• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

Incandescent Light bulb ban.... do you care?

  • I care! The ban is foolish! I want my incandescent bulbs!

    Votes: 13 23.6%
  • I like the ban! Bring on new lighting technology!

    Votes: 17 30.9%
  • I dont care either way!

    Votes: 10 18.2%
  • I like incandescent bulbs and fluorescent ones. But dont make a law about them!

    Votes: 11 20.0%
  • OTHER / I dont know / Chimichanga

    Votes: 4 7.3%

  • Total voters
    55
You know what? No, I'm not going to just yet. I want to first see if you are actually able to hold a civilized debate. I want to know: Do you think we should preserve incandescent bulbs or switch over to CFLs?

Not a problem with having a civil debate. It will be quite refreshing. I think we should offer the old bulbs and the new bulbs. The manufacturers of the newer bulbs should sell the concept of their new bulbs to the public and the public can then decide which bulb to purchase. That is free enterprise and freedom.
 
And if their product is superior, it will sell.
 
I'm not following you here. If I choose to dump a thousand pounds of mercury in a nearby river, that is going to affect a LOT of other people, not to mention the environment as a whole. Such a crime should be punished because of that effect, not in spite of it.

Making energy more efficient, cleaner, and more cost-effective needs to be done at all levels of the chain. We need more efficient harvesting of resources, more efficient power stations that convert those resources into electricity, a smarter grid that sends that electrical energy to our homes/offices/factories, and more efficient appliances to use that energy. More efficient light bulbs addresses that last point.

It's interesting to note, BTW, that Americans have little problem with more efficient bulbs. Hell, some CFLs have a cool enough color temperature that you can hardly distinguish them from incandescent light.

A key point to add is the cost/benefit analysis of changes in lifestyle as a result. LesGovt needs to realize that the agony of having to change a type of light bulb pales in comparison to walking 10 miles to work in order to save gasoline.
 
This whole argument wont be necessary in a year or two...all of us will be using LEDs because they are far cheaper to run...produce minimal heat like flourescents last longer than any other bulb out there so you dont have to change them nearly as much...and when they finally do burn out...just tossem in the trash like incandescents..

LEDs will rule soon...and end this argument on light bulbs :)
 
Not a problem with having a civil debate. It will be quite refreshing. I think we should offer the old bulbs and the new bulbs. The manufacturers of the newer bulbs should sell the concept of their new bulbs to the public and the public can then decide which bulb to purchase. That is free enterprise and freedom.

And if their product is superior, it will sell.

Turns out, guys, it is. At least, the majority of Americans seem to think so. Because if we're talking strictly in terms of cost per day, averaged out, CFLs' longer life span reduces its relative purchase cost vs. incandescents. But the real savings comes from the reduced power used for the bulb. It depends on the kWh rate, how often the bulb is used, etc., but here is a relatively simple way to calculate how much you could save with CFLs or incandescents. All this bill, signed in to law back in 2007, does is to say that incandescents need to pick up the pace...or start packing.

This whole argument wont be necessary in a year or two...all of us will be using LEDs because they are far cheaper to run...produce minimal heat like flourescents last longer than any other bulb out there so you dont have to change them nearly as much...and when they finally do burn out...just tossem in the trash like incandescents..

LEDs will rule soon...and end this argument on light bulbs :)

I think you may be right. One big advantage that LEDs have over CFLs is--no mercury!
 
LesGovt needs to realize that the agony of having to change a type of light bulb pales in comparison to walking 10 miles to work in order to save gasoline.

I did not say walk. I said ride a bicycle. Big difference. Now about the comparison, according to the people here arguing for reducing energy usage, as well as minimizing pollution, one would have to consider the reward for taking each action. When it comes to the absolute ultimate goal of saving energy and minimizing pollution, the reward of not using automobiles would be far, far, far, far greater than the usage of the old lightbulbs. The lightbulbs would pale in comparison to not driving 10 miles to work and back.
 
