decided to just put the incandescent back in and turn it on only when I need it. The sunroom and garage have similar problems. Without heating up for several minutes, they barely cast any light. I'll switch them back to CFLs in the spring. But for now they just don't cut it. These were the only kind of floodlights carried at the hardware store. Considering they're made specifically for outdoor use and they sold them in this state where it's cold, I doubt it gets much better than this. Cold as in 30 or 40 degrees, maybe. But not cold as in 10 degrees high, 2 degrees low.
- zweben, on 12/17/2007, -1/+7CFL is not the only non-incandescent technology. It's the only inexpensive such technology, but I imagine that would change rather quickly once incandescent's days were numbered. LED, for example, would work better for outdoor use. It's only impractical due to its high cost.
- snapcase, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1I know they aren't the only alternatives. However my main point was that the alternatives aren't entirely practical in all applications... YET.
I have no doubt that in the coming years that better lighting technologies will be developed that can take over even more roles from Incandescents, but even then I think there will be niche uses for Incandescents. - johnpaul191, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Cold cathodes are making inroads too. they are not super bright yet, but easier to use dimmers etc.
- snapcase, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1I know they aren't the only alternatives. However my main point was that the alternatives aren't entirely practical in all applications... YET.
- forcedfx, on 12/18/2007, -3/+9I have two CFL's in porch lights right now. We'll see how well they survive the NJ winter temps. Improvements need to be made if we have to switch away from incandescents.
1) They need to be rated for outdoor use
2) They need to be rated for high humidity environments like a bathroom
3) They need to be able to be mounted upside down in an enclosure
4) There needs to be some way of disposing of them safely.- dgp1, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3> 3) They need to be able to be mounted upside down in an enclosure
What do you mean by that? I put mine any which way. Please elaborate. - snapcase, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2I have my bathroom lit with CFL's atm and they work quite well. I also have a few overhead fixtures lit with them. However I tried already to put them in the outdoor garage lights, and they didn't work for crap in the cold. I like CFL's but they have some ways to go until they, and the other alternatives can *completely* replace incandescents.
- drake77, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2I replaced _all_ of my incandescents with CFLs in all areas of my home and outside. They all work fine, you just have to buy the name brand ones. May I reccomend the GE ones from Wal-mart. They do just fine in all areas of home. Don't go for the cheap ones.
- dgp1, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3> 3) They need to be able to be mounted upside down in an enclosure
- theojanke, on 12/18/2007, -2/+3CFL's work fine outside.
I live in Manitoba, and in -40°C temperatures they work 100% fine. They take maybe 3 seconds to flicker on, but then they're fine.
They aren't specifically made for outdoor use. - pt4117, on 12/18/2007, -1/+4Ask any artist, or photographer if cfl and incandescent bulbs are the same. They'll tell you how horrible cfl's are. They just don't produce light the same way.
- StaticThunder, on 12/17/2007, -6/+12The newer ones handle the cold better, and they have dimmable CFLs now, you just need to look for them.
- LeeSoong, on 12/17/2007, -10/+31Forget That ! CFL's are being pushed by the Mercury Industry - WTF will people be doing with all the metric tons of Mercury contaminated waste when these bulbs break?
Bright, White LEDs use Even LESS power than CFLs - and no deadly Mercury.
Do Not Believe the CFL Hype - LEDs are the way to go to save money with lights that last much longer and are much safer than poisonous CFLs.
http://store.advancedmart.com/11acand12vdc.html
Get the facts on LED lighting - and avoid toxic CFLs:
http://www.google.com/search?q=White+LED+lights- StaticThunder, on 12/17/2007, -6/+2Yes! And we must go back to the landfills and dig up all the mercury thermometers that have ever been thrown away, and all the conventional fluorescent lights that have been TOO. And conveniently forget the Arsenic, Cadmium and plasticizers in LEDS, not to mention the pollution from the semiconductor factories!
Because its better to burn more coal and spread the mercury out over the poor neighborhoods by the power plant!!11!OMGWTFBBQ!- Godlike, on 12/17/2007, -2/+3Nobody but you said anything about landfills.
- StaticThunder, on 12/18/2007, -2/+1Thats where the mercury winds up when its not recycled. Unless you're burning coal. In which case it goes everywhere.
Or are you so chemophobic that you're afriad of 6 mg of mercury that you'll sweep up and throw away if a bulb breaks. No, don't answer that. You're a digger. That means you're stupid and scared, and you overreact to anything that smacks of government interference in your life, no matter that they are doing it for the publics benefit UNLESS it has to do with terrorism. Then you're all for the ***** nanny state. - fotbr, on 12/18/2007, -2/+2Heh, someone posting on digg talking about how stupid digg posters are.
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.
- grumpyrain, on 12/18/2007, -1/+4LED lights are certainly much more efficient and do not need mercury. Unfortunately, they are not financially feasible outside commercial installations. That said, a typical energy mix consisting of coal fired plants will release the naturally occurring mercury from the coal into the atmosphere. To achieve the same lumens, you need to consume more electricity to run an incandescent than a CFL. Consider the proportion of energy that is required in addition to that which would be required for a CFL. Consider the proportion of that proportion that is powered by coal. The mercury released into the atmosphere from that small proportion exceeds that used in the CFL.
So unless you have next to no coal plants servicing your home, you are reducing the release of mercury by purchasing CFLs over incandescents. Of course once LEDs are cheap enough, they should be preferred. - toxicshok, on 12/18/2007, -2/+2The Mercury industry.... really... mercury industry. You sir, fear companies way to much.
- shawnz, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1did anyone else think this was a spam email for LED lighting pasted into a digg comment for a second?
- addicted68098, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Your forgetting that coal power also creates mercury, the energy saved by CFL's equates to less mercury pollution over all.
I love LED's but they are too expensive.
- StaticThunder, on 12/17/2007, -6/+2Yes! And we must go back to the landfills and dig up all the mercury thermometers that have ever been thrown away, and all the conventional fluorescent lights that have been TOO. And conveniently forget the Arsenic, Cadmium and plasticizers in LEDS, not to mention the pollution from the semiconductor factories!
- johnpaul191, on 12/17/2007, -0/+15The general argument is that even if everyone smashed their CFLs instead of recycling, or even effectively sealing them in a landfill forever, we are still better off. Most of the electricity USA gets electricity from coal plants. The amount of mercury released into the air from coal plants, when people use incandescent bulbs, is waaaaaaay more than escapes from non-recycled CFLs. So yes, CFLs are not the holy grail of lighting, but as bad as they are, in the end you are putting less mercury into the air (and pollution in general).
Yes, LEDs have lead, but again while not perfect, it is a stepping stone. Like how a hybrid still uses gasoline. Not perfect, but better than what we had 10 years ago. - nickaster, on 12/17/2007, -4/+5The Mercury Industry? WTF is that?
- StaticThunder, on 12/18/2007, -5/+3The ones that lobby to put thimerosol in vaccines and manufacturers of mercury switches for thermostats. Basically the bavarian illuminati in league with the gnomes of zurich.
