I so hate this state sometimes... First it was spanking now they want to ban light bulbs. Who's electing these people? I know no one I vote for ever wins so it's not me.
Can't we just let people have a little freedom of choice?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'm sympathetic to the whole freedom of choice thing, I'm not really seeing a practical downside to the legislation.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It says "California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine" and the article gives no mention of how much support it has or whether the bill will pass, so why get upset over something where the likelihood of whether the bill will pass or not is not even mentioned?
Besides, it makes sense to me to stop using conventional lightbulbs given how they waste energy compared to the newer lightbulbs. I've already switched to the newer ones at my house, anyway. It's really not that surprising, especially in California, where economically friendly legislation passes pretty often. I don't think it's a matter of choice; it's about how the California government wants our state to be a good place to live in, where the air is clean and people can actually grow up healthy because they don't have to breathe smog filled air from industrial plants or cars.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: While I'm sympathetic to the whole freedom of choice thing, I'm not really seeing a practical downside to the legislation.
I preferentially use compact fluorescents, and I still think this law is a dumb idea. And not just because of the inevitable lightbulb black market. (*snicker*) Encouraging people to use the compact fluorescents (maybe by subsiding them so they're not so bloody expensive) would be good. Forcing them?
quote:I don't think it's a matter of choice; it's about how the California government wants our state to be a good place to live in, where the air is clean and people can actually grow up healthy because they don't have to breathe smog filled air from industrial plants or cars.
That's why it's a nice state to live in. If you love conventional lightbulbs so much, you really don't have to live in California if they really do get banned.
We're talking about the California that has L.A. in it, right?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually use the "government approved" light bulbs because I'm cheap. But they're not as good as a regular incandescent bulb. They don't give out as much light and it's not as.... clear? pretty? nice?... It's not as good of a light.
There are rooms where I want incandescent bulbs. Like in the bathroom where I put on makeup. That's not a place for 2nd rate light. I'm unattractive enough without not being able to see as I put on my face.
I'm just pissed that they make every little thing illegal. This guy is getting PAID to sit there and come up with this nonsensical crap to govern every little aspect of our life.
These are the people tho declared Zinc to be "Toxic waste" If you drop a penny, you're spreading toxic wasting. Other places it's fertilizer, here it's toxic waste.
Mr Levine is going to go back to his constituants and brag about how he fought for the environment on the basis of this stupid bill. After he's re-elected, he's gonna find something else to ban. Last time he was elected, he started requiring supermarkets to recycle plastic bags. (not like most of them didn't do it already. But now they *MUST*)
Maybe the Libertarian party was on to something when they talked about the Ferret ban. Because it never stops. They will eventually ban something you like.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're talking about the California that has L.A. in it, right?
Hey, L.A. is MUCH better than it used to be. And it's not our fault we have all the awesome mountains and valleys and are right next to the ocean (all contributing factors to smog.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
SS: And they use less power. Which is important here in california where power costs 1 finger per kilowatt-hour.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think it's a matter of choice; it's about how the California government wants our state to be a good place to live in, where the air is clean and people can actually grow up healthy because they don't have to breathe smog filled air from industrial plants or cars.
Of course it's a matter of choice. You think choosing incandescent lightbulbs is a bad choice, so you think people shouldn't be allowed to make it. You've advanced some arguments to support your contention that this choice should be removed from people and prohibited by law. Trying to sell someone on the idea that there's no matter of choice involved in this bill weakens your other arguments.
I wonder if this would be preempted federally if it passes.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:They're just a dollar or two more and last a lot longer?
Conventional lightbulbs: $1-2 for a box of four
Compact fluorescents: $5-10 (on sale, sometimes $3 or less) EACH
But I still buy the compact fluorescents. And they don't always last longer -- I replaced one a month ago, and it blew Friday. (Right before I had guests coming and with no spares in the apartment, natch.) But I buy them, for a variety of reasons.
That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal to make another choice! Especially since for some things, it's important to have the more intense incandescent light.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"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.
Politicians were first developed thousands of years ago. I think we need some major modifications to them too.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, although these bulbs are more expensive, they last significantly longer.
The one downside I can see is that they take a bit of time to brighten to full intensity. However, even if you have the main light an old light bulb (so if you're just in for a second you can see immediately) and every other one in your room an incandescent light bulb... you're still doing everyone a favour.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"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.
