Why Fighting Energy-Efficient Light Bulbs Is So Stupid

neptunechimney wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: So far as government telling you what to do, I can see that arguement. But we only have limited energy resourses. We've had mileage targets for cars for some time now, which have been passed by administrations from both parties. Why not preserve our electrical capability as well? If you are adrift on a raft with limited food, people will usually agree to preserve what you have (unless someone has the gun). Why not do the same with our resourses as well?

I know the arguement in many cases has been that it will cost us all more. But in this case it will cost us less. No brainer?

Who cares what it costs. Lets do it no matter what.

[youtube:mtzm2v5z]

[/youtube:mtzm2v5z]

Neptune,

I did watch the 4 min video, but I'm not sure what your point is in regards to what I posted.

I said if it costs less, then why not do it?

Obama in the video was talking about cap and trade, which would cost more. But so far as I know he still hasn't done much to implement it.

Are we talking the same thing here?

pineinthegrass wrote: [Neptune,

I did watch the 4 min video, but I'm not sure what your point is in regards to what I posted.

I said if it costs less, then why not do it?

Obama in the video was talking about cap and trade, which would cost more. But so far as I know he still hasn't done much to implement it.

Are we talking the same thing here?

Sorry, I went off on a tangent. People make bad decisions all the time. At what point have we ceded too many decisions to the government. They are people too. This is just another nail in the coffin. In a nutshell,

"New Light on Paternalism

Posted by David Boaz

Yesterday Mario Rizzo pointed out a couple of new studies on the unexpected results of paternalist policies designed to “nudge” Americans into making what their betters consider smart decisions. In today’s Wall Street Journal, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sums up the paternalist view very concisely. Opposing a House bill to repeal the 2007 federal law that effectively outlaws incandescent light bulbs, Chu says:

We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.

Exactly. The government wants to take away our choice. It wants to take away our right to make our own decision. It doesn’t trust us to make our own choices. And why should it? Secretary Chu won the Nobel prize in physics. He’s obviously smarter than we are.

Sure, some people just don’t like fluorescent light. Some people don’t like the way the new bulbs come on slowly. Some people don’t like the curlicue look. Some find that they don’t in fact last longer than incandescent bulbs. Some are skeptical about promises of long-term savings, or simply prefer to spend less now.

But none of that matters to Secretary Chu and other paternalists. They know that these bulbs are best for us, and so they “are taking away a choice” that they don’t think people should make. That’s the difference between the libertarian and paternalist views in a nutshell.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/new-ligh ... ternalism/

swampfish wrote: There are several great reasons not to fight for these bulbs:

1) Congress shouldn't be mandating what light bulbs I use
2) the economy is a mess, we're fighting in three foreign conflicts - and Congress is arguing over lightbulbs
3) CDLs are bad for the environment when they're trashed, bad for people in the immediate vicinity when they're accidentally broken - and apparently, bad for us when they're in use (something NO ONE in government is talking about right now:

Energy saving bulbs 'release cancer causing chemicals', say scientists

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 2:07 PM on 20th April 2011

New fears: Cancer causing chemicals are released by energy-saving bulbs when they are switched on, scientists said

Energy saving bulbs emit cancer causing chemicals it was claimed last night as new fears were raised about their safety.

Scientists said they should not be left on for long periods of time or placed close to a person's head because they release poisonous materials.

The EU has unveiled plans to phase out 'normal' incandescent bulbs by the end of next year as they try to cut carbon emissions.

They should not be used by adults to read or kept near a child's head all night, the experts said.

While it is already known that harmful amounts of Mercury are released if one of the new 'green' bulbs is broken, the latest research shows other carcinogenic chemicals are emitted when they are switched on.

The German research shows that the chemicals are released as a form of steam.

The harmful substances include phenol - a poison injected by the Nazis to kill thousands of concentration camp victims during World War II - and the human toxins naphthalene and styrene.

Tests showed that the materials used to make the lamps are probably responsible for their potentially harmful side effects.

Andreas Kirchner, from the Federation of German Engineers, said: 'Electrical smog develops around these lamps. I therefore use them only very economically. They should not be used in unventilated areas and definitely not in the proximity of the head.'

The report on German television forced the country’s environmental protection agency to issue a warning against 'public hysteria.'

The Department for the Environment has insisted that the bulbs are safe.

Dr Michelle Bloor, lecturer in Environmental Science at Portsmouth University, told the Daily Express: 'Further independent studies would need to be undertaken to back up the presented German research.'

Very well said! And THAT is why the Republicans are the smart ones here fighting for our rights and our health and our environment and our pocketbooks! Keep up the good fight!

jf1acai wrote: Oh great, now I have energy saving CFL's that may be killing me!

Oh well, at least they are saving me $$ while they do it

That is good news about you saving dollars. At least you will have some available when you need treatment for cancer :faint: lol

We're using energy efficient light bulbs outside around the patio. They are solar lights Good for 4 or more hours on special occasions after they come on once you hit the switch.

ONLY one reason for "Why Fighting Energy-Efficient Light Bulbs Is So Stupid".
IT'S MY CHOICE, YOU want killer light bulbs go for it, I don't So why am I being FORCED to buy them?
Get the hell, out of my life!



BTW, Where do you think these lightbulbs will end up after they die?
The nearest landfill to you, because very few will go to the trouble/COST of proper disposal.
So, to the folks that pick-up/sort/transport trash, nice knowing ya, I understand it takes a long painful time to die, of mercury vapor poisoning.
Question: In some States you MUST tell the buyer of a buliding if there's been a death/murder in the building.
Does that also pretain to breaking a killer lightbulb?

You don't get to use leaded-gas any more either.. How ever did you survive?

LadyJazzer wrote: You don't get to use leaded-gas any more either.. How ever did you survive?

You survived but paid more.

And I would like to see someone on the right talk about energy efficient incandescents? Did they make the standards so high that they can't be achieved? Like Obama wanting 60MPG autos.

My biggest beef is that my old eyes need BRIGHT light to read by and I like to read in bed. I haven't found a CFL that meets my lumens requirement that also fits in the lamp with a shade due to the narrowness of the harp that supports the shade.

incandescent bulbs have mostly been unchanged for the past 125 years, and yield only 10% energy efficiency in terms of producing light. Both Phillips and GE have incandescent bulbs that perform much better, 50% or so more efficient, but as yet are not being mass produced to achieve cost effective prices.

The point is choice. Why should the govt. tell me what bulb to use? I do use some CFL's...but they really don't save much $$ in many locations. The one place they work well is locations where you leave the light on all the time. Really, with CFL's the old axiom of "turn off the light when you leave the room" doesn't apply anymore. Rooms where you enter an leave frequently, the bulbs last about a year.

LJ...the leaded/unleaded argument is exactly opposite. The govt. banned leaded gasoline because lead could hurt people. Now the govt. is forcing us to buy lightbulbs that are KNOWN to hurt people if you break them. And who among us has never broken a lightbulb. Furthermore, I spoke to the people at Home Depot while recycling a large box of dead CFL's and asked them the ratio of recycled bulbs vs. new bulbs sold. They told me in their opinion, less than 5% are recycled, the rest end up in the landfill. Considering our govt. pretends to care about the environment, that is a LOT of mercury entering our air and groundwater due to the thrown away bulbs.