Light Bulb Ban

Bells · 03-09-2011, 04:45 PM

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.

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

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

03-09-2011, 04:45 PM	#1
Bells That's so PC of you Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: In a Server-sided Dimension where time is meaningless Posts: 10,490	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? __________________ *BELLS STORE : Clothes! You wear* them! Free US Shipping Subscription System? WTF?! Zazzle Black!**

03-09-2011, 05:15 PM	#2
rpgdemon Not a Taco Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,313	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. __________________ I did a lot of posting on here as a teenager, and I was pretty awful. Even after I learned, grew up, and came to be on the right side of a lot of important issues, I was still angry, abrasive, and generally increased the amount of hate in the world, in pretty unacceptable ways. On the off chance that someone is taking a trip down memory lane looking through those old threads, I wanted to devote my signature to say directly to you, I'm sorry. Thank you for letting me be better, NPF.

03-09-2011, 05:40 PM	#4
Amake Keeper of the new Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: A place without judgment Posts: 4,506	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. __________________ Hope insistent, trust implicit, love inherent, life immersed Last edited by Amake; 03-09-2011 at 05:48 PM. Reason: Not even counting all the money you save by giving mother nature a break energy-wise.

03-09-2011, 05:55 PM	#5
phil_ Just sleeping Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: At home, probably in bed. Posts: 6,482	An argument for keeping incandescent bulbs. __________________ Be T-Rexcellent to each other, tako.

03-10-2011, 01:00 AM	#9
rpgdemon Not a Taco Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,313	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. __________________ I did a lot of posting on here as a teenager, and I was pretty awful. Even after I learned, grew up, and came to be on the right side of a lot of important issues, I was still angry, abrasive, and generally increased the amount of hate in the world, in pretty unacceptable ways. On the off chance that someone is taking a trip down memory lane looking through those old threads, I wanted to devote my signature to say directly to you, I'm sorry. Thank you for letting me be better, NPF.

03-10-2011, 08:37 AM	#10
*Fenris* Administrator Join Date: May 2005 Location: East Coast Posts: 6,806	but the pig tails are ugly ugly like your face __________________ "FENRIS IS AN ASSHOLE" - shiney