• 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 are correct about energy efficiency is the goal and the measurement of the law. The result is that the freedom to purchase the lightbulbs that many Americans want to use is stripped from them by government edict. As for auto emissions and the Clean Air Act, I believe these is a difference. The Clean Air Act certainly caused increases in prices for automobiles, but it did not end the wide-spread end of manufacturing of any automobile make or model. C.A.F.E. standards are more comparable to the lightbulb issue as both have caused the public to not have purchasing options that used to exist. And that is only going to worsen over the next few decades.

What exactly is the difference? I have shown you that incandescent bulbs will still be available, with the same amount of light given off. The only change is that they will use less power and give off less heat, both of which are benefits, not drawbacks. Any person who thinks that they should be allowed to use more power for the same result is stupid.

And, no it isn't different, unless you can prove that these standards will be the end of incandescent bulbs. The Clean Air Act forced automobile companies to change their cars so that they were more energy efficient and produced less pollution, leading to the invention/improvement of the catalytic converter. The same thing is being done with light bulbs. There is no law that anyone cannot buy or even make incandescent bulbs, but those bulbs that being made have to provide those certain lumen levels at more energy efficient power usage levels, which incandescent light bulb companies are now making.
 
The biggest problem I have here is that the government was so worried about what lightbulbs we were using and had absolutely no concern over the fact that these bulbs were being put in houses that people could never afford to pay for.
 
The biggest problem I have here is that the government was so worried about what lightbulbs we were using and had absolutely no concern over the fact that these bulbs were being put in houses that people could never afford to pay for.

The EPA doesn't have much, if any say, about finance or economics issues.
 
What exactly is the difference? I have shown you that incandescent bulbs will still be available, with the same amount of light given off. The only change is that they will use less power and give off less heat, both of which are benefits, not drawbacks. Any person who thinks that they should be allowed to use more power for the same result is stupid.

And, no it isn't different, unless you can prove that these standards will be the end of incandescent bulbs. The Clean Air Act forced automobile companies to change their cars so that they were more energy efficient and produced less pollution, leading to the invention/improvement of the catalytic converter. The same thing is being done with light bulbs. There is no law that anyone cannot buy or even make incandescent bulbs, but those bulbs that being made have to provide those certain lumen levels at more energy efficient power usage levels, which incandescent light bulb companies are now making.

Well, I guess wanting freedom is stupid. There is a difference in the lighting and the cost of the products. If I want to be stupid and purchase an inefficient lightbulb, I should be able to do so. It is time for all of the unstupid people to understand that us stupid people want our freedom and we don't want big government slugs to take it away from us.

Using your standard, everyone should be riding bicycles. It uses much less energy that cars or even horses. And, unlike your smart lightbulbs, the bicycle costs much less to purchase and operate. Are you arguing for banning all automotive products and replacing them with unicyles and bicycles? If not, why not? Come on! Be true to your beliefs! You want less energy used. Bicycles use less energy. You want less polution. Bicycles cause less polution. Please be consistent and tell me that you favor using bicycles and want to ban all automotive products.
 
Well, I guess wanting freedom is stupid. There is a difference in the lighting and the cost of the products. If I want to be stupid and purchase an inefficient lightbulb, I should be able to do so. It is time for all of the unstupid people to understand that us stupid people want our freedom and we don't want big government slugs to take it away from us.

Using your standard, everyone should be riding bicycles. It uses much less energy that cars or even horses. And, unlike your smart lightbulbs, the bicycle costs much less to purchase and operate. Are you arguing for banning all automotive products and replacing them with unicyles and bicycles? If not, why not? Come on! Be true to your beliefs! You want less energy used. Bicycles use less energy. You want less polution. Bicycles cause less polution. Please be consistent and tell me that you favor using bicycles and want to ban all automotive products.

Hey, I have always been for freedom. If people want to eat unhealthily and they can afford their healthcare bills, I say ... eat as much artery clogging food as you want. If you can make up for the energy that you use by cultivating enough non government funded natural unlimited (e.g. solar, wind, water etc.) energy ... be as wasteful as you want with your light bulbs. If you can pay for your medical bill when you fall off your motorcycle while not waring a helmet .. ride without a helmet as much as you want. The point is .. as long as you can pay for your expenses without using up more resources than needed .. do what you want. Of course, this means government regulations ... unfortunately, if people are going to be using non-renewable resources and relying on the state for healthcare, they should not be doing things that would be unnecessarily costly (this includes both welfare for the rich and the poor).
 
