Alas, poor Edison. If he were only here.
California to Ban Conventional Lightbulbs? – News and Analysis by PC Magazine — This is ludicrous, of course, since LED’s will already be replacing everything by 2012. This is another example of unnecessary legislation done by a crackpot from California.
A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of Californias groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
The “How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act” would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
“Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications,” California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.
2012?!?!?! HAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!
Here in the Third World (Portugal 🙂 ), we don’t have that sort of crackpot legislation, but there have been campaigns where some counties would trade your incandescents (working, I suppose) to fluorescents…
Room for fraud, of course, as the fluos are at least 5 times as expensive… But hey…
Anyway, we’re bound to imitate you guys. After all ‘We’re all living in Amerika…’
[quote] and since that time they have undergone no major modifications [/quote]
neither did toilet paper, lets ban it too
if u wonna make lightbulbs dissapear come up with a tax or give ppl who choose something else some kind of reward
Keep it up California. Will the last one out please turn off the fluorescent lights.
Yeah, other crackpot legislation that was forced on us because we are too stupid / lazy / ignorant / selfish to take our own initiative:
a) Banning lead based paint.
b) Banning lead in automobile gas
c) Imposing emissions standards
d) Banning asbestos in new construction.
e) Smoking free zones
… I could go on and on…
It’s about time that someone has the cojones to stand up and say we need to forcefully start leaving behind old and inefficient technologies like the incandescent bulb. People that will fight this are the same ignorant small thinking yet self aggrandizing people that drive Hummers and don’t see the irony in calling themselves patriotic Americans at the same time.
This is another example of unnecessary legislation done by a crackpot from California.
Sorry John, I don’t agree. While LEDs will probably be more prevalent, there will still be some cheapo that will try to get away with using cheap incandescent. bulbs. Its a step in the right direction. Maybe we need more lawmakers willing to ban very wasteful products.
This will place an undue burden on cartoonists who draw those “I just got an idea” lightbulb thought bubbles in their comics – those squiggly-shaped CFL bulbs are much harder to draw.
4. Agreed. At least theyre trying SOMETHING. Sheesh.
Here in Queretaro, Mexico (pop. 800,000) I know first hand that the local government is aware of LED technology, but recommends to use Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs instead: .
The local electric power company helps people buy fluorescent lamps at a good price and deducting them from their monthly fee.
I do think that LED’s will eventually replace a lot of things in the future, in different areas (the new ASUS laptop with LED screen), but the CFL market has to grow and mature first, taking over the bulbs. Maybe in 3 or 4 years?
Legislation or not, I think its the right path towards conserving energy. I already have 45-50 working CFLs at home, and I don’t regret the price I paid for the bulbs when I receive my energy bill. Also, I haven’t changed a single bulb in almost 3 years.
I don’t know how much bulbs cost down there, but over here, it’s cheaper to use compact fluorescent bulbs. Harder on the wallet up-front, but they last LOT longer.
When I moved in my house I changed everything I could to compact fluorescent, but there were some floodlights that are simply not available in compact fluorescent in local stores. I haven’t had to change a compact fluorescent bulb in more than two years, yet every other bulb has been changed at least once, and the more heavily used ones have been changed 2 or 3 times.
Energy savings haven’t been counted (but energy is probably cheaper here).
I would exchange ever bulb in my house if they made them to fit in enclosed fixtures. Most say not to install in totally in closed fixtures. Plus I use the full spectrum bulbs. My basement is now all CFL’s since my wife refuses to go down there.
Isn’t there a fire station in California that has a light bulb that has never burned out and has been on continuously for over a 100 years? Saw it on Mythbusters.
#2 is on to something. Just how much energy is used in producing toilet paper? I say we ban it. It’s not necessary. There are rocks, sticks, leaves, sleeves….
I am visually handicapped due to a neural problem. Both compact fluorescents and LCD lights often appear to flicker to me. These lights give me a headache after a short time. Incandescent bulbs do not.
I hope the lawmakers take into account that not everyone can tolerate the new bulbs.
California is the ultimate “Nanny State” If the California state legislature had their way, we would all be living like the people in the movie Demolition Man (“Machine on wall: Lenina Huxley, you are fined one-half credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.”).
I don’t know about other states but California passes about 1000 new laws each year. I can’t imagine how you would possibly need an additional 1000 new laws each year!
Steve
For people like “Awake” (number 4 above) who seem to think they know what is best for everyone else, I would like to point out that there are people (me included) who are made very, very ill by CF and fluorescent lights. By your own argument (after all, you ludicrously tried to assert that incandescent bulbs are in the same category as asbestos, lead and smoking), CF bulbs should also be banned as potentially detrimental to one’s health.
The “old and inefficient” technology that controlling individuals like yourself would like to make me a criminal for using is what keeps me able to function.
Add to that the fact that CF bulbs are useless in temporary situations, like hallways and closets, since they take time to come up to brightness, and that CF bulbs — even the so-called “full spectrum” ones — are nowhere near being a spread spectrum (let alone a sunlight analog) and are therefore all but useless in many applications.
I pay for the electricity I use. If I chose to pay more for a non-life-threatening-but-happens-to-be-a-hundred-years-old technology, that’s my affair.
I daresay I’d find things in your life that I don’t like, Awake. How would you like if I started outlawing them?
What a sad state the US has come to.
Why not let market forces work? Here in Illinois our state gives rebates when you buy florescent light bulbs. The incentive for savings on your electric bill should be enough to compel people to conserve. We need less legislation, not more. What happened to the Arnold for less government, less taxes, less entitlement programs and less legislation? Has he been totally eviscerated buy the Democratic Liberal Left Wing entrenchment in Sacramento?
