What do you think about the ban on light bulbs

[GRUMPY PIRATE]

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.

I read what I thought was the sequal to that, titled "who cut the cheese"

I thought it was about sharing...


I was wrong on my assumption.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I want all pink bulbs in my house, anyway, so I look as young as possible as long as possible. Never mind that they're not good for seeing, or reading, or everyday tasks...

Like the ones in funeral homes?

 

[bicker]

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.

No: There is a difference. You're putting your personal suspicions and personal preferences over that of society, essentially allowing self-motivation to prevail. That's anarchy. It's indefensible. By contrast, I'm outlining the basic provisions of civilization.

 

[memster]

Ugh! --about sums it up for me.

I agree me too!

 

[EveDallas]

No: There is a difference. You're putting your personal suspicions and personal preferences over that of society, essentially allowing self-motivation to prevail. That's anarchy. It's indefensible. By contrast, I'm outlining the basic provisions of civilization.

Wow. Just wow. It must be great to know everything.

 

[Colleen27]

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.

The govt is in a tough position on the mercury issue. It is kind of like Kraft eliminating high fructose corn syrup from some of their products - they can't advertise it, because that then calls into question the other products that still have it. The govt has taken an "Its safe" position on several sources of mercury, and if they come out to educate the public about mercury in lightbulbs, they call into question the "safe" sources of mercury that they don't ban/regulate.

I hate that global warming or the lack thereof has become the defining issue in environmental policy. There are a hundred good reasons to conserve energy, most of which have little or nothing to do with climate change. Even if you discount climate change/global warming entirely, you have issues with an aging grid, existing power-generation sources incapable of meeting ever-increasing demand, local pollution and quality-of-life issues regarding coal fired power plants, waste disposal issues regarding nuclear plants, questions about the future supply of the fossil fuels we need to maintain the status quo (not to mention the safety/human cost of getting those materials), etc. I'm not a "true believer" in climate change by any stretch of the imagination, but to me the verdict on that one issue is still out and largely irrelevant. There are other, better, more certain reasons to move towards more responsible energy use.

 

[bicker]

Wow. Just wow. It must be great to know everything.

You probably don't realize it, and may even try to deny it, but that's exactly my point. I'm saying that it is not legitimate for the PP to place her own personal perspectives over that of the experts, without unequivocal evidence that the experts are actually wrong. Her personal preferences don't trump expert perspective just because she wants it to.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

There are a hundred good reasons to conserve energy, most of which have little or nothing to do with climate change.

Respectfully snipped.

I had this same debate with someone at my work about the recycling bins. The guy is NOT an environmentalist in any way, shape, or form. He made it sound like it was the end of the world to have to toss a plastic bottle in a separate trash can (keep in mind the cans are NEXT TO EACH OTHER!). He went on and on about that, "global warming crap." I looked at him and said, "It's okay if you don't believe in global warming, but those bottles are actually getting recycled into playground equipment, park benches, and other things."

People don't realize that it's not just about a singular issue, nor is it that hard to make changes in your own life. Since we switched to CFL's (and even a couple LED's), our electric bill has been noticeably lower. To me, that's a good thing!

 

[Aisling]

The govt is in a tough position on the mercury issue. It is kind of like Kraft eliminating high fructose corn syrup from some of their products - they can't advertise it, because that then calls into question the other products that still have it. The govt has taken an "Its safe" position on several sources of mercury, and if they come out to educate the public about mercury in lightbulbs, they call into question the "safe" sources of mercury that they don't ban/regulate.
I hate that global warming or the lack thereof has become the defining issue in environmental policy. There are a hundred good reasons to conserve energy, most of which have little or nothing to do with climate change. Even if you discount climate change/global warming entirely, you have issues with an aging grid, existing power-generation sources incapable of meeting ever-increasing demand, local pollution and quality-of-life issues regarding coal fired power plants, waste disposal issues regarding nuclear plants, questions about the future supply of the fossil fuels we need to maintain the status quo (not to mention the safety/human cost of getting those materials), etc. I'm not a "true believer" in climate change by any stretch of the imagination, but to me the verdict on that one issue is still out and largely irrelevant. There are other, better, more certain reasons to move towards more responsible energy use.

I appreciate this post. Concerning the bolded part, this is what I have a problem with. I'd appreciate the government being truthful, for good or for bad. I'm discouraged by the manipulation of scientific findings, the focus on lesser findings, and the diminishing of other findings in order to "play nice" with lobbyists and a multitude of other agenda-based groups.

I'm absolutely in favor of responsible energy use and in the advancement of technologies. What I'm against is the misuse of science in order to mainline everyone into a specific ideology. Maybe I've read too many Ayn Rand books!