- KingGorilla, on 12/18/2007, -2/+3We send eIves to another pIanet and they mine space rocks which are then converted into CFL's
- shawnz, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1the rock is called "compact fluorescenite," for those curious.
- walkerj, on 12/18/2007, -2/+5Didn't you listen to Eisenhower? We must guard against the Mercury-Industrial Complex.
- GruntboyX, on 12/18/2007, -2/+6Great, I trade a bulb that burns bright till its end of life, to one that slowly dims till the whole room is a dungeon. I am all for CFL's but the technology has its drawbacks and Congress has no right to legislate technology. It would still be possible for people to make incadensents more efficient, but with a law like that it will stifle the R&D and pigeon whole us into an inferior technology.
- dgp1, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2RTFA, they're not considering banning incandescent technology. What's being discussed is mandating a certain level of efficiency. So if you can make a super-incandescent that meets efficiency requirements, not only will I buy a dozen (Nice going!) but the government won't stand in your way.
- JimmyQT, on 12/18/2007, -0/+0Super incandescents? What, like Halogens?
- Tossrock, on 12/18/2007, -0/+0To be fair, the title of this story is "Congress Likely to Pass Incandescent Bulb Ban" which sort of implies that Congress is going to pass a ban on incandescent light bulbs.
- drake77, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Name-brand CFLs do _not_ dim over time. The cheapo ones do. Invest $3.00 in a quality, name-brand CFL and you won't have anymore problems.
- dickybrown, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1they don't dim in track lighting with dimmer switches either....they just die faster. sucks to spent $3-10 for a bulb that's supposed to last 10x as long as a regular A-line bulb when it burns out after a few weeks
I've been using compacts for a long time, but there are certainly applications where regular old bulbs are better. (also, the brands aren't as important as the specs)
- dickybrown, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1they don't dim in track lighting with dimmer switches either....they just die faster. sucks to spent $3-10 for a bulb that's supposed to last 10x as long as a regular A-line bulb when it burns out after a few weeks
- addicted68098, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1You could always use the money you saved in energy by using CFL's to by new ones when they are growing old?
- dgp1, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2RTFA, they're not considering banning incandescent technology. What's being discussed is mandating a certain level of efficiency. So if you can make a super-incandescent that meets efficiency requirements, not only will I buy a dozen (Nice going!) but the government won't stand in your way.
- gerbco, on 12/18/2007, -3/+11Once you make it mandatory it is no longer efficient, trying to make them competitive with traditional bulbs keep their cost down, if manufacturers know you HAVE to buy them why make them cheaper? Its like all the fools that want the energy bill to pass giving tax breaks to ethanol, they must love paying 8 dollars for a gallon of milk or $12 bucks for a pound of beef or pound of corn. Let the market decide efficiency not idiotic bureaucrats.
- RobsaysHello, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2I'd double digg you if I could.
- m00n1, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Yeah, because there's only ONE company making CFLs and there's no competition between them at all. They'll be $100 each, guaranteed. You are right, let the market decide how much we pollute. Hey, it's done us well so far! Greenhouse what...? No, market forces FTW! Let's get rid of those laws preventing companies dump toxins in lakes/rivers, market forces FTW!
- sadatoni, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3You should hear what CFL's do to the shortwave spectrum.
- Le3f, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1do tell
- gadgetlust, on 12/18/2007, -3/+2You do realize that all you people whining about CFL's are precisely the reason these kinds of laws are necessary?
/facepalm - DerangedPenguin, on 12/18/2007, -2/+0Freddy Mercury died of AIDS. Oh crap someone already mentioned LED's
- andrgo, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2*Yeah*, lets ban incandescent light bulbs so we're forced to use those fluorescent lights that emit EFI that can cause cancer. Brilliant idea, no wonder it's from our congress! I'm glad they obviously care more about LIGHT BULBS than the IRAQ WAR or $9 TRILLION BUDGET DEFICIT...
Or they could always place energy-related laws on big retail corporations like Wal Mart, Target, Home Depot, etc. It's not like they need their lights on full power during the day, or in the bathrooms when no ones inside using them (they make sensors for that.) Consumers shouldn't have to suffer when retail corporations are the biggest energy-wasters out there.- andrgo, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1I meant 'EMI', I hate these stupid two-minute post-editing restrictions.
- AdrewMc3, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1I concur, time restrictions just make the comments worse, and it makes people double post to explain something they could have just edited in their first post. And you don;t see it running out when your doing your edit which sucks. Reddit's policy is better.
- Beto0707, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Wal-Mart has already switched all the bulbs they can to CFLs. Why don't you go down there and look for yourself.
- andrgo, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1I never said they didn't, Wal Mart from what I've seen is probably the most energy-efficient of most bigger retailers (like those freezer lights that turn on as you walk on by.) Still, that doesn't mean there aren't more ways they could cut back on their energy consumption.
- andrgo, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1I meant 'EMI', I hate these stupid two-minute post-editing restrictions.
- shig, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2I would also add that NO CFL's are made in the USA. Can I have another serving of deficit with my free trade agreement, please?
- georgemason01, on 12/17/2007, -66/+145Good for you, but Congress has no right to tell anyone they cannot use incandescent bulbs.
- take2, on 12/17/2007, -10/+30I've been phasing out my incandescent light bulbs for the past year. It's amazing how many light bulbs I have in my house. I've counted more than 50 light sockets in total. So far, I haven't had to replace a single CFL yet.
- pak314, on 12/17/2007, -0/+8I've had a high failure rate of CFLs in my place. 2 out of 6 failed in one year. Probably still worth it for the electricity savings.
- jcounterman, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4They're really terrible in outdoor, humid conditions. I've had three failures outdoors; none of my CFLs have lasted more than a week outside.
- drake77, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3Use name brand CFLs and you won't have any problems. I haven't had any problems with the GE ones. Sylvan makes a good CFL too.
- greenlight2001, on 12/17/2007, -2/+6Incandescent light bulb black market in 3...2...1... Stock up now. They'll be worth a fortune!
Reminds me of the Seinfeld shower head episode.- Auto, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3"Low flow... I don't like the sound of that!"
- drake77, on 12/18/2007, -2/+1125-year old technology that costs 4X as much to use. Yeah I want that.
- greenlight2001, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Try using a CFL outside.... in Maine... in winter.
- bingobongony, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2Yeah...like that black market for lead paint and leaded gasoline.
Black markets only exist when the legal alternative is not cheaper and at least equally useful.- greenlight2001, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1It was a joke, asshat.
- norman619, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1I had to replace one after a month. All technology or prone to failure. Stick with the initial cost of purchase vs. long term energy/money savings. It's a better argument.
- ConceptJunkie, on 12/17/2007, -1/+8The CFL's I started buying almost 15 years ago lasted for years, but I've had far less luck with newer ones. Especially the ones with globes so they look like the globe lights you use over your mirror in the bathroom. Some of those went bad within months or even weeks. I switched to CFL's almost everywhere starting almost 10 years ago, but it's far more wasteful now than it used to be because they are making them much more cheaply (kinda like incandescents, which if made properly will essentially _never_ burn out).
