What do you think about the ban on light bulbs

[bicker]

There is no evidence that incandescent damage the environment anymore than the compact flourescent bulbs that contain mercury.

Yes there is. See above.

To compare a light bulb to Love Canal is over the top.

No one is a comparing a light bulb to Love Canal. Over 330 million light bulbs are sold each year, worldwide. Comparing even just the American contribution to that 330 million number to Love Canal is not over the top.

 

[Hoodie]

I can't speak for others, but I couldn't care less about light bulbs. I care about mercury emissions and the whole host of other second-order artifacts of continuing to use cheap incandescent light bulbs.

Don't you care about the mercury and second-order artifacts in CFLs?

This statement doesn't make much sense.

 

[Colleen27]

Because freedom, doesn't mean the freedom to only make the right decision. Forcing the public to buy one product over another via law is not only illegal (imho), it is immoral.

The Commerce Clause has been so distorted since the FDR administration to allow the executive branch and the federal government unlimited powers. Read the writings of the founders and it is obvious that the entire spirit of the Constitution is ignored.

There is literally not a single chance that the federal government was given the right to have any such authority over decisions Americans make. If the government can tell you what type of light you can buy, what does the commerce clause not give them the right to do?

The commerce clause gives them the right to regulate interstate commerce, period. That applies to the lightbulbs GE sells, the food Kraft produces, and the drugs Pfizer brings to market. I don't see this as any different than forcing recalls of unsafe drugs or demanding certain safety standards for food processing.

I agree there are issues where the clause has been too broadly applied, but I don't think this is one of them. Energy policy (something the Founding Fathers couldn't even have imagined) is a federal issue and one of increasing importance now and into the future, and at some point steps will have to be taken (possibly by imposition, as with this one, but preferably by choice) to bring individual behaviour more in line with economic and ecologic reality.

 

[Aisling]

This is critical. The resistance bans like this one have faced, where there have been efforts to do similar things, have typically been from folks either neglectfully or willfully viewing the situation from their own personal perspective, without any regard for the impact of such decisions on people besides themselves, sometimes (including this time) including their own descendants. People really need to stop just looking at everything from the standpoint of what they would like and start looking at things from the standpoint of what's best overall. Otherwise, this little experiment called civilization is going to be a failure, because what we see playing out in these cases at the micro-level ends up reflected at the macro-level, with nations essentially making myopic or selfish decisions that ignore the impact of their decisions beyond their own borders, and ignore the impact of their decision beyond their own generation.

Bicker, when I said that I see the bigger picture, I wasn't referring to the possible negative impact on my descendants by this generation's use of incandescent light bulbs.

My bigger picture is in ten years when the government telling me which toilet paper I'm mandated to use to wipe my behind. I hate to be so crude, but I feel very strongly that the politically-inspired and highly debatable sciences of late are ruses to further an agenda which is in truth not aimed at the best interests of this or future civilizations. That being the case, I don't want my freedom of choice as a tax-paying, Constitution-abiding American citizen to be taken away from me one drop at a time.

CFLs hurt my eyes. I choose to use incandescents.

 

[Colleen27]

CFLs have been around as a choice for a while, but too few people have been willing to make the switch, and we continue to destroy the world that our children will inherit from us. There is a place for giving choices -- I agree with you about that completely -- but too few people care about the future enough to take the logical next steps to preclude making things better for their descendants, then it is government's obligation to provide leadership in the direction of what's necessary. We can go back in history and see many examples where people had the choice to do the right thing for a long time, but it was really the imposition of law that made it a reality: The abolition of slavery, civil rights, safe working conditions, etc.

Exactly. We're a country that doesn't look much past the right now, and the right now of lightbulbs is that the incandescent is cheaper at the point of purchase. For too many people that's where the thought process stops, and that's incompatible with the goal of energy security and sustainability. So then the question becomes, should we force the right choices (and there are still several; CFLs aren't the only alternative out there) or allow individual choice to hinder/undermine national goals.

Sometimes I reading about things like this and it gets me wondering how we grew from a nation that accepted rationing and embraced recycling in WWII to a country willing to "make a stand" against such onerous demands as switching to energy efficient lightbulbs.

 

[Rora]

Ugh! --about sums it up for me.

Me too.

 

[Joe in VA]

Me too.

The fluorescent bulbs don't work with dimmers either which I paid a good amount of $ to have installed a few years ago by an electrician.

The government telling you what kind of toilet paper to use is not very far off. They can claim commerce clause on that just as easily. Force you to buy rolls with fewer layers per square. It's not a very different concept from telling you what kind of lights you can use.

 

[bicker]

Don't you care about the mercury and second-order artifacts in CFLs?