Politicians were first developed thousands of years ago. I think we need some major modifications to them too.
posted
This seems like an excellent law to me, actually.
I have libertarian leanings (although I think the party is a bunch of nut cases), so I have pretty strict criterion for evaluating laws. (One of these days, I should quantify that.) I abhor laws that try to stop me from hurting myself. This includes seat belt laws, for example.
But it is the responsibility of the government to step in when the community as a whole is in need. When there is a water shortage, the citizens have to accept restrictions on how much water they can use. California has been having power problems for a long time now. Their power plants have been unable to handle their huge population (hence the rolling blackouts) and just as they have had to ration water, so now they must find a way to ration electricity.
It is harder to quantify electrical use than it is to quantify water use. It seems to me that this law is just one specific way to ration electricity in a way that people can understand. Incandescent light bulbs are a huge drain compared to other more energy efficient options.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One problem I've had with the flourescent bulbs is with dimming them. I've got some of my lights hooked up by X10 and when I tried dimming a flourescent bulb, it killed it. It dimmed down to nothing and would never light up again. It made me cry.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seat belt laws are to prevent a drain on medical resources -- many of which impact state coffers.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do the energy costs take into account the energy used to make the bulb? These CFLs have solid-state electronics. I assume they're pretty basic given the low price, but I thought it was pretty energy intensive to make those components. The longer life (although I've hear many anecdotes of shorter life) and 75% energy savings give a decent opportunity to amortize increased costs. I have no idea which way it comes out.
Anyone know if the analysis has been done?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it makes sense for people to get that upset because they can't choose to use conventional lightbulbs; it really makes no difference. If it bothers people so much to not be able to use energy guzzling lightbulbs that limits the energy supply for everyone else in the state, they can write to their congressmen complaining about how much it will annoy them that they can't buy the type of lightbulb they like. Because it's just that important.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zgator: One problem I've had with the fluorescent bulbs is with dimming them. I've got some of my lights hooked up by X10 and when I tried dimming a fluorescent bulb, it killed it. It dimmed down to nothing and would never light up again. It made me cry.
Regular compact fluorescents (ok, I'm getting tired of typing that -- needs an abbreviation) cannot be dimmed. You need special (more expensive) one to allow that option.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my big problems with this law is that while CFLs last long enough that the investment is worth the money (and the light quality is so much better!), there are many applications for light bulbs that put them at a high risk of breaking. I have a bedside lamp that I break the bulb in all the time, because I like having something to read by while lying in bed, but can be a violent sleeper. My desk lamp bulbs never burn out; they break first.
There are a number of similar situations, where light bulbs need to be exposed to breaking in order to be used. The replacement cost on CFLs is so much higher that I never use one in my desk lamp. Forcing them upon someone who has to have light bulbs in places they might get broken is pretty brutal.
Because seriously, do you want to be the one to tell the low income single mother of five rambunctious kids that every time one of her kids knocks a lamp over and breaks the bulb, she has to shell out $5-10, instead of $0.25 to $0.65?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I use the florescent bulbs, but they do have problems. They don't last nearly as long as the claims. They usually don't outright burn out soon (although I've had that happen several times, similar to what Rivka described), but they tend to get dimmer as time goes on. If you live in a house with inadequate or marginal lighting already, they can be a big (and expensive) pain.
quote:And it's not our fault we have all the awesome mountains and valleys and are right next to the ocean (all contributing factors to smog.)
Um, yes it is. Y'all chose to live next to the awesome valleys and mountains and ocean and smog.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I couldn't wait to move out of my parents' house and get my own place, so I could use incandescent light bulbs everywhere. Fluorescent light bulbs (I am told) do not emit red light particles, which inhibit the body's production of melatonin. This makes it harder to stay awake in rooms with fluorescent light bulbs. Anecdotally, I find myself more easily depressed, in a "seasonal affective disorder" kind of way, when I am surrounded by non-incandescent lights. Finally, pedagogical research indicates that students learn better when there is a source of incandescent light in the room somewhere.
Yeah, I see downsides here. I understand why CA is looking into this, especially given their energy issues, but I do see downsides as well.
