Incandescent Illumination Illegal in Icy North

Yesterday the Canadian government announced a ban on old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs, with a freeze on sales effective in 2012.

As suspected, this is just the tip of the iceberg:

"This is more than just about light bulbs," [Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn] said. "The light bulb is only the gateway to broad public engagement on energy efficiency and action on climate change."

But the plan, which is part of Canada's non-Kyoto initiative to combat climate change, got an frigid reception from some environmentalists:

"I see it as an end-run around the United Nations system," Beatrice Olivastri of Friends of the Earth Canada said. "Anything that is a U.S.-related program is clearly outside of Kyoto, so that to me is very worrisome."..."It's putting a Band-Aid on cancer."

For more chilling news on the coming black market in incandescent bulbs, go here.

Comments

Pro Libertate | April 26, 2007, 9:41am | #

Anything that is a U.S. program is clearly meant to destroy the planet, because all evil lives here. Am I reading that correctly?

Jim Bob | April 26, 2007, 9:43am | #

This would make Uncle Fester an abuser of illicit bulbs.

joe | April 26, 2007, 9:43am | #

"Anything that is a U.S.-related program is clearly outside of Kyoto, so that to me is very worrisome"

Oh for Pete's sake! Grow up already.

montaigne | April 26, 2007, 9:45am | #

retarded. I just went out and bought a few of those CFL's. They're awful. I had high hopes to reduce my utility bill, but I can't stand the light they put out. I even tried different brands. I think the funniest part of Canada banning regular light bulbs is porch and garage lights. I'm in MN and when it goes subzero or even just down to the single digits, flourescents don't work. Now I haven't tried a a CFL, but the one's in my garage never turn on. I have to use a regular bulb if I want to see. I look forward to 2012 when people start bitching that nothing works in the cold.

MP | April 26, 2007, 9:46am | #

They'd make more progress if they simply banned electricity.

Mad Max | April 26, 2007, 9:49am | #

Proposed advertising slogans for the new policy:

Change a light bulb, change the world!

How many light bulbs does it take to save the planet?

Jennifer | April 26, 2007, 9:51am | #

If I lived in Canada I'd lay in a lifetime supply of incandescents right now. Actually, given how things are going I'm tempted to do that anyway.

Fluorescent bulbs are hideous. They don't conserve energy; they merely suck it out of the hapless individuals on whom they shine.

Seamus | April 26, 2007, 9:51am | #

So I guess Canadians will start coming south to buy incandescent light bulbs to smuggle back home, and Americans will continue going north to buy reasonably-priced toilets that work on the first flush, and smuggling *them* back home.

ed | April 26, 2007, 9:52am | #

I look forward to 2012 when people start bitching that nothing works in the cold

montaigne,

Get with the times, man! By 2012 winters in Minnesota will be a balmy 65 F. You'll be wearing shorts and hitting the beaches. Don't you watch the news?

Pro Libertate | April 26, 2007, 9:54am | #

Jennifer,

That's a brilliant idea--light bulbs powered by human heat. Yes, with this new technology, the light bulbs will literally suck the heat out of nearby persons to generate light. Since the world is going to catch on fire in a few years, anyway, this will allow Canadians to stay cool. And well lit.

metalgrid | April 26, 2007, 9:56am | #

Problems I have with CFLs:
- most don't work on dimmer switches and 90% of the switches in my house are on dimmers
- their life spans are shortened when turned on and off, and since about 70% of the switches in my house are motion activated, let the rivers of mercury flow from all the bulbs I'll be ripping through.

I'd love to switch to LED based lighting, but they are price restrictive - 70 dollars for a LED bulb that's the equivalent of the 3 dollar CFL bulb.

montaigne | April 26, 2007, 9:57am | #

Ed,

Thanks for reminding that I'll have beach front property soon. You're quite the optimist!

Pro Libertate | April 26, 2007, 9:59am | #

Personally, I think we should just re-engineer humans to see in infrared wavelengths. Then no lights will be necessary.

jimmydageek | April 26, 2007, 10:01am | #

I really don't see the big fuss about CFL bulbs. I changed most bulbs in my apt with them over a year ago...never had any complaints myself. Have had company over many many times...nobody's ever said "those bulbs have to go!!"...