All this ban will do is replace one problem with another, and not necessarily a smaller problem. But then again, that's Congress, and they will get all sorts of benefits for "doing something", which is all they actually care about.
I'd go LED, but I'm not independently wealthy and therefore can't afford it, but once LEDs are cost effective for lighting, then incandescents will truly be obsolete. As of now, they are starting to be obsolete, but aren't there yet and I think a ban is premature (but, see my last paragraph).- bingobongony, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1So, you should never take a middle step? Until LEDs are feasible we should continue using hte WORST kind of lighting? Why stop at LEDs? Some time in the future we will probably come up with somehing bette than LEDs. So why not keep using incandescents until then ?
- Drood, on 12/18/2007, -4/+2There is a hell of a lot more toxic waste in a CFL. You can't just toss them in the garbage. They have to be disposed of properly. But people won't ***** do that, so you may be cutting energy usage, but you're also going to be pumping more mercury into the environment.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of people feel ill from the light put out by CFL bulbs. Unlike regular bulbs, where the light is absorbed when it hits things (like paper for example) CFL light bounces off. This causes headaches and migraine in some people, myself included.
Basically this a ***** boneheaded idea that hasn't been remotely thought through.- bingobongony, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2No ther isn't. And yes you can. The amount of mercury is MUCH less than the amount of mercury released due to the extra coal burned to light the incandescents. If you break a CFL, your worst health concern is cutting yourself on the broken glass.
If you can recycle, of course, you should. But if there are no recycling centers in your area, simply wrap it up nicely in a zip-loc bag.
if 100% of CFLs were put in the landfill, and 100% of those bulbs broke, and 100% of hte mercury leaked out, it would still be FAR LESS mercury entering the environment than if all the lamps that were using those CFLs had used incandescents instead. A tiny bit of liquid mercury is FAR more manageable to deal with than gaseous mercury spewing into the air we breathe.
Ever break a thermometer? Or a thermostat? If so, you just handled several dozen CFLs worth of mercury.
- bingobongony, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2No ther isn't. And yes you can. The amount of mercury is MUCH less than the amount of mercury released due to the extra coal burned to light the incandescents. If you break a CFL, your worst health concern is cutting yourself on the broken glass.
- pak314, on 12/17/2007, -0/+8I've had a high failure rate of CFLs in my place. 2 out of 6 failed in one year. Probably still worth it for the electricity savings.
- whiteknives, on 12/17/2007, -152/+246That's ridiculous. I'm all for going green - but having the government control what light bulbs we buy is yet another step towards totalitarianism
- snea, on 12/17/2007, -26/+156This really isn't that much different than the EPA banning CFCs or R-12 coolant. They aren't going to come into your house and take your light bulbs. Newly produced incandescents just won't be easily available anymore.
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 12/17/2007, -7/+10Are you kidding? I had my house raided last week. They confiscated the new box of bulbs in my closet that I just bought at wal-mart, along with the 25 bulbs I had already installed.
/ - evilbob333, on 12/18/2007, -4/+9Like he said....another step towards totalitarianism.
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 12/17/2007, -7/+10Are you kidding? I had my house raided last week. They confiscated the new box of bulbs in my closet that I just bought at wal-mart, along with the 25 bulbs I had already installed.
- 01l0, on 12/17/2007, -44/+58A step towards totalitarianism? THAT'S ridiculous.
- norman619, on 12/17/2007, -15/+9Your comment is what's really ridiculous.
- sbluetruck, on 12/17/2007, -3/+6you commenting on a ridiculous is almost as ridiculous as me commenting on your OUTRAGEOUSLY RIDICULOUS comment.
- jcounterman, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4now THAT is a valid point!
- aadnk, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4Recursion is ridiculous.
- gudnbluts, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4Damn, my boggart just exploded.
- sbluetruck, on 12/17/2007, -3/+6you commenting on a ridiculous is almost as ridiculous as me commenting on your OUTRAGEOUSLY RIDICULOUS comment.
- JimmyQT, on 12/18/2007, -4/+5This is what they call the thin edge of the wedge, my friend...
- norman619, on 12/17/2007, -15/+9Your comment is what's really ridiculous.
- TrevorPace, on 12/17/2007, -23/+128The government also banned Asbestos in insulation. Do you think that made the government more totalitarian?
No. There is just no need what so ever to have incandescent bulbs. They last for a LONG time (my room hasn't had them replaced since I got them 4 years ago), they also take like 1/6th the power. You'd really be stupid to not want them.- mooseontheloose, on 12/17/2007, -20/+16So would you be OK with Congress banning Pentium III laptops? After all, you can get much better models that use less power today.
- Dumbledorito, on 12/17/2007, -5/+12This "ban" means fewer will be made. They aren't going to throw out your existing light bulbs. Go buy a closetful if you want to; you can keep them forever and pass them on to your grandkids to show them how you stuck it to the man.
Perhaps we can funnel the savings in utility bills to fixing "Jerking Knee Syndrome." - ihate2reg4u, on 12/17/2007, -5/+10The ban covers the manufacturing of NEW bulbs, not the use of old ones. Intel has already "banned" the Pentium III.
- StaticThunder, on 12/17/2007, -5/+0What? Are they still making Pentium IIIs? What would there be to ban?
I'm all for bans on taking good raw materials and producing CRAP. - WasabiBomb, on 12/17/2007, -5/+2You do understand that the ban on incandescents is on their manufacture, not their use, right?
- almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -0/+7ban fast food! it's not healthy!
- Dumbledorito, on 12/18/2007, -3/+2Actually, if they'd post calorie and fat content next to each item on the menu, the problem would largely take care of itself.
And that's not just fast food. A lot of stuff from "family dining" places are even worse for you. Our local news showed a Ruby Tuesday salad (with chicken, I think) that had more fat and calories than 3 Pizza Hut personal pan pizzas.
On this issue, inform the market adeqately. Put it right in their faces. The health care and productivity savings alone would be astronomical.
- Dumbledorito, on 12/18/2007, -3/+2Actually, if they'd post calorie and fat content next to each item on the menu, the problem would largely take care of itself.
- Dumbledorito, on 12/17/2007, -5/+12This "ban" means fewer will be made. They aren't going to throw out your existing light bulbs. Go buy a closetful if you want to; you can keep them forever and pass them on to your grandkids to show them how you stuck it to the man.
- itsthebrod, on 12/17/2007, -4/+46You're wrong. Incandescent bulbs have NUMEROUS applications where CFLs (or LED lights for that matter) don't cut it. Example: applications that require both heat and light. I use incandescent bulbs for my reptile to provide light and heat. Other people use them for incubating eggs. To say there's no reason to have incandescent bulbs anymore is stupid.
- Daggity, on 12/18/2007, -4/+6Perhaps the bill is more targeted towards building lighting and not pet supplies?