 

[Aisling]

No: There is a difference. You're putting your personal suspicions and personal preferences over that of society, essentially allowing self-motivation to prevail. That's anarchy. It's indefensible. By contrast, I'm outlining the basic provisions of civilization.

I'm ABSOLUTELY putting my personal suspicions over that of society. I, however, don't call it anarchy...I call it free thought, something which I hold dear.
True anarchy is conditional to actions taken. The only actions I've taken are those that I imagine.
And yes, I'm hoarding light bulbs, which is legal. And yes, I know my supply will run out, but I'm not losing sleep over that inevitability.

Bicker, I do appreciate your opinion. There is no "right" or "wrong" in what we've been discussing. It's simply opinion, not the gospel truth. We both take facts and use our own moral compass to determine what we believe to be best. You cannot convince me otherwise. And thanks for the insight, even if I choose not to believe it hook, line and sinker.

 

[DawnCt1]

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.

Well said, and one drop at a time is exactly how it is done.

 

[moburg]

I use several CFL's where they are practical. They don't work well in all fixtures.

So I am stocking up on incandescents for the fixtures where CFL's don't work, or where I just don't want to use CFL's.

And they get thrown out with the rest of the trash when they burn out or break.

 

[DawnCt1]

You probably don't realize it, and may even try to deny it, but that's exactly my point. I'm saying that it is not legitimate for the PP to place her own personal perspectives over that of the experts, without unequivocal evidence that the experts are actually wrong. Her personal preferences don't trump expert perspective just because she wants it to.

The "experts" have attempted to convince us that we are facing a global warming crisis. The evidence doesn't support it.

 

[Aisling]

I read what I thought was the sequal to that, titled "who cut the cheese"

I thought it was about sharing...


I was wrong on my assumption.

You kill me!

 

[bicker]

I am glad, in this case, that we do have a way for society to impose this proper decision on those who choose not to. I surely don't begrudge anyone the right to not be happy with it.

 

[moburg]

The "experts" have attempted to convince us that we are facing a global warming crisis. The evidence doesn't support it.

The "experts" at one time tried to convince us that we were facing a global COOLING crisis. The "experts" were wrong.

 

[bicker]

And so your logic is that they must therefore always be wrong? That's silly.

They're right about this. They are. They're not projecting (like in the case of global warming). They have real data. Proof. Evidence. What do the detractors have except their own personal preference? Nothing.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

I cannot use the new lightbulbs - florescents cause migraines and even seizures in me (yes, this sucks for when i leave the house - I have many illnesses and disabilities, so I dont get out much anyway).

I am going to have to stock up, because I cannot have the new ones for medical reasons. I wonder if congress took THAT into account...

Also, florescent light can cause flares in lupus and MS in some people - so congress may be saving the environment (which i dont believe is true) but they are causing pain to many of us living with chronic illness...

it's just one more thing to make live difficult.

Thank you for this post. I also have lupus and I get migraines. I also, as I posted earlier, really believe in organic, green, healthy living. Doing this has kept my lupus under control for many years now. I still am not convinced about these lightbulbs safety. We need to protect energy waste, our environment and people also.

 

[moburg]

The list of debunked man made global warming theories grows almost daily. The "evidence" is falling apart, piece by piece.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

The govt is in a tough position on the mercury issue. It is kind of like Kraft eliminating high fructose corn syrup from some of their products - they can't advertise it, because that then calls into question the other products that still have it. The govt has taken an "Its safe" position on several sources of mercury, and if they come out to educate the public about mercury in lightbulbs, they call into question the "safe" sources of mercury that they don't ban/regulate.

I hate that global warming or the lack thereof has become the defining issue in environmental policy. There are a hundred good reasons to conserve energy, most of which have little or nothing to do with climate change. Even if you discount climate change/global warming entirely, you have issues with an aging grid, existing power-generation sources incapable of meeting ever-increasing demand, local pollution and quality-of-life issues regarding coal fired power plants, waste disposal issues regarding nuclear plants, questions about the future supply of the fossil fuels we need to maintain the status quo (not to mention the safety/human cost of getting those materials), etc. I'm not a "true believer" in climate change by any stretch of the imagination, but to me the verdict on that one issue is still out and largely irrelevant. There are other, better, more certain reasons to move towards more responsible energy use.

I really like this post. I agree so wholeheartedly with what u state as I also hate that environmental issues are just being focused around global warming. It seems as if we can discredit that, then we can just give up the whole greening movement and that is so sad and so dangerous. It is a complex issue, not an exact science, there are so so so many reasons to move towards responsible energy use and saving our planet and greening our world, living organically, taking poisons out of our food, etc., etc. which I myself state over and over to those that I know that try to discredit man contributing to global warming or climate change. Even tho I am worried about these lightbulbs, I am going to try the LEDs.

This scientist really says it all IMO. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/environmental/climate-change-global-warming.htm