Turns out, guys, it is. At least, the majority of Americans seem to think so. Because if we're talking strictly in terms of cost per day, averaged out, CFLs' longer life span reduces its relative purchase cost vs. incandescents. But the real savings comes from the reduced power used for the bulb. It depends on the kWh rate, how often the bulb is used, etc., but here is a relatively simple way to calculate how much you could save with CFLs or incandescents. All this bill, signed in to law back in 2007, does is to say that incandescents need to pick up the pace...or start packing.

I think you may be right. One big advantage that LEDs have over CFLs is--no mercury!

Great! Glad to hear it. So now you agree that the law is not needed and that the product will be an easy sell to the public. Is that now your contention?
 
I always find it funny when Libertarians and the like think they have a right to pollute the planet the rest of us have to share with them.
 
Great! Glad to hear it. So now you agree that the law is not needed and that the product will be an easy sell to the public. Is that now your contention?

Being better doesn't mean it'll be an easy sell or certain laws are not needed. Cars weren't an easy sell and there was rampart opposition to their use in North American and Europe. When governments across the world started passing laws regarding the creation of roads, speed and what was the called "street life"(street vendors, shoe shiners etc), this all changed.
 
Great! Glad to hear it. So now you agree that the law is not needed and that the product will be an easy sell to the public. Is that now your contention?

Is the law actually needed or not? It was a part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which did things such as raise the CAFE standards on automobiles. One thing I learned while reading its wikipedia entry is that halogen bulbs are similar in design and function to incandescents yet are about 25% more efficient. Perhaps they could take the place of incandescents in situations where CFLs are just not practical. (With LEDs, it may be too early to tell.)

I can't give you a straight answer to your question yet because I honestly don't know. Personally, the requirement simply strikes me as speeding up a process that is already taking place. I suppose that is a good thing. I do know, however, that the majority of Americans aren't opposed to the requirements at all; in fact, some straight-up WANT them. (source posted earlier)
 
Being better doesn't mean it'll be an easy sell or certain laws are not needed. Cars weren't an easy sell and there was rampart opposition to their use in North American and Europe. When governments across the world started passing laws regarding the creation of roads, speed and what was the called "street life"(street vendors, shoe shiners etc), this all changed.

I don't want to ruin the civility of the discussion between Phys251 and me, so I will hold my comments here until after he has replied to me.
 
I don't want to ruin the civility of the discussion between Phys251 and me, so I will hold my comments here until after he has replied to me.

It's always good to poke holes in somebody's argument and blind belief in the 'free market', whatever that means.
 
I always find it funny when Libertarians and the like think they have a right to pollute the planet the rest of us have to share with them.

No, I think you should stop driving a car and ride a bicycle. You do not have a right to pollute. Stop it! Now!
 
It's always good to poke holes in somebody's argument and blind belief in the 'free market', whatever that means.

And you think you did? Oops. Sorry. I cannot say anything further. I do have a question. Have you never heard of the free market?
 
No, I think you should stop driving a car and ride a bicycle. You do not have a right to pollute. Stop it! Now!


Cars have pollution control systems. And in my state if your car does not pass a pollution inspection you can not drive it on the road, legally.
 
Cars have pollution control systems. And in my state if your car does not pass a pollution inspection you can not drive it on the road, legally.

Same in my state, but that does not mean that cars do not pollute and it certainly does not mean they don't use energy. The argument that has been made here is that we cannot waste energy nor can we pollute and that we must pass laws to prevent that from happening. Okay, then let's do it, but let's not mickey mouse around with the piddly stuff like lightbulbs. Let's go after the major items. Let's make a real difference rather than just faking it. That's been my argument, but now the folks who are for conservation and clean air are not supporting my thesis. I just don't understand.
 
Turns out, guys, it is. At least, the majority of Americans seem to think so. Because if we're talking strictly in terms of cost per day, averaged out, CFLs' longer life span reduces its relative purchase cost vs. incandescents. But the real savings comes from the reduced power used for the bulb. It depends on the kWh rate, how often the bulb is used, etc., but here is a relatively simple way to calculate how much you could save with CFLs or incandescents. All this bill, signed in to law back in 2007, does is to say that incandescents need to pick up the pace...or start packing.