- itsthebrod, on 12/18/2007, -3/+20Or more importantly, perhaps the government doesn't know what I need best and should let me make up my own damn mind about my own purchases.
- starkruzr, on 12/18/2007, -5/+3Perhaps your right to purchase energy-guzzling appliances that guzzle energy for no gain does not trump the nation's need for energy and need to quit polluting the environment, which we all have to live in, as much.
I will be completely shocked if you cannot buy heatlamps after this ban. I promise you this is only for random store-bought bulbs that go in your closet and ceiling fixtures.
- cheesehead, on 12/18/2007, -0/+7Right on itsthebrod,I use incandescant bulbs to do things like keep my pumphouse from freezing in the winter, to heat up must to make wine in a recycled fridge, and to heat my chicken brooder. This legislation aside from not addressing the disposal of the mercury may be just some chicken ***** to delude people into thinking gov't is not useless, or as history shows, it may be another effort to put vested interests like the manufacturer of these bulbs ahead of the public interest. The decision should be for consumers to make, not big brother.
- LordBoreal51, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2Before making such conclusions, look at similar resolutions such as the Australian incandescent ban legislation which specifically allows for special purpose bulbs like those you describe to be sold.
- Daggity, on 12/18/2007, -4/+6Perhaps the bill is more targeted towards building lighting and not pet supplies?
- Cougaboy, on 12/17/2007, -8/+15And asbestos causes health issues. Incandescent lights are just wasteful. There is a line between harmful and wasteful, and I'm all for the government keeping harmful stuff out of the marketplace, but wasteful is where I draw the line.
I've tried on more than a few occasions to switch to CFLs, but they light they give off looks like *****. I'd much rather have to replace my lightbulbs a bunch and pay more for electricity so that I don't go crazy from crappy light color.- gudnbluts, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3Have you tried it recently? I never liked them either, but tried again in the past year, and they look a lot better than I remember them. Warm light - no noticeable flicker.
I essentially agree with you though. There are better ways of discouraging environmentally unfriendly products than the sledgehammer approach of banning them - tax for instance. - JimmyQT, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2The trick is that once somebody's allowed to decide what's wasteful they can extend it to all sorts of things... they can decide that your truck is wasteful (15mpg!), your dog is wasteful (it just eats and drools), maybeyour 3 kids are also wasteful (ditto).
I'm Canadian - it's already happening here. Last week David Suzuki broke into my house and stole my beer fridge! stop them while you can.
- gudnbluts, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3Have you tried it recently? I never liked them either, but tried again in the past year, and they look a lot better than I remember them. Warm light - no noticeable flicker.
- superkendall, on 12/18/2007, -4/+12I can't believe you are comparing something with health risks vs. something that saves a little electriciy, but costs way more and may not last as long (my outdoor CFL lights have failed just as often as my incandescents did).
Not to mention, that as a photographer I absolutely detest the light that CFL's produce. That and bad CFL's, I can hear them "buzz" when they are on...- starkruzr, on 12/18/2007, -3/+4A "little" electricity? A 10-W CFL replaces a 60-W incandescent and gives off the same amount of light. That is not a little electricity. That is a LOT of electricity.
You will continue to be able to buy daylight bulbs for your work just like you can now.
- starkruzr, on 12/18/2007, -3/+4A "little" electricity? A 10-W CFL replaces a 60-W incandescent and gives off the same amount of light. That is not a little electricity. That is a LOT of electricity.
- schwit, on 12/18/2007, -8/+4The asbestos scare was a hoax. It should no longer be used, but it wasn't nearly as bad as initially reported.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n1_ ... - mcool119, on 12/18/2007, -3/+8Even if there is no NEED for them, the government has no right to ban them. They'll be phased out of the market, by the consumer, just like black and white TV. This is just Congress trying to make themselves look good.
- WarrenHarding, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2externalities is one example where "the market" fails. it's so funny to me how market-nuts like yourself don't even know basic economics but are ready to give your lives over to "the market."
- sunamc, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1@Warrenharding I was waiting for some one to say this, i can't digg you enough... Free market supports are sounding more and more like religious extremists everyday.
- auzziedigger, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Asbestos is not the same thing as light bulbs. Asbestos actually killed people and was a major health hazard. The only victim from using an energy-inefficient light bulb is the person paying the bill. The source of the energy could've either been clean or generated with fossil fuels; that's the issue.
- glc17, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Well, according to the article, this will save 51 million tons of CO2, so I would argue that I, as a person looking into the future, would be harmed by all those greenhouse gases, so I think that it's not such a bad idea.
- Soave, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Incandescent lights just look way better, too. Maybe there are better types available, but the CFLs made things look really dull inside our house. They really take away a lot of colors.
So our house has some of each.
- mooseontheloose, on 12/17/2007, -20/+16So would you be OK with Congress banning Pentium III laptops? After all, you can get much better models that use less power today.
- Enasni1212, on 12/17/2007, -18/+15Sarcasm? Please tell me it was sarcasm.
- ZenMojo, on 12/17/2007, -13/+19How about we start worrying more about civil rights and less about property rights and maybe Congress wouldn't get away with the REAL stuff that's turning us into a totalitarian state. Defend my right to know and my right to vote and you can have my right to access expensive, crappy lightbulbs any day.
- djbon2112, on 12/17/2007, -2/+9Some of us are seriously concerned with both. Way to create a dichotomy out of none.
- evilbob333, on 12/18/2007, -3/+4Why so down on property rights? They are one of the the foundations of a free society. And if you don't believe me look at any free society and show me one where property rights are not respected?
- blast_flame, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1How about we be concerned about both.
- jpmoney03, on 12/17/2007, -5/+5They actually never said you couldn't buy them just that light bulbs must be 70% more efficient than todays if they are MANUFACTURED in the future. So yea you can still buy incandescent but it might cost you a pretty penny. Also I will like the fact that it will help hold down energy costs because it will lower demand therefore lowering prices.
- jcastillo81, on 12/17/2007, -2/+7Swirl lights are significantly more expensive than regular bulbs. What about the very poor who can't afford to upgrade? I know lets start giving them light stamps!
There's no need for the government to get involved here. All you have to do is go to Target and walk to the lighting section to see that the demand for swirl lights is increasing without mommy government.- jpmoney03, on 12/17/2007, -3/+3Actually the very poor would be helped by this since they save them money in the long run. But anyways sometimes something is a terrible design compared to what is available now but silly people continue to use the old design because they are comfortable with it. If this old design is causing the population as a whole to suffer then I want my elected official to help me out because Grandpa dumb ***** thinks new technology is the devil.
- WasabiBomb, on 12/17/2007, -2/+2But if incandescents are cheaper, most people will stick with them... which means that we burn more energy nationwide, which means that we all pay. Banning them forces the lighting manufacturers to improve alternative lights and their manufacturing to the point where they're as cheap as incandescents are.