BAN ‘EM!! You betcha! And while we’re at it, let’s ban the single, most useless waste of energy: Home air conditioning! What the hell, AC exists for comfort. Can you think of one damn reason a selfish home owner should be throwing away 500 kWh a month for comfort? Why hell, you could be burning 10 of them useless 75-watt bulbs, 24/7 for the cost of running one air conditioner. Our grandparents didn’t have AC, why should we suffer wusses when OUR WHOLE WORLD IS AT STAKE!!!
Ban AC everywhere in the US and we will instantly be in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol!
I switched over to CFL bulbs years ago, BUT…
They cannot be used with dimmers and some electronically switched devices (Photo switches and touch lights.)
I have several fixtures in my house that no matter how hard I try I cannot find CFL bulbs that will fit, or if one fits, it’s light output is too low to be useful. (I know, I don’t really need adequate lighting on my steps.)
They frequently do not start or are very dim outside if the temp gets below 20 degrees. (It’s 5 here today.)
They do not make CFL in all of the socket sizes that exist. And I don’t know if they will make bulbs that will fit and look nice in your $1000 chandelier hanging over the dinning room tables.
Even though I am a believer in the technology, artificially forcing it on consumers through legislation is NOT the way to go. What they need to do is deregulate the cost of electricity. That way if someone wanted to pay the actual cost to operate the old fashioned light bulbs, so be it.
It is working, albeit painfully, in Detroit as we speak. US automakers kept on building big, heavy, fancy, expensive, SUVs when they should have been building smaller moderate priced fuel efficient vehicles. They are getting a harsh lesson in market forces right now.
Don
The higher flicker rate in fluorescent lights gives me headaches and eye irritation. This is not uncommon. Unfortunately, neither are “solutionist” lawmakers who think they can fix all these problems by adding regulation. If they want to help phase out incandescents in favor of LEDs, offer a government rebate to consumers to bring the costs down. Considering the cost might be prohibitive, that may be equally impractical.
JT – You say let the market forces work. Then you give an example how the state gives rebates. That makes no sense at all.
Well it actually does. Since the state and the market in the entire world work together. They always have.
If we can legislate environmental regulations, then we can do this.
California will have a surplus in savings in energy if they do this which will be good for our economy.
Edison did not invent the light bulb. He bought the patent from a couple of dimwits(pun intended).
http://www.cbc.ca/inventions/inventions.html?inventionID=29
The rest of the list is pretty interesting as well.
Efficentcy SUCKS…
Think about it…
You pay $50 amonth for power..
Then you make better choices and use less power, and hve it cut down to $30…
The power company dont make enough profit, so they RAISE the prices…
You STILL pay $50 per month.
Efficentcy SUCKS…
Think about it…
You pay $50 amonth for power..
Then you make better choices and use less power, and hve it cut down to $30…
The power company dont make enough profit, so they RAISE the prices…
You STILL pay $50 per month.
duh!!
Instead of our Government regulating American being sent over seas and sticking a baynett in someone’s gut to protect our oil supply; why not regulate using less oil/energy here.
The Government should also increase raising the CAFE standards to something like 30 mpg. Then see what all those Rag Heads and Oil Corps do.
There seems two types of people in this discussion:
Pro sticking a baynett in someone’s gut to protect our SUV rights
Pro using less Oil/Energy and not sticking a baynett in someone’s gut to protect our SUV rights.
Seems simple to me.
#24 Noname: “There seems two types of people in this discussion:
Pro sticking a baynett in someone’s gut to protect our SUV rights
Pro using less Oil/Energy and not sticking a baynett in someone’s gut to protect our SUV rights.
Seems simple to me. “
Golly, isn’t there another type of person in this discussion? How about someone who believes we should be drilling in Alaska, not buying from OPEC, and who believes we should be building 20 nuclear plants a year until we no longer need to burn fossil fuels for energy? If you have plenty of cheap power, ALL environmental problems can be solved.
But then, such a simple solution doesn’t empower the environmental wackos. Why are some people not happy until they have inflicted their values upon someone else?
#24 – “those Rag Heads” ? That’s a disgusting comment.
Makes perfect sense. One of the actually useful purposes of government (vs., say, fabricating reasons to go to war) is to promote considered and rational behavior on the part of citizens. One of the most rational things for a populace to do is to conserve and reduce pollution. Same reasoning behind making cars cleaner and, we wish, more efficient by government mandate. Go for it!
25,
I SAY AGAIN…
US oil does NOT come from the middle east. THEY dont care about the US. OPEC regulates their own oil prices, to about $25 per barrel…
We get more oil from Venisula and brazil, and the rest of south america, then we do from the MIDDLE EAST.
Considering Venisula is also a Major drug country…WOW, we get 2 things from there NOW.
#26, Smith,
But then, such a simple solution doesn’t empower the environmental wackos. Why are some people not happy until they have inflicted their values upon someone else?
Comment by Smith — 1/31/2007 @ 4:35 pm
Why do you hate America?
Environmental concerns,
ARE/were NOT part of our country, Until ALOT of people started getting sick…
Do NOT think that the country and the corps, even cared what EACH was doing until about the 1950’s and 1960’s….(god thats a strange thing to write)…
When it was brought to court, that Housing was being built, on Toxic dumping grounds, that Toxics were being buried that would destroy aquafers, that we use to drink from.
But even then, the Gov. didnt care, until MOSt of the USA complained and took a side.