Incandescent Light Bulbs to Start Being Phased Out in 2012

Jimmy Snyder

Lumen for lumen, candles create far more greenhouse gasses than incandescent bulbs. So why does the govt go after one and not the other? The powerful candle industry lobby.

lisab

In the future, instead of getting fantastic, mind-blowing-brilliant ideas in a sudden flash, people will begin to get dim, vague notions which will strengthen slowly over time. Patience will be required to wait on ideas to build up a bit. Sure, eventually, ideas will be be as bright as they used to be, but they will never have that same wonderful A-HA! feeling.

I think I'm going to miss the old days.

JaredJames

Fair play lisab, that's brilliant!

Jimmy Snyder

I don't get it. Oh!

Kurdt

Don't worry. We'll all be using LED natural lights soon enough.

mheslep

Close? I suggest practically every aspect of modern life is considered fair game for restriction and regulation, as the would be restricters and regulators can (and do) make arguments that your every action impacts them through impacts on the environment, national security, etc, the argument having grown so fantastic now that it is a thin veil for totalitarian intentions. I suppose this is an easy position to take if one sees many of his fellow citizens as as misguided "bitter" rubes requiring control by their betters as otherwise "they cling to guns or religion."

BobG

They missed the boat by limiting the flow of shower heads. The real water waste occurs when people take longer showers. Instead of limiting the flow of water, they should have limited the capacity of water heaters and/or limited the temperature of water heater.

Limiting the temperature means people will have to limit how much cold water is mixed in the shower flow, reducing overall flow. Limiting the capacity limits how long a person(s) can shower before the hot water is gone, making further showering rather undesirable.

Or, if they really wanted to save water, they could have banned outdoor water outlets and sprinkler systems. People could only grow grass, trees, and flowers in their yard if they lived in a region where grass, trees, and flowers naturally grew.

Likewise, if legislators really want to save energy on lighting, they should implement double-dog daylight savings time for the summer. Daylight savings time works well in the Spring and Fall, but a lot of daylight is wasted before anyone is up to enjoy them. Double dog daylight savings time for the Summer months would eliminate an hour of artificial lighting time in the evening.

Jack21222

How many people do you know use candles to light their house?

My mother uses candles all the time, but not to light the room like a light bulb. She does it for the scent and a faint light. Therefore, "lumen for lumen" is a terrible way to compare the two.

Evo

jimmy was making a joke.

CAC1001

They had better NOT start messing with my hot water heater

CAC1001

Irregardless, they are preventing the sale of a product many want.

I don't have the $$$ to stock up on a supply of incandescents to last for years, nor the room.

No company does that. What they might do is introduce the more profitable/new/better product and see how it sells. That doesn't mean people are going to want it.

Yes, could is a key word.

Yes, who are the government to tell us what to buy? It really is none of their business. Especially when the alternative product (s) has issues many don't like.

As mentioned by mheslep, there's a fine line here, because any regulation can be justified if you argue it affects the environment, national security, etc...

No they are not. People don't want to have to buy the government-mandated alternatives because they have a lot of issues people don't like (time to light up, lack of heat, ambience, cost, etc...).

You're wrong. Because if all the companies only sold CFLs as of tomorrow, someone would start a company making incandescents, and would likely find a large enough demand that the company would be profitable and become sizeable pretty quickly.

With the regulation, it becomes illegal for companies to make incandescents anymore (unless maybe someone tries doing what that guy in Europe did, re-designating them as heaters).

WhoWee

Don't take any chances - get a big gas fired on-demand water heater. I like the commercial/car wash models for whole house applications.

Al68

No. Your second scenario is identical to the actual scenario in reality over the last 100 years, ie people are free to buy and sell incandescent bulbs as they please. The result of not using force is that they will be sold.

Seriously, your second "scenario" is like saying "what if everyone just inexplicably decided to stop selling alcohol even though it's completely legal?", and claiming that's identical to prohibition. First, it wouldn't happen, and second, it wouldn't be the same situation even if it did.I would personally start an incandescent bulb business to sell them to everyone in the U.S. who wanted one. Do you really think every business in the country would just sit back and let me have 100% of the market share? How rich would I get if everyone else just inexplicably declined to sell them, so that I had a de facto monopoly? How inexplicable would it be that out of 300 million people, not a single one (besides me) is interested in billions of dollars?No, the effect of not using force is that they will be sold. And the difference is, I will become a billionaire! And far less important, now that I think about it, is that everyone will be free to buy incandescent bulbs.

Seriously, the following two things are mutually contradictory, as evidenced by both simple logic and the fact that they have never happened in the history of the human race:

1. A product is in demand and profitable and no force is used to prevent its manufacture or sale.
2. The product is not being sold.

Evo

So, is everyone that is against the ban against the environmentalists that pushed this legislation to save the planet as part of a popular cause back then? I'm really curious if on one hand you support that movement, as long as it doesn't interfere with you personally, or if it is simply something that has never concerned you.

There are supposed to be tremendous benefits, not only to the planet, but if you pay electric bills, you're supposed to see a reduction in your bills, but I don't see anyone addressing the benefits. This makes me really curious.

Al68

I want to know if everyone who favors the ban is against the environmentalists who have been trying to save the planet by reducing mercury use, by opposing this ban. Do you support the movement against putting more mercury in little childrens' homes, as long as it doesn't interfere with you personally by preventing you from saving money on your electric bill to buy more Big Macs?

Jack21222

I should hope so. I thought that might have been the case, but you never know around here.

Evo

Did you know that you don't have to buy CFL's, so mercury isn't an issue?