Hey, I have always been for freedom. If people want to eat unhealthily and they can afford their healthcare bills, I say ... eat as much artery clogging food as you want. If you can make up for the energy that you use by cultivating enough non government funded natural unlimited (e.g. solar, wind, water etc.) energy ... be as wasteful as you want with your light bulbs. If you can pay for your medical bill when you fall off your motorcycle while not waring a helmet .. ride without a helmet as much as you want. The point is .. as long as you can pay for your expenses without using up more resources than needed .. do what you want. Of course, this means government regulations ... unfortunately, if people are going to be using non-renewable resources and relying on the state for healthcare, they should not be doing things that would be unnecessarily costly (this includes both welfare for the rich and the poor).

So, now the tyrants not only want me to pay for the goods and services I use, but also want to force me to replace the items I purchase. Why didn't you say that I had to replace the food I ate? How about the material for the clothes my family wears? How about replacing the house that I live in? Should I now be forced by the tyrants to replace all these things and the other things that I purchase?

FREEDOM!
 
So, now the tyrants not only want me to pay for the goods and services I use, but also want to force me to replace the items I purchase. Why didn't you say that I had to replace the food I ate? How about the material for the clothes my family wears? How about replacing the house that I live in? Should I now be forced by the tyrants to replace all these things and the other things that I purchase?

FREEDOM!

Yes "freedom" as you would like to call it .. means "doing what one wants" .. and you're starting to get the picture, whatever one consumes that is not a renewable resource, one should replace, anything else is selfish .. I sure wouldn't want my children to endure more hardship simply because I could not handle not being wasteful .. "um .. yeah, uh, son, about that, I just wanted to do what I wanted to do .. you know freedom and all that .. you're an adult now, you're free to be as wasteful as you want with the grand pitiful wasted resources that I have left for you .. just remember son, it's all in the name of freedom" ... jeesh! give me a break! I don't think some people realize how selfish they look when they praise freedom in the "I'll do whatever I want" sense and "who cares about wasting our sons' and daughters' resources" ... do you people have children? Do you love them?
 
Last edited:
I dont think they should have been banned...I have flourescents throughout my house in and out..more because of heat than anything else...I live in florida..
Theres a ridiculous procedure to get rid of fluorescents and I dont know anyone that follows it...they throw them in the trash when theyre done....

Eventually this will be a moot issue...Leds will be the big thing...I remember when flourescents first came out...they were ridiculously expensive and waay to dim...the same is with leds now...they will get alot better and cheaper and they will definitely replace other bulbs
 
Yes "freedom" as you would like to call it .. means "doing what one wants" .. and you're starting to get the picture, whatever one consumes that is not a renewable resource, one should replace, anything else is selfish .. I sure wouldn't want my children to endure more hardship simply because I could not handle not being wasteful .. "um .. yeah, uh, son, about that, I just wanted to do what I wanted to do .. you know freedom and all that .. you're an adult now, you're free to be as wasteful as you want with the grand pitiful wasted resources that I have left for you .. just remember son, it's all in the name of freedom" ... jeesh! give me a break! I don't think some people realize how selfish they look when they praise freedom in the "I'll do whatever I want" sense and "who cares about wasting our sons' and daughters' resources" ... do you people have children? Do you love them?

I'm sorry, but I do not accept the Chicken Little ideology. Tyrants promote it to justify their misdeeds. Do I feel guilty about using a particular lightbulb? Absolutely not! Nope. How much natural resources have you produced to repay society for the gasoline you have used in your car? If you haven't repaid your "debt" to society, please don't lecture me about using a lightbulb. If you have, then 99% have not. Virtually the entire society is guilty of what you believe to be "selfish" behavior. Balderdash! And... Folderol! <---- I threw that in for the fun of it. LOL!
 