In thirty years or so, people will look back on incandescent lighting tech as a quaint throwback. It's really not that big a deal. - almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -5/+4it's sad that you can't make your own decisions in your life, something as simple as choosing a light bulb.
and yet, i'm sure you'd be okay with somebody choosing to kill their baby in the womb.
lightbulb choice = bad
murdering babies with some scissors and a vaccum choice = a constitutional right that must never be infringed! - zweben, on 12/17/2007, -2/+3CFL bulbs are a few dollars. After the slightly higher initial investment, CFLs will end up SAVING money due to lower energy use. Unless they can't afford the $5 for a bulb, it's going to be helping the very poor by reducing their energy bill. If they're so poor that they can't afford a $5 investment to save themselves money, they probably don't have to worry about buying light bulbs at all because they don't have any money for their electricity bill.
- almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -1/+4'Also I will like the fact that it will help hold down energy costs because it will lower demand therefore lowering prices.'
Wow, you're a dumbass. That's like saying raising the minimum wage to $20 for everybody is great cause it will make everybody rich. Government can't magically fix everything you perceive to be a problem; they only create them. - superkendall, on 12/18/2007, -0/+5Sure, setting a target that no-one can meet is in no way a ban. Right.
- jcastillo81, on 12/17/2007, -2/+7Swirl lights are significantly more expensive than regular bulbs. What about the very poor who can't afford to upgrade? I know lets start giving them light stamps!
- mushoo, on 12/17/2007, -7/+15Invasion a foreign country under false pretenses, the destabilization of foreign countries through coups, the patriot act, the torture going on in Guantanamo, stolen elections, the outing of covert agents, the spying through corporate entities, and you find a way to rationalize them all and continue to take it up the craw. Yet they might phase out incandescent light bulbs and that's what drives you to yell out totalitarinism, wow.
- ChayD, on 12/17/2007, -5/+26Yep, before you know it, the lightbulb police will be kicking your door down.
- almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -0/+3you think they won't?
So what if manufacturers continuing producing them? Are they just gonna ignore them, or will they kick down their door and raid the factory?
You're right, they probably wouldn't bother. The IRS leaves people alone, and the DEA doesn't bust into homes shooting up anything and everything that moves.
- almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -0/+3you think they won't?
- lordjeebus, on 12/17/2007, -3/+25First they came for the incandescent light bulbs - but I was not an incandescent light bulb so I did not speak out.
- Phantizen, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4HA HA HA HA!!!
- smeshy123, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1HAHAHAHAHA as well...
- HunterSeeker42, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2THEY ARE KNOCKING ON MY DOOR RIGHT NOW! HELP ME, DIGG! THEIR GONNA CUT MY FILAMENT! SPEAK UP!
- SemiSarcastic, on 12/17/2007, -4/+3REALLY!?...Are you sure??
- flashingcurser, on 12/18/2007, -2/+8I wonder when someone will notice that these things have mercury vapor in them. The phosphorus isn't very friendly either.
- Hyperion1144, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2They are recyclable, you know.
I save mine for recycling later.
- Hyperion1144, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2They are recyclable, you know.
- nixfu, on 12/18/2007, -8/+3>totalitarianism
AH yes...thats that part that they always forget to mention when you sign on the dotted line for Socialist ideas.
/but its there in the fine print at the bottom....just no one bothers to read it when they are offering the handouts- sirloin, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1lol
i gues the gov doesnt have the power to ban lawn darts?
or say we cant buy from cuba
I should be able to buy plutonium if it wasnt for this pesky tolitarian gov telling me what i can and cant buy.
heck them noise jerks took the lead out of gas
I'm not allowed to buy leaded gas.. WTF.. just cause it had reduced our motrtality rate doesnt give congress the right to tell me i can polute up the atmosphere.
GVIE ME A BREAK YOU FREE MARKETORS.. hte free market is not the messaih of free society.
- sirloin, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1lol
- zantos420, on 12/18/2007, -5/+3I disagree. I feel like them banning the manufacturing of an old and inefficient technology is a good thing since it will drive the market to come up with even better technology; eventually replacing the new bulbs we have now with even better ones that would have otherwise been prolonged in creation due to the wide acceptance of old technology for so long.
- Beto0707, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1I'm glad the government banned ENIAC computers so the market could replace them with desktop and tablet computers.
- orca94, on 12/18/2007, -9/+2You're one of those Ron Paul idiots aren't you? ***** moron. Hey lets move CAFE standards down to 5 mpg, that'd be a great idea.
- Elwood19k20, on 12/18/2007, -2/+4Good job at being a jerk wise guy. I hope that it was a good self esteem boost to slander someone and thier beliefs. :)
- c0n724ll10n, on 12/18/2007, -1/+0He has a point. Libertarians would be against this sort of thing. People who think that government has no place in society are ***** morons.
- almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -0/+1morons? Being able to take care of yourself and be self-reliant = being a moron, depending on mommy daddy government = intelligence and freedom?
- Elwood19k20, on 12/18/2007, -1/+8The Mercury in these things is possibly more harmful than using regular bulbs, but I have still switched. I am really looking forward to LED lighting which is more environmentally friendly and uses even less energy. However, I do not think that it is the governments responsibility to regulate this. The government is good at doing 2 things, raising taxes and not doing a good job at managing it, whether it's a Republican or a Democrat, doesn't matter. Stuff like this is up to the responsibility of the People. Not the government.
- otakushark, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1There's far more mercury in every one of those millions of 4-8' long fluorescent tubes that you see in every office building or store, but some people can't get over bitching about CFLs.
- otakushark, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1There's far more mercury in every one of those millions of 4-8' long fluorescent tubes that you see in every office building or store, but some people can't get over bitching about CFLs.
- bingobongony, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3Having the government telling me I can't use leaded gasoline, or lead paint is one step toward totalitarianism!
- Richandler, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2Um there is a difference between banning something that can kill you and then banning light bulbs. The is no real reason to ban either. But what is going to prevent them from determining how much energy you can use peroid. Where you go to jail if you sell a light bulb or use to much energy? It's ridiculous. The right to choose my light bulb is a very simple freedom. It should not be stripped for enviro agendas.
- diggingaround, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1I think that you will like to see couple of hundreds new "clean" coal power plants to supply our energy needs.
- Monkeywithacold, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3How dare the government make us wear seatbelts!
- almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -0/+1seriously, though, why do they have the right?
should they also order for you at McDonald's, pick out your groceries, and restrict the mileage you can drive your car in a given day? where does it end?
- almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -0/+1seriously, though, why do they have the right?
- snea, on 12/17/2007, -26/+156This really isn't that much different than the EPA banning CFCs or R-12 coolant. They aren't going to come into your house and take your light bulbs. Newly produced incandescents just won't be easily available anymore.
- chupavacas, on 12/17/2007, -32/+31Things like this seem good on the surface but what is really happening? The Federal Government is going to tell us how to light our buildings. How intrusive can you get? Next are they going to tell me what color underwear I can wear? Wake up people and take your country back!