MikeP | April 26, 2007, 10:03am | #

Lovely.

Of course it would be one of the colder nations on earth.

If you've got the heat on, incandescent bulbs are not that wasteful. The "waste", after all, is heat -- so the light bulb becomes part of the heating system.

And since there is less sunlight in the winter, having lights on correlates with having the heat on.

"But electricity is an inefficient way to heat a house," one might say. Yeah, well, at least it has a chance to come from non-greenhouse gas emitting sources like flooded valleys. The actual efficient ways to heat homes come from fossil fuels.

Of course, once fossil fuels get loads of carbon taxes built in, heating houses with incandescent light bulbs using non-fossil fuel electricity may well be the cheapest solution...

Queen's Gambit Declined | April 26, 2007, 10:04am | #

You guys are a whiny bunch - no wonder the planet is going to pieces when even the most trivial sacrifice is considered a grave injustice.

Reinmoose | April 26, 2007, 10:07am | #

This is really a shame because fluorescent bulbs put out the most depressing light I've ever experienced. It's so bad, my body hardly recognizes it as light.. only my eyes are fooled.
I've made several attempts to inconspicuously turn off the numerous fluorescent light bulbs over my desk, but there's only so dark it can get before some barrels in exclaiming "why are you working in the dark?" I'll take 1-40Watt incandescent light bulb over 9 fluorescent light bulbs any day.
History also tells us that this law will likely result in greater environmental problems such as mercury disposal issues and increased pollution from the pharmaceutical company plants manufacturing all of the necessary anti-depressants.

Jennifer | April 26, 2007, 10:09am | #

I really don't see the big fuss about CFL bulbs. I changed most bulbs in my apt with them over a year ago...never had any complaints myself. Have had company over many many times...nobody's ever said "those bulbs have to go!!"...

And I don't see the big fuss about having wooden floors rather than carpeting, but I'll damned sure make a fuss over a government who mandates I have one over the other.

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 10:09am | #

Well this makes the EZ Bake Oven extinct.

Dmitri | April 26, 2007, 10:09am | #

Yeah guys, don't whine when the government passes laws! They are only doing this for your own good! Stop questioning the government and just listen to everything they say.

Reinmoose | April 26, 2007, 10:09am | #

it can get before some barrels in exclaiming
should read "before someone barrels in..."

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 10:11am | #

PL,

Anything that is a U.S. program is clearly meant to destroy the planet, because all evil lives here. Am I reading that correctly?

Yes.

Jennifer,

If I lived in Canada I'd lay in a lifetime supply of incandescents right now. Actually, given how things are going I'm tempted to do that anyway.

Actually, you could trade full-flow toilets to non-Californian Americans, have an invisible transaction and a lifetime supply without having a storage problem.

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 10:11am | #

If we're worried about excessive use of electricity, then plasma TV's ought banned before incandescent light bulbs. Those fuckers use a ton of juice.

Chucklehead | April 26, 2007, 10:12am | #

montaigne,

For dark, cold nights up there, you could resort to what the ancestors used: fire.

If banning incandescent bulbs is good, not using any bulbs is better! Use oil lamps. I hear whale oil and seal oil, especially from baby snow seals, burns rather nice.

Lost_In_Translation | April 26, 2007, 10:12am | #

Haha, banning the incandescent bulb is a "gateway ban",much like a "gateway drug", leading to more extreme bans. Soon Canada will start banning other "wasteful" utilities, like TV, trash compactors, jacuzzis, massage chairs, toaster ovens, etc...

Jennifer | April 26, 2007, 10:12am | #

This is really a shame because fluorescent bulbs put out the most depressing light I've ever experienced. It's so bad, my body hardly recognizes it as light.. only my eyes are fooled.

In my office we usually keep the fluorescent overheads turned off (which works because we have huge windows). Usually, when it's a little dim, we'll turn on incandescent lamps we keep at our desks. But once in awhile I'll come in to discover somebody has turned on the goddamnable fluorescents, and that's when I know no amount of coffee will make me feel awake that day.

I don't know what it is about fluorescents, but seriously: no matter how alert and cheerful I feel, five minutes under fluorescent lighting just makes me flatline.