Personally, I favor free-market solutions to things like this. Through my conscious choice to use incandescent light bulbs, I know I pay more in electricity. (This is why my father replaced them all with fluorescent bulbs when I was a kid.) If that difference grew more and more substantial, because fluorescents were really that much less wasteful, more and more people would rethink their choice. Similarly, if fluorescents became cheaper to manufacture, through increased production or improved technology, people would consider changing their choices. As it is, I am unconvinced of their efficacy, given that the savings in energy costs are relatively minor.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because seriously, do you want to be the one to tell the low income single mother of five rambunctious kids that every time one of her kids knocks a lamp over and breaks the bulb, she has to shell out $5-10, instead of $0.25 to $0.65?
If your kids are knocking over lamps that often then you've got bigger problems than how expensive the light bulbs are!
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you considered getting a overhead light connected to a Clapper? It pretty dangerous to keep on breaking light bulbs, especially when it's right by your bed.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By requiring only the use of more expensive light bulbs it is the most blatant attempt to keep the poor in the dark.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't it the point that the newer blubs last longer but cost more in the beginning so in the long run you're actually saving money?
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because seriously, do you want to be the one to tell the low income single mother of five rambunctious kids that every time one of her kids knocks a lamp over and breaks the bulb, she has to shell out $5-10, instead of $0.25 to $0.65?
If your kids are knocking over lamps that often then you've got bigger problems than how expensive the light bulbs are!
quote:Originally posted by jh: Isn't it the point that the newer blubs last longer but cost more in the beginning so in the long run you're actually saving money?
That's the theory. In practice, it's pretty much a wash, IME.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't kept a tally, but from my experiences using them, I have doubts that they really save money.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously this a conspiricy to make the light in our houses more durable to that of aliens, Do you really think it has anything to do with energy, or pollution.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point isn't to save people money, is it? The point is to ration electricity. There may be better ways to do it, but this seems like a reasonable suggestion, at least. Perhaps instead of complaining about not being able to use our favorite kinds of light bulbs, we should try to come up with alternatives.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have a bedside lamp that I break the bulb in all the time, because I like having something to read by while lying in bed, but can be a violent sleeper.
I could see broken light bulbs being the least of your problems if you ever get married.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have a bedside lamp that I break the bulb in all the time, because I like having something to read by while lying in bed, but can be a violent sleeper.
I could see broken light bulbs being the least of your problems if you ever get married.
posted
Christine, this is precisely the time to be a libertarian. If the advantages were so amazing, protecting your pocketbook would drive you to get fluorescents with no law being necessary.
erosomniac, as I indicated, the light quality for a fluorescent is not better.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, I am not saying that there is an amazing PERSONAL advantage to using fluorescent over incandescent. I have never suggested that there is. There may be some small advantage, but I couldn't care less. Libertarian ideals fail when personal benefits and societal benefits clash. I believe there may be a great SOCIETAL benefit to this law, which means that no, libertarianism will not work here.
Added: This is also where I diverge from the Libertarian Party. I think they go too far and don't always understand that a benefit to the person is not always a benefit to society.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It'd also be extremely inexpensive to toss your garbage into your neigbor's yard. And if half the people did that, the concientious half would still foot the full bill for garbage pickup by paying twice as much for their weekly collection.
Same thing with electricity bills, or for that matter gasoline prices, except the total bill increases cuz marginal production costs skyrocket. And the concientious power user pays more per unit than s/he would if the wasters utilized power more efficiently.
The wasters also see that increase. But there would be no need for such marginal production if wasters ceased wasting. *TANSTAAFL* Since the wasters don't pay for the full cost of that marginal increase in power production, the concientious users are subsidizing the wasteful users.
posted
I disagree in this case, Christine, even though I'm not always a libertarian. I imagine the benefit to society must be proportional to the benefit to me. I can't think of a good reason why it wouldn't be. And if the benefit to me is notable but not overwhelming, I remain unconvinced it is otherwise for society. Or is the cost of my energy not in line with the scarcity of the supplies used to make it and the damage done by the process? (I wouldn't mind seeing some hard numbers to inform this debate. Maybe after I get home tonight I'll look into it.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In rationing situations, I far prefer quantitative limits rather than use limits. If electricity needs to be rationed, then limit it by person. Fine or even cut off those who exceed their ration.
But, within that limit, let individuals decide how they want to allocate their share of the resource.
I can't use a CRT monitor in a room lit by flourescents - it gives me a headache in about 2 minutes.
If I want to forego air conditioning or set my heat very low in order to have the light I want, that should be my choice within the ration limits that have to be imposed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya know, rather than making us accept inferior light, we could build more (nuclear) power plants... You know... rather than making our lives less pleasent by degrees.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