- fuzzmeister, on 12/17/2007, -13/+13As snea said above, this isn't really any different than the government banning other environmentally damaging products, such as CFCs or R-12.
- almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -1/+6what are you talking about?! CFL's contain toxic mercury!
how is banning a safe lightbulb and replacing it with a toxic one promoting safety?! and how is that not intrusive?!- starkruzr, on 12/18/2007, -3/+1CFLs and their mercury are entirely recyclable.
Nice attempt at alarmism, however.- itisfritz, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2and what will guarantee those bulbs being recycled, and who his going to fund these recycling centers?
- metalwolf, on 12/18/2007, -3/+0Just don't swallow the light bulb and you should be fine.
- itisfritz, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3and what will guarantee those bulbs being recycled, and who his going to fund these recycling centers?
- starkruzr, on 12/18/2007, -3/+1CFLs and their mercury are entirely recyclable.
- blast_flame, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2Those were wrong too. Your point?
- almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -1/+6what are you talking about?! CFL's contain toxic mercury!
- Dumbledorito, on 12/17/2007, -8/+16Funny how people will cry revolt over light bulbs, but not other things that cost us trillions...
- evodude, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1And don't forget lives. Those things usually cost us lives, too. But you have to draw the line somewhere. If it isn't the millions of kids without health insurance, or the men and women dying for a pointless war, it's light bulbs.
- StaticThunder, on 12/17/2007, -2/+6We're upset about lightbulbs but not bullets.
- norman619, on 12/17/2007, -0/+7Don't these things have mercury in them? How will the disposal of these bulbs be done? We can't toss them into landfills.
- StaticThunder, on 12/17/2007, -6/+3You've been tossing mercury into landfills for years in the guise of regular fluorescents and mercury thermometers, not to mention mercury switches in thermostats, but as soon as the government says its better because you don't have to burn as much coal (which dispenses mercury over a wide area), OMG, WE CAN'T THROW AWAY MERCURY!!!!!1111
Recycling for the win. And yes, it should be mandatory.- 0xbaadf00d, on 12/18/2007, -1/+4Recycling is ***** in most cases.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYrE6vnXP5Q - StaticThunder, on 12/18/2007, -1/+0So fix it, instead of spreading FUD and arguing for wasting power. If all the mercury wound up in a landfill it would still be less damaging than the emissions from powering an incandescent on coal.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 12/18/2007, -1/+4Recycling is ***** in most cases.
- StaticThunder, on 12/17/2007, -6/+3You've been tossing mercury into landfills for years in the guise of regular fluorescents and mercury thermometers, not to mention mercury switches in thermostats, but as soon as the government says its better because you don't have to burn as much coal (which dispenses mercury over a wide area), OMG, WE CAN'T THROW AWAY MERCURY!!!!!1111
- fuzzmeister, on 12/17/2007, -13/+13As snea said above, this isn't really any different than the government banning other environmentally damaging products, such as CFCs or R-12.
- BigBlueCarbon, on 12/17/2007, -25/+13lame
- Arcesius, on 12/17/2007, -4/+1Yes, crippled people suck. Well put.
- BigBlueCarbon, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2literalist
- BigBlueCarbon, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2literalist
- Arcesius, on 12/17/2007, -4/+1Yes, crippled people suck. Well put.
- Codes02, on 12/17/2007, -7/+102Damn, now my skin will look continualy zombie like.
- lydecker, on 12/17/2007, -3/+19I like turtles.
- mrjit, on 12/17/2007, -1/+12Yeah, this is really bad for us white guys.
- snugglebear, on 12/17/2007, -2/+5Buy the 'warm' ones. Some idiot thought everyone would want white light, not 'yellow' like most people are used to in lightbulbs. In the end white lights ends up making me feel like I'm in an office building with neons.
- sonnybobiche, on 12/18/2007, -0/+12or 'fluorescent.' You don't have neon lighting at your office unless you work in a strip club.
- Hybred1234, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1rofl.
- starkruzr, on 12/18/2007, -2/+1The pure-white ones are actually really useful for photographic work (despite what some other Digger said up there).
- sonnybobiche, on 12/18/2007, -0/+12or 'fluorescent.' You don't have neon lighting at your office unless you work in a strip club.
- bingobongony, on 12/18/2007, -4/+1Get a LAMPSHADE you ***** white trash hillbilly.
- bdlang, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1I know it was meant as a joke, and I get it, but the new CFL's really provide a much warmer light than you'd expect. I replaced several incandescent bulbs recently and I actually prefer the CFL light.
- tehWhisp, on 12/18/2007, -0/+0Funny... that was my number one concern as well. At least this will give me some will to get outside more! (not really)
- Frostman3D, on 12/17/2007, -43/+106I don't want the government banning things to try to make us use other things. It's not their job to do it.
- ZenMojo, on 12/17/2007, -18/+5Yes it is.
- Frostman3D, on 12/17/2007, -2/+15No it's not. It's left up to the market. If the market can make the new bulbs cheaper, then everybody will switch. Do you really need the government to make all decisions for you?
- Logicexe, on 12/17/2007, -5/+2The market is already making cheaper bulbs. Once you factor in the longevity and energy savings Compact fluorescents are cheaper. Let's not forget that it took a law to ban CFCs, it took a law to get seat belts in cars. Tons of things that are now common place and taken for granted originally needed a law to become widely adopted.
- Rocetmal, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0Seat belts cause deaths too. I guess that is appropriate for this topic, though. Everything has downsides, just like the poor people who won't be able to afford the new bulbs that are 6x more expensive than fluorescent ones. Good thing we have experts in congress (sarcasm there) to tell us what is good for us. Soon we'll be forced to eat all "organic" food too. I hope I live to see the day where I don't have to make any choices for myself, but I can just elect a politician to do it for me. Not an expert in a field of study, but a career politician.
- Rocetmal, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0sorry, i meant to say 6x more expensive than incandescent bulbs. Long day.
- Logicexe, on 12/17/2007, -5/+2The market is already making cheaper bulbs. Once you factor in the longevity and energy savings Compact fluorescents are cheaper. Let's not forget that it took a law to ban CFCs, it took a law to get seat belts in cars. Tons of things that are now common place and taken for granted originally needed a law to become widely adopted.
- Frostman3D, on 12/17/2007, -2/+15No it's not. It's left up to the market. If the market can make the new bulbs cheaper, then everybody will switch. Do you really need the government to make all decisions for you?
- 42Vindictive, on 12/17/2007, -15/+10Lets face it- People are dumb. If someone doesn't tell them to switch to something better, they won't.
- Frostman3D, on 12/17/2007, -4/+9Then so be it. It's not your place or the governments to force them to change.
- Logicexe, on 12/18/2007, -3/+3It is when it affects everyone. Like it or not we all dip into the same energy resources and having a significant portion of the population needlessly waste energy hurts us all.
- starkruzr, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Your philosophy depends on the market to work, am I right? If something is better for the same amount of money, people will naturally choose to purchase it instead. They vote with their dollars. The better product wins. Everyone is happy. Right?