I am not exaggerating when I say that if I couldn't have incandescents in my home, I'll use candles and oil lamps before I use fluorescent lighting. I still have all the lamps and candelabras left over from my Goth days, and I have no qualms about putting them back into service.

And if this means a higher air-conditioning bill in the summertime, so be it.

Dmitri | April 26, 2007, 10:13am | #

Let's ban air conditioners, those things suck like 30 amps of electricity.

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 10:14am | #

If banning incandescent bulbs is good, not using any bulbs is better! Use oil lamps. I hear whale oil and seal oil, especially from baby snow seals, burns rather nice.

Actually, that is a good retro fuel alternative. Biodiesel from the sea is organic (like petrol) AND renewable. With modern furtilization techniques and sonic hurding the supply can be limitless.

JasonL | April 26, 2007, 10:15am | #

I know how to make my millions. Order now, and I will send you a 60 watt bulb with each purchase of a high capacity magazine.

M | April 26, 2007, 10:15am | #

the light bulbs will literally suck the heat out of nearby persons to generate light

...from your cold, live hands.

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 10:16am | #

Let's ban air conditioners, those things suck like 30 amps of electricity.

Banning AC in a tundra farm seems pretty harmless.

Jennifer | April 26, 2007, 10:17am | #

Actually, that is a good retro fuel alternative. Biodiesel from the sea is organic (like petrol) AND renewable. With modern furtilization techniques and sonic hurding the supply can be limitless.

My lamps use petroleum-based paraffin oil. Deny me my incandescents and I guarantee my personal consumption of oil-into-light will increase.

I'll make sure of it.

JasonL | April 26, 2007, 10:17am | #

There are 'warm' flourescents that don't seem so bad to me, light wise. I've been surprised when I go into certain stores and restaurants to see they are using all CFLs.

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 10:22am | #

Jennifer,

My lamps use petroleum-based paraffin oil. Deny me my incandescents and I guarantee my personal consumption of oil-into-light will increase.

Oh come on! Join the new envirowave and render some blubber!

William R. Simonson | April 26, 2007, 10:23am | #

I have a cunning plan. Let's round up people and. . .sell Soylent Oil!

Ironchef | April 26, 2007, 10:31am | #

Governments are now turning what is a good idea (arguably) into a ridicous PR stunt to see whom can grab the latest headline:

California: "We'll be the first to outlaw incandescents! by 2020"
Canada: "Oh yeah!? We'll do it by 2012!"
"Psshaw, 2008!"
"Poppycocks! Now!"
"Amateur. We've already gone CFL. 2 years ago."
"Whatever carbonator. We've never had incandescents. Ever."
"What's an incandescent?"

Chucklehead | April 26, 2007, 10:31am | #

Actually, that is a good retro fuel alternative. Biodiesel from the sea is organic (like petrol) AND renewable. With modern furtilization techniques and sonic hurding the supply can be limitless.

"I get 85 miles per seal pup!"

Queen's Gambit Declined | April 26, 2007, 10:32am | #

In my office we usually keep the fluorescent overheads turned off (which works because we have huge windows). Usually, when it's a little dim, we'll turn on incandescent lamps we keep at our desks. But once in awhile I'll come in to discover somebody has turned on the goddamnable fluorescents, and that's when I know no amount of coffee will make me feel awake that day.

I don't know what it is about fluorescents, but seriously: no matter how alert and cheerful I feel, five minutes under fluorescent lighting just makes me flatline.

I really think this kind of thing is more a symptom of your psychosis than a cause.

jimmydageek | April 26, 2007, 10:34am | #

I wasn't making a statement concerning the laws that they want to impose...I was making a statement concerning the bulbs themselves. Maybe I found a decent brand (I don't remember which) that doesn't seem as harsh as some of you make it out to be. Either way, I don't mind the CFLs in my apt...that's all...

Sam B | April 26, 2007, 10:36am | #

Let's ban living past the age of 65. That would simultaneously solve our environmental problems AND our Social Security problems. Also, cancer rates would plummet; it's really win-win all around.

jimmydageek | April 26, 2007, 10:39am | #

Sam B,

Don't forget a lot of traffic problems...