Last edited:
It’s the land of arbitrary laws.
Oh, please government, help me choose which blubs are best for me…I surely cannot decide.
We need more federal/state bureaucrats to help us with this issue!
Oh, please government, save us from making a choice by ourselves.
:mrgreen:
 
Well, I guess wanting freedom is stupid. There is a difference in the lighting and the cost of the products. If I want to be stupid and purchase an inefficient lightbulb, I should be able to do so. It is time for all of the unstupid people to understand that us stupid people want our freedom and we don't want big government slugs to take it away from us.

Using your standard, everyone should be riding bicycles. It uses much less energy that cars or even horses. And, unlike your smart lightbulbs, the bicycle costs much less to purchase and operate. Are you arguing for banning all automotive products and replacing them with unicyles and bicycles? If not, why not? Come on! Be true to your beliefs! You want less energy used. Bicycles use less energy. You want less polution. Bicycles cause less polution. Please be consistent and tell me that you favor using bicycles and want to ban all automotive products.

If I wanted the freedom to burn my garbage in the middle of a city park, would that be stupid?
 
Yes "freedom" as you would like to call it .. means "doing what one wants" .. and you're starting to get the picture, whatever one consumes that is not a renewable resource, one should replace, anything else is selfish .. I sure wouldn't want my children to endure more hardship simply because I could not handle not being wasteful .. "um .. yeah, uh, son, about that, I just wanted to do what I wanted to do .. you know freedom and all that .. you're an adult now, you're free to be as wasteful as you want with the grand pitiful wasted resources that I have left for you .. just remember son, it's all in the name of freedom" ... jeesh! give me a break! I don't think some people realize how selfish they look when they praise freedom in the "I'll do whatever I want" sense and "who cares about wasting our sons' and daughters' resources" ... do you people have children? Do you love them?

I really hate this pitiful argument. Resources running out is not the end of the world, it doesn't mean the our children's lives will be horrible. Everyone that is makes this argument always forgets to mention people are always aware of this kind of thing way before it ever actually occurs and there will be people working on a solution way before it ever comes to be. Your argument is basically fear over nothing to try to say that restricting freedom is a good thing. Its a crap argument.
 
Yes it would.

But you're infringing on my freedom. The Tenth Amendment says that any power given to the Big Fedrul Guvmint belongs to the people. That includes the right to burn garbage in the local park.
 
Maybe it would be better if the newer technology was allowed to sell the technology to the people rather than to coerce people into using it. The free market would decide which bulb was the preferred bulb. Isn't that a better way to determine the best bulb rather than dictate the policy?

LOL! Because a half century without an energy policy has served us so well up to now! :sun
 
You know - I just want a safe way of lighting my home that doesn't cost me a lot to replace when it breaks and looks neat in my antique lamps which showcase the bulb itself.

Is that too much for a girl to ask for?

Not at all, and here it is:

"The new products include pear-shaped, mercury-free EcoVantage halogens by Philips Lighting that produce the same warm light of old-fashioned bulbs (two-packs, in varying wattage, cost about $3 at The Home Depot)"
On Earth Day, more green light bulbs
 
LOL! Because a half century without an energy policy has served us so well up to now! :sun

What exactly is your point?

I don't see any harm from not having bans on products that people were rejecting anyway.
 
Well, I guess wanting freedom is stupid.
If losing freedom means using a more efficient light bulb instead of whale blubber to light our homes, I would have to agree with you there! :sun
 
What exactly is your point?

I don't see any harm from not having bans on products that people were rejecting anyway.

There is no ban on incandescent bulbs, I just provided a link to them above. :sun
 
Old tech is banned.

Nope, incandescents are still allowed. Higher energy efficiencies are now required that is all, just like with the reduced tailpipe emissions standards.
 
Nope, incandescents are still allowed. Higher energy efficiencies are now required that is all, just like with the reduced tailpipe emissions standards.

Higher energy efficiencies are impossible with the old tech. They are banned. Efficiency standards always ban technology in favor of new technology. That is the entire purpose of the practice.
 
Last edited:
Higher energy efficiencies are impossible with the old tech. They are banned. Efficiency standards always ban technology in favor of new technology. That is the entire purpose of the practice.

So you mean I don't have the "freedom" to burn whale blubber anymore? Oh the tragedy!
 
Back
Top Bottom