Wrong. This does not take intellectual inertia into account. It does not take externalities into account (the wastefulness of incandescent bulbs, the extra power they burn that we really cannot spare). This is why your libertarian utopia would fail.
- Papajohn56, on 12/17/2007, -2/+3I'm telling you to stop posting, will you listen?
- Ephil, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2So people are too dumb to figure out which light bulb to use, but they're smart enough to elect leaders who will tell them which light bulb to use?
- blast_flame, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1politicians are no different. If you want to see people stop being stupid support human intelligence augmentation technologies instead.
- Frostman3D, on 12/17/2007, -4/+9Then so be it. It's not your place or the governments to force them to change.
- Enasni1212, on 12/17/2007, -10/+8So you should be allowed to use Agent Orange and chlorofluorocarbons just because you want to? Not to mention that I can't think of any reason NOT to use CFLs.
- djbon2112, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5If that's true (your second sentence), then the market will decide on its own. It already is; incandescents aren't banned yet and yet CFL's are growing in popularity. All this is is a government trying to look like it's actually doing something and failing.
- almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -4/+6should we ban smoking? how about drinking? fast food is making people fat, better eradicate that threat.
it's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves.- StaticThunder, on 12/17/2007, -2/+6But it IS the governments job to protect me from you AND create an business environment that fosters competition and creates better products.
This will result in more efficient incandescents and improvements in lighting technology. Quit your bitching. There will still be legacy bulbs, probably imported from China, for your archaic lighting needs. - digalphabeta, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Your completely confused about what the governments job is. You have it all backwards. Put down your crack pipe.
- blast_flame, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1@static Thunder
I fully disagree with you on the create a favorable work environment part and partially disagree with you on the protect us from each other part. The government's only role should be to prevent people from using coercive force (like stealing, murder or rape) on each other.- StaticThunder, on 12/18/2007, -1/+0First, I disagree with you about the role of government. Thats your opinion on what government is for, and it borders on radical libertarianism, which fails in practice.
Polluting my air, devaluing my property with coal-fired mercury contamination, so that energy companies can make more money off of my health and welfare, is just as coercive, in my opinion, and its the province of the government to make laws to regulate how much you can exploit the public's environmental resources for profit. - blast_flame, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1@StaticThunder
As a libertarian I disagree with your assertion that "radical" libertarianism fails in practice. Libertarianism at is core is simply a theory that people should if possible get along without using coercive force. Even the most die hard libertarian recognizes that this is impossible to achieve 100% as there will always be thieves and people who like getting control over others but we attempt to minimize it by downsizing the largest coercive organization, government, as much as possible. Please give your reasons why such a system would not work so I can rebut them.
As for your second part if you could prove that the coal power plant caused physical damage to your property (not just lowered your property values by have an "eyesore" coal power plant there), then you could get a bit of money. - StaticThunder, on 12/19/2007, -1/+0Yes, I have to have the money, to do a study, to prove it. Which means I need a coalition of people who have been harmed, quite likely permanently through damage to their health, to front the resources to demonstrate it, above and beyond the loud and expensive voice of the energy company. That coalition is called GOVERNMENT, a phenomenon that libertarianism fails to address. It assumes the individual always has the resources to get redress of grievances, and that redress is always possible.
- blast_flame, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1@staticThunder
Government is different to a grouping like that because it is not voluntary. It steals money though taxes, people use it to force other people to act like they want them too and so on. If the government was only doing want a voluntary organization could do I would have no problem with it but it goes beyond those boundaries and as such I am against the majority of its activities.
Oh and if there were scientific evidence to pass a law surely there's enough to have a law suit. - StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0Why do you think government funds research through the NSF, EPA, DOE and NIH?
Because small groups of individuals CAN'T. But libertarians would make all research private, and so companies would never do the research that might allow people to question their products.
You really don't get it. I have to wonder how much you know about how these things actually work in practice, that you are so ready to throw them out for the panacea of "less government interference."
So now, instead of the NIH funding reserach into *lots of things*, based on expert opinion of what should be funded, I have to do the research myself, and dilute the results. Great.
Forget it. Libertarianism is stupid. - blast_flame, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1@staticthunder
I just used authoritarianism because I am unaware of your stance on other issues that would specify what your political philosophy is.
Firstly it is not a tax because at no point is coercive force used. A gun is not put to your head and you will not go to jail. Something not being a good idea if you don't do it is not coercive force unless violence is used or a chain of events that could result in violence being used is stated (for instance if you commit a for instance drug crime and refuse to go to jail then police will come to force you there).
Everyone would not have to follow the consumer reports, it would keep businesses honest. That's if there were only consumer reports which would not be true because the free market caters to everyone. A private seal of approval system would also be in place in which in order to get a logo on there product would have to submit there product to a testing board and pay for the testing. in fact we have such a system for some products today. All a consumer would have to do is look for the logo. If fact some shops would not even buy products without this seal of approval so if you wanted to know you were shopping safe simply shop there, as some shops do today. - StaticThunder, on 12/21/2007, -1/+0Fine, so now you're willing to accuse me of being authoritarian because you have nothing better to throw. Your system wouldn't work. Parts of it are already in place, and they have failed repeatedly -- we have the UL, and no products are ever recalled after they kill someone, AND you assume that people could handle ALL these types of situations with no assistance, knowing full well that its already quite hard to get recompense from a company, or purchase a good product, even when the research is on your side because the information hasn't reached you. Even WITH assistance they still can't make intelligent market decisions.
You need to take a serious look at many things you are currently taking for granted.
- StaticThunder, on 12/18/2007, -1/+0First, I disagree with you about the role of government. Thats your opinion on what government is for, and it borders on radical libertarianism, which fails in practice.
- blast_flame, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1@Staticthunder
Such studies would be carried out in a free market. One avenue of money making they could have besides government takes is to a release a single or possibly even multiple consumer reports style bookls every year that one could buy to be Informed. Buyer beware. Market forces would then drive competing consumer reports to be more honest and truthful then each other. That's just the funding method that I came up with to answer your question, think what the market will come up with. Necessity is the mother of all invention after all.
Forget it. Authoritarianism is stupid. - StaticThunder, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0I'm not arguing for authoritarianism, although ideologues like you love to see issues entirely in black and white, and I remain unconvinced that your kludgey consumer reports solution would work. You would steward over a collapsed economy with the worst worker protections and consumer safety standards the world has seen.
The individual doesn't have time to evaluate everything in the market "consumer reports style." When he goes to buy a car, or an umbrella, he needs to have a modicum of safety expectation -- which implies regulation, and people hired to evaluate products and services, because he has to consume so much, from so many suppliers, it becomes a logistical nightmare to police everything himself.
Your consumer reports is a TAX. If I have to purchase a product to avoid buying cyanide laced tomatoes, or automotive death traps, its a mandatory, coercive TAX.
Just like you claim to despise. Think about that. - blast_flame, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1@StaticThunder
Very little of the market is really free. One of the few good examples is the computer industry. See the leaps and bounds it is making.