Sam B | April 26, 2007, 10:39am | #

Unless America does it. Then it is pure evil.

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 10:43am | #

I have a cunning plan. Let's round up people and. . .sell Soylent Oil!

As long as you have to market it as free range like I have to with train oil. Ref. several months ago story about "organic" banned as a descriptor for seafood.

joe | April 26, 2007, 10:44am | #

Sam B-

Grow up already.

Billy Beck | April 26, 2007, 10:44am | #

Christ on a banana-peel.

I've worked as a stage-lighting director for thirty years. I have extremely sensitive eyes.

When The Vampire State (New York) finally gets around to this sort of horseshit, I don't know what I'm going to do.

"I hope I die before
The light goes cold."

Pro Libertate | April 26, 2007, 10:48am | #

Sam B,

Sigh. Sixty-five? Are you crazy? It should be thirty. We could put little timers in everyone's hands to make sure that they self-immolate at the proper time. Maybe some kind of ritual would help ease them on their way--hmmmm.

Guy,

Let me assure you that Soylent Oil is 100% natural and comes from a renewable resource.

All,

I have another cunning plan. Cause a reasonably close (i.e., outside the lethal range) star to go nova, and we'll read by its light.

Cracker's Boy | April 26, 2007, 10:49am | #

Because I am such a cheap bastard (as opposed to a green), I have been replacing incandescents with compact flourescents for about a year now. The only that this is frustrating is that, so far, I have found 3 distinct types, with no discernable way to tell which is which.

The bulbs either:
Light up as soon as you turn them on; just like an incandescent
-or-
They wait about 3 seconds, then light up just like an incandescent
-or-
They light up as soon as you flip the switch, but are very dim; taking about a minute to come to full 100-watt equivalent brightness.

I can live with all three types... but I'd like to know in advance of coming down off the ladder whether "this" bulb is a slow starter, a late starter or a fast bulb... depending on where it is.

Just ramblin'.

CB

joe | April 26, 2007, 10:52am | #

Wow, fake joe, nice screw up.

Literate much?

ed | April 26, 2007, 10:53am | #

This is not well known, but do you know who else was an early proponent of fluorescent lighting?

Yep, Hitler.

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 10:54am | #

Eventually some asshole senator is going to propose withholding highway funds for any state that doesn't ban incandescent bulbs.

swillfredo pareto | April 26, 2007, 10:56am | #

even the most trivial sacrifice is considered a grave injustice

In the first place the government precluding you from making a choice is not a sacrifice it is an abridgement of your freedom. And yes, any interference in your right to self-determination is a grave injustice. Second, I don’t know how old you are, but from your righteous government-school-generated indignation I would say you have yet to be visited with the joys of cataracts and any of the other eye problems that come once you hit your 40’s. Provided you don't drown in the encroaching seas there will come a time when the quality of light will have a serious impact on quality of life.

joe | April 26, 2007, 10:58am | #

I choose to run my outfall line into swillfredo's basement.

Live free or die!

s.m. koppelman | April 26, 2007, 10:58am | #

Oh, the horror! CFLs put out perfectly decent light and consume less than a quarter of the energy. My table lamps even have broad-spectrum ones that that put out light closer to an incandescent full-spectrum than the Soft Whites you folks are whinging about. You no more have to buy those dull blue-gray fluorescents than you have to buy cheap, cruddy clear incandescents that put out jaundice-yellow light.

Just a century ago most people were still using gaslight, oil lamps and candles at home and they somehow managed. It's not like this is restricting where and when one can use lighting or forcing fewer lumens on anyone.

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 10:59am | #

The only that this is frustrating is that, so far, I have found 3 distinct types,

There's a fourth type. Ever try the 3-way fluorescents? Ugh! Each increase in illumination is also a different color.

Queen's Gambit Declined | April 26, 2007, 11:02am | #

In the first place the government precluding you from making a choice is not a sacrifice it is an abridgement of your freedom. And yes, any interference in your right to self-determination is a grave injustice. Second, I don’t know how old you are, but from your righteous government-school-generated indignation I would say you have yet to be visited with the joys of cataracts and any of the other eye problems that come once you hit your 40’s. Provided you don't drown in the encroaching seas there will come a time when the quality of light will have a serious impact on quality of life.