You are forgetting to add in the costs of the unemployed workers.
 
Same in my state, but that does not mean that cars do not pollute and it certainly does not mean they don't use energy.

So do light bulbs :shrug:

The argument that has been made here is that we cannot waste energy nor can we pollute

Wrong the argument is minimize the impact of pollution and reduce wasted energy on a already overly loaded grid.
and that we must pass laws to prevent that from happening. Okay, then let's do it, but let's not mickey mouse around with the piddly stuff like lightbulbs.

Lightbulbs add up

Let's go after the major items. Let's make a real difference rather than just faking it. That's been my argument, but now the folks who are for conservation and clean air are not supporting my thesis. I just don't understand.

pretty much everything is subject to increased energy efficiency.
 
No, I think you should stop driving a car and ride a bicycle. You do not have a right to pollute. Stop it! Now!

No. You do not have a right to pollute when there are alternatives. Cars aren't an alternative to bikes nor were they meant to replace them. That's like saying candles are alternatives to sunlight or lifesavers are alternatives to boats.
 
And you think you did? Oops. Sorry. I cannot say anything further. I do have a question. Have you never heard of the free market?

Yes. It's the false belief that people and markets will make the healthier economic decision in order to preserve their existence. This belief exists even though humanity has proven in over 6,000 years of existence that we're mostly incapable of doing what's best for ourselves. See: History.
 
No. You do not have a right to pollute when there are alternatives.

Of course we do. Bikes would be an absolute alternative for some people. Mass transportation would be another. Maybe you wish people weren't allowed to make a choice but that does not make it so.

Cars aren't an alternative to bikes nor were they meant to replace them. That's like saying candles are alternatives to sunlight or lifesavers are alternatives to boats.

If I live two blocks from work, why isn't walking or biking a legitimate alternative? If I live on a bus route, again, I am allowed to chose how I will get to work even if one pollutes more.
 
I always find it funny when Libertarians and the like think they have a right to pollute the planet the rest of us have to share with them.

I sure hope you figure out what is polluting exactly.
 
Of course we do. Bikes would be an absolute alternative for some people. Mass transportation would be another. Maybe you wish people weren't allowed to make a choice but that does not make it so.



If I live two blocks from work, why isn't walking or biking a legitimate alternative? If I live on a bus route, again, I am allowed to chose how I will get to work even if one pollutes more.

...and what percentage of the population lives two blocks from work? I do, but this is clearly uncommon, and thus I walk to work.

Let's get back to the main subject of this thread. Please provide your argument of how the new light bulb is going to worsen anyone's life. Your argument supporting the bicycle is that for "some" it is an alternative. My argument supporting the new light bulb is that for "everyone" it is a reasonable alternative.
 
Actually, it should be none of your business if a person wants to do something that you believe is wasteful and costs money. Another person may not agree with you. You are far too much of a know-it-all and that is why you have tyrannical leanings. Now, go sell your car, purchase a bicycle, and come back when you are not quite so hypocritical.

I have a bicycle and use it, everyone should to support our troops! The new efficiency standards were not based on my beliefs they were based on the assessment by experts that energy inefficiency is harmful to health, the environment, and the economy.

Even in colonial America they had regulations to require people to **** 4o yards from the fort. Did that impinge on the settler's "freedom" to **** in the fort if they so chose?
 
I have a bicycle and use it, everyone should to support our troops! The new efficiency standards were not based on my beliefs they were based on the assessment by experts that energy inefficiency is harmful to health, the environment, and the economy.

Even in colonial America they had regulations to require people to **** 4o yards from the fort. Did that impinge on the settler's "freedom" to **** in the fort if they so chose?

The fort is the property of the state. The state can make rules on where restrooms will be on their property. Bad comparison.
 
Back
Top Bottom