I never claimed that people should be without assistance just that assistance should be provided by non-coercive entities unlike government.
There are simple marketplace solutions we could apply to problems such as reputation rating to solve problems such as companies not recalling dangerous products. People like you could vote online to raise their reputation rating when they did good things and lower it when they did bad things. This would give the businesses an incentive to do good things.
What view exactly do you want me to reconsider? The fact that we should not use violence and coercive force on those who have not used violence and coercive force on others? Perhaps you need to reconsider your stance that coercive force is fine as long as an entity that calls itself government does it.
- StaticThunder, on 12/17/2007, -2/+6But it IS the governments job to protect me from you AND create an business environment that fosters competition and creates better products.
- ryan83189, on 12/18/2007, -2/+0cfl's cant burn upside down, or in damp conditions, and i seriously doubt the long lifespan that they promise us. I am looking at a year old cfl and it is dim.
- Rocetmal, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0Here's a big reason. You're not supposed to use CFL bulbs in things that vibrate or move. That means items like garage door openers, ceiling fans with lights attached, etc. And they don't even make them for things like chandeliers. It's great to assume all of these problems will be answered by the time 4 years from now hits, but it's the Federal government we're talking about.
- lydecker, on 12/17/2007, -5/+7Is it not the responsibility of the government to ban vehicles that don't meet their emission standards? Who's job is it to protect the environment? Who's job is it to put limits on everyone's ecological impact? An individual?
- ConceptJunkie, on 12/18/2007, -3/+3The _State_ governments, sure. There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the _Federal_ government to do these things. That's how it was _supposed_ to work, but starting in the 1860's and continuing through now, our Federal politicians decided they liked absolute power and have been gradually grabbing for it ever since. The Constitution is a relic of an earlier time, and is viewed as no obstacle to any Federal official doing anything he or she wants, which has been the trend for many decades.
- OreosRgood4me, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Or you know, our government now is much different that it constitutionally was. That, and they (Congress and the Supreme Court), are able to interpret articles differently. Pretty much every bureaucracy has been establish by an interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Really, if they hadn't, our country would not have changed at all. We would still have slavery, in-equal rights, monopolistic corporations (much worse than now), child labor, etc. It's how we get things done now in the government, and for every negative there have been more than enough positives.
Instead what we need to get done is fixing the bureaucracy.
- OreosRgood4me, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Or you know, our government now is much different that it constitutionally was. That, and they (Congress and the Supreme Court), are able to interpret articles differently. Pretty much every bureaucracy has been establish by an interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Really, if they hadn't, our country would not have changed at all. We would still have slavery, in-equal rights, monopolistic corporations (much worse than now), child labor, etc. It's how we get things done now in the government, and for every negative there have been more than enough positives.
- blast_flame, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Yes individuals and voluntary groups of individuals. Is it really that radical an idea that we should get along peacefully without forcing each other to do things?
- ConceptJunkie, on 12/18/2007, -3/+3The _State_ governments, sure. There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the _Federal_ government to do these things. That's how it was _supposed_ to work, but starting in the 1860's and continuing through now, our Federal politicians decided they liked absolute power and have been gradually grabbing for it ever since. The Constitution is a relic of an earlier time, and is viewed as no obstacle to any Federal official doing anything he or she wants, which has been the trend for many decades.
- johnpaul191, on 12/17/2007, -2/+14leaded gasoline, mercury thermometers, asbestos, DDT, lead paint bla bla bla bla are all things that the government banned even after the industry insisted they were not so harmful when used properly.
- Logicexe, on 12/18/2007, -2/+3But, but, but, but I thought the free market alway knew best?
The free market doesn't know what's best, it knows what's cheapest.One of the basic assumptions in economics is that people will make rational decisions when purchasing goods. Frankly, considering how many people are still using incandescent bulbs I can't help but think that it's a faulty assumption. - cosinezero, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2All of the items you listed legitimately -are- harmful.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2DDT could have saved literally billions of lives if it was used more.
- StaticThunder, on 12/18/2007, -1/+0In Africa and SE Asia.
Which is fine with me. I just don't want it here. Nobody said they had to ban it too. - OreosRgood4me, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1Yeah, it's really pretty bad when in a social, concentrated area such as the suburbs (for people), and is absolutely horrible for the environment.
- StaticThunder, on 12/18/2007, -1/+0In Africa and SE Asia.
- Soave, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1CFLs are arguably more of a health-hazard than incandescent bulbs (due to the mercury inside them). In the things you mentioned, all those things were banned because they're potentially dangerous. Incandescent bulbs really aren't.
- Logicexe, on 12/18/2007, -2/+3But, but, but, but I thought the free market alway knew best?
- Sporky023, on 12/18/2007, -4/+4Um, actually it IS the government's job to tell us to use some things over others, when it comes to pollution there is no way to regulate it without universal contract, and no way to have a universal contract without making it law. That's what law is, and that's why we have a government.
- blast_flame, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1If you were to be a little creative you would find that there are 100% non-coercive/non-government free market solutions to environmental problems. We should use force on each other.
- blast_flame, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1*shouldn't
- blast_flame, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1If you were to be a little creative you would find that there are 100% non-coercive/non-government free market solutions to environmental problems. We should use force on each other.
- drakethegreat, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Whose job is it then? Although you would think people would be smart enough to do this on their own. After all it does save them money in the long run.
- darlyn, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1"It's not their job to do it."
Then who's job is it? With the ever-present global warming crisis we have on our hands, we should be thankful that our government is finally starting to take energy-consumption a bit more seriously.- Rocetmal, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0global warming crisis? I don't know about you, but in Michigan here cold weather started earlier than I can remember in a long long time. Remember in the 70s-80s when everyone thought global COOLING would be the death of us all? The earth works like a pendulum, believe not the tales that Al Gore tells. We are a lot more environmentally friendly today than we were 10, 20, or even 30+ years ago. So as we're getting cleaner, the earth is getting worse? That doesn't make much sense.
- ZenMojo, on 12/17/2007, -18/+5Yes it is.
- trendygamer, on 12/17/2007, -11/+95I'm going to quote my own comment on the story about Ireland banning incandescents, as it applies the same here:
"Excuse me but I'm going to call shenanigans on that. CFLs have been making significant headway on their own over the last few years, which is amazing considering they're replacing a technology that has been used for over 100 years! The desire for an energy efficient bulb has been pushing manufacturers to make them cheaper, with more natural (i.e., more like incandescents) light. These improvements and price drops will help to convert people who still swear by the old technology. I know it did it for me, but some people aren't ready yet. What will happen when these are mandated, and there is no competitor to them? Manufactures will lose the incentive to improve upon them OR lower their prices. CFLs are actually a great example of market forces working well...messing with them in this manner is bad news all around."
I stand by my position that government action in this area is not only unnecessary given an emerging, clearly superior technology, but harmful.- OHiggins, on 12/17/2007, -2/+6Necessity breeds innovation.
- 01l0,