Yes, but as I said twice already the old incandescent bulbs have worse mercury emissions and other second-order artifacts. CFLs are cleaner.

This statement doesn't make much sense.

That's not true. You just didn't understand the situation I was outlining, perhaps because you missed the earlier portion of the discussion.

 

[bicker]

Bicker, when I said that I see the bigger picture, I wasn't referring to the possible negative impact on my descendants by this generation's use of incandescent light bulbs.

Why is that not important to you?

My bigger picture is in ten years when the government telling me which toilet paper I'm mandated to use to wipe my behind. I hate to be so crude, but I feel very strongly that the politically-inspired and highly debatable sciences of late are ruses to further an agenda which is in truth not aimed at the best interests of this or future civilizations.

Prove it, as the scientists have proved their point regarding CFLs being better in all ways that matter to society, as compared to incandescent bulbs. Your personal, unsubstantiated suspicions and preferences are not any type of "bigger" picture. Rather, that's a smaller picture.

That being the case, I don't want my freedom of choice as a tax-paying, Constitution-abiding American citizen to be taken away from me one drop at a time.

I don't want our children's and our children's children's freedom to enjoy their lives as we have enjoyed ours to be taken away to satisfy your personal preferences.

 

[C.Ann]

People really need to stop just looking at everything from the standpoint of what they would like and start looking at things from the standpoint of what's best overall. Otherwise, this little experiment called civilization is going to be a failure, because what we see playing out in these cases at the micro-level ends up reflected at the macro-level, with nations essentially making myopic or selfish decisions that ignore the impact of their decisions beyond their own borders, and ignore the impact of their decision beyond their own generation.

For some it's not what they "like" - nor is it a "selfish decision".. It's a need - using what works best for people with vision or other medical problems..

 

[GRUMPY PIRATE]

I wonder if the same argument points were used when they switched from gas to incandescent?

 

[bicker]

It's a need

The LEDs probably resolve those issues. I agree though that as such fairness dictates that they should be subsidized for those in such need, until they come down in price.

 

[bicker]

I wonder if the same argument points were used when they switched from gas to incandescent?

Actually, if you read the history, there was lots of over-the-top made-up ridiculousness, in that case.

 

[Aisling]

I don't want our children's and our children's children's freedom to enjoy their lives as we have enjoyed ours to be taken away to satisfy your personal preferences.

Future generations ARE important to me. I just feel that the science behind many warnings is not clear, correct or altruistic. If mercury is truly an issue, about which I've read contradicting reports, then I would expect the government to fully educate the public about the dangers and explain that we're moving on to a newer and healthier light bulbs. Unfortunately, I have trouble getting past the global warming, uh, climate change hysteria to believe much of what the government says when it comes to science.

 

[Aisling]

I wonder if the same argument points were used when they switched from gas to incandescent?

Are you saying I'm old enough to have had gas lamps, Grumpy?

 

[GRUMPY PIRATE]

Are you saying I'm old enough to have had gas lamps, Grumpy?

what???

of course not....


everyone KNOWS that all ladies that post here are no older than 39...

and most of them are 29.

 

[bicker]

Future generations ARE important to me. I just feel that the science behind many warnings is not clear, correct or altruistic.

Anyone can use such rationalization to obstruct all progress whatsoever, whenever they wish, and if respected, with utter impunity. It simply doesn't hold water. You're putting your feel about the duly-appointed experts. There's no foundation for that assertion of primacy.

 

[Aisling]

Anyone can use such rationalization to obstruct all progress whatsoever, whenever they wish, and if respected, with utter impunity. It simply doesn't hold water. You're putting your feel about the duly-appointed experts. There's no foundation for that assertion of primacy.

Anyone can also use that rationalization to question, and yes, even doubt, the legitimacy of what I believe to be supposed-experts, not duly-appointed. Unfortunately, science has been relegated to political pawnship, has become an agenda-based affront to logically-minded people who prefer to base their conclusions on scientific sources absolutely unaffiliated with the government and has been the victim of rifts among scientific communities/organizations. As a result, I will continue to read the lighting studies as they come out until I'm satisfied of the validity, even though I may be unhappy with the conclusion.

I do indeed have a foundation; I agree to disagree with you over the assertion of primacy.

 

[EveDallas]

I only have one thing to say.

Big Brother Is Watching You

Take from that what you will.

 

[CaptDadSparrow]

I don't like the new ones for one reason because I am being forced to use them.

So hows that analog TV working out for you. Still have an antenna on your house?

It's not tyranny to make code changes. It happens all the time in construction and other industries.

You can horde bulbs, but it may be a pointless endeavor because eventually your supply will be gone.

Ever read that book "Who moved my cheese" I suggest it. It will help you deal with change in your life.