The Warring States of NPF

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)
-   Bullshit Mountain (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Light Bulb Ban (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=39735)

Bells 03-09-2011 04:45 PM

Light Bulb Ban
 
Video on Colbert report

FOX is arguing against something that doesn't exist.

So does the Heritage Foundation

there is this Blog, Band the Bulb, that is Pro the phasing out of Incandescent lights

Wikipedia has a very nice article about the whole deal from a Global point of view

And the Huff Po has the story from Calinfornia's point of view

And CNN money think it's a bad idea

So, all those links come down to the latest silly Power struggle in the global scenario... how can people oppose something like this? New technology, better technology... shouldn't we have better standards for efficiency than we had 100 years ago?

All and all, it's blown being all proportion and made into "this week's outrage" and i hope it stops at that. Because it really seems like a silly argument... also i don't know why Fox is fighting against it... this one was signed and brought in by Bush... doesn't that goes against their narrative?

rpgdemon 03-09-2011 05:15 PM

Honestly, I don't see a reason for the law to ban the old bulbs. If it's better for consumers, people will switch over, and if not, I'd rather not have the old ones banned.

I mean, there are places where the old incandescent lights shine (Hah! I am funny!), and there are places where florescents make much more sense. I don't think that we should ban one, just because the other is a better fit in general.

Geminex 03-09-2011 05:30 PM

That... What...
No? Let's go with 'No'.

Quote:

Honestly, I don't see a reason for the law to ban the old bulbs.
That's good. Neither does anyone else. Incandescents aren't being banned. Inefficient incandescents are being banned. Because they use a lot more energy than they should.

Quote:

If it's better for consumers, people will switch over
If it's better for the individual, they'll switch over. But what is best for the individual isn't always what's best for society! People will buy inefficient lightbulbs, even if energy inefficiency is seriously threatening society, as long as the inefficient bulbs are cheaper and/or more convenient. So no. No, they won't. And relying on the free market to fix market failure is the kind of fallacy that makes Ice Caps melt. That is one of the roles of the government. Fix market failure. This is a very small step in that direction.

Quote:

I mean, there are places where the old incandescent lights shine (Hah! I am funny!), and there are places where florescents make much more sense. I don't think that we should ban one, just because the other is a better fit in general.
Do you think this is somehow related to opinion? It isn't. They are both lightbulbs. Yes, there are minor differences in the way they operate. But I honestly can't imagine how those are... relevant? At least not compared to concrete stuff, like energy efficiency. It's not like some people prefer one, and others prefer the other. It's fluorescent is objectively better, period. Sure, you might have preferences, but that doesn't change the fact that fluorescent lightbulbs do slightly less to kill our planet, and I'm pretty sure that outweighs individual preference.

And again, it's not like incandescents are being banned. Just inefficient ones. And I cannot think of a good reason to not do that.

Edit:
I'm not a hugely passionate fan of fluorescent lightbulbs. I just find them strangely attractive.
I MEAN I JUST DON'T LIKE OBJECTIVE MATTER BE PRESENTED IN A SUBJECTIVE LIGHT. Which Fox is doing right now. It's honestly kinda silly, acting like this is a big deal. It's lightbulbs, it's a really gradual shift. There's no reason to not do it. Bluh.

Amake 03-09-2011 05:40 PM

All I know is that I used to change one of the two bulbs in the ceiling lamp in the main room in my apartment about every 7-10 days until I switched to CFLs. That was in 2005, and since then I've had to change one of them. No matter what they cost and how complicated they are to discard, it's going to be both cheaper and easier than incandescent bulbs in the long term.

phil_ 03-09-2011 05:55 PM

An argument for keeping incandescent bulbs.http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/2935/pigtailbulb.jpg

ChaoticBrain 03-10-2011 12:24 AM

But I can still use them for when I get ideas, right?

bluestarultor 03-10-2011 12:30 AM

Here's something to consider for the environment: fluorescent bulbs all contain mercury. Incandescent bulbs all use the much more environmentally-friendly tungsten.

Azisien 03-10-2011 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluestarultor (Post 1113844)
Here's something to consider for the environment: fluorescent bulbs all contain mercury. Incandescent bulbs all use the much more environmentally-friendly tungsten.

Counterpoint: Fossil fuel and mining operations used to dig up uranium all end up releasing mercury into the environment. Given the amount of extra electricity required to power incandescent bulbs over CFBs, you end up releasing more mercury into the environment by using incandescent bulbs.

rpgdemon 03-10-2011 01:00 AM

I'll be entirely honest: I don't really care either way what light bulb I'm using. I am, however, mildly irked that one of the florescents that I've bought did not last ten years, and in fact burnt out rather quickly in my desk lamp.

Granted, I think there was something wrong with the lamp in general, as leaving it plugged in when it was off blew a circuit. I've since stopped using it.

Fenris 03-10-2011 08:37 AM

but the pig tails are ugly

ugly like your face


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.