Well, global warming will probably have an even more serious impact on quality of life.

I won't reveal how old I am, but I will say that I'm long past the stage where I think that I can do anything I want and when the government makes a rule for the greater good they're really just out to make my life worse.

Sorry, man, rules and government are among the prices of civilization.

highnumber | April 26, 2007, 11:04am | #

jimmy's right. There are warm (lightwise) CFLs. I buy only CFLs for my home. Other than the split second they take to light up after I turn them on, I see no disadvantage. In fact some of them are closer to sunlight than some of the incandescents.
As a bonus, I've been saving the old CFL bulbs with the plan of building my own rectal thermometer.

Disclaimer: I am against any laws or bans regarding bulbs that people use.

2nd Disclaimer: I am not building a rectal thermometer. Of course it will be oral.

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 11:04am | #

Just a century ago most people were still using gaslight, oil lamps and candles at home and they somehow managed.

What a moronic statement. Of course they managed. People "managed" in Soviet Russia, too.

Pro Libertate | April 26, 2007, 11:04am | #

joe,

You almost got it right. "Light free or die" would be the correct slogan.

Queen's Gambit Declined,

Come by the Soylent offices later today for a special rendering we'd like to do.

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 11:05am | #

Let me assure you that Soylent Oil is 100% natural and comes from a renewable resource.

I don't doubt it being "natural" but I have to call my whales "free range" then, by gosh, you must call your mammals free range too!

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 11:06am | #

What a moronic statement. Of course they managed. People "managed" in Soviet Russia, too.

In Soviet Russia, they manage you.

JasonL | April 26, 2007, 11:08am | #

Does anyone know how you are actually supposed to dispose of CFLs? There do be a bit o' mercury in them. I've got one or two in high use areas, but I can't shake the feeling that if we all go 100% CFL, well, the world doesn't need that many rectal thermometers.

Ethan | April 26, 2007, 11:10am | #

Setting up a light bulb shop in Jackman, Maine might be a good idea. Anybody want to invest?

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 11:19am | #

Setting up a light bulb shop in Jackman, Maine might be a good idea. Anybody want to invest?

If all goes well I should be back from several years work in "the Orient" and ready to retire. Perhaps being a managing partner on a bulb trading post might be fun for the summer months (or is that singular in Maine?).

Wonder if a shop can be made straddling the border? Full-flow toilet and Cuban cigar section on the north side, light bulbs on the south side.

Sam B | April 26, 2007, 11:21am | #

Sorry, man, rules and government are among the prices of civilization.

I don't think anyone is denying that. I think they are just arguing that some rules go beyond the purview of what a government should be doing to maintain civilation. I could point out countries that had plenty of laws and government and were far from "civilized" but I wouldn't want to validate Goodwin's Law.

Sam B | April 26, 2007, 11:22am | #

*Godwin's Law

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 11:27am | #

There are warm (lightwise) CFLs.

Only if you're color blind.

I've tried about 10 different brands of fluorescent blulbs and the best one had all the warmth of Don Rickles.

Jennifer | April 26, 2007, 11:28am | #

Another thought occurs to me: I'd think that heating is probably one of the major, if not THE major, source of energy consumption in Canada. The heat that incandescent bulbs emit might be a bad thing in Alabama in August, but in Canada for most of the year I'd think that would actually be a good thing.

swillfredo pareto | April 26, 2007, 11:29am | #

I choose to run my outfall line into swillfredo's basement.

That is very generous of you to help yourself to my property, Kelo Rules!!! Anyway, have at it, I need a basement but bring a shovel and a snorkel. You should hit water at about 2 feet.

I'm long past the stage where I think that I can do anything I want and when the government makes a rule for the greater good they're really just out to make my life worse.

Agents of the government are not out to make your life worse they are out to control you. Making your life worse is ancillary.

Queen's Gambit Declined | April 26, 2007, 11:32am | #

I don't think anyone is denying that. I think they are just arguing that some rules go beyond the purview of what a government should be doing to maintain civilation.

I agree, but global warming and energy consumption are going to be major issues going forward for everybody on the planet so the government intervention is going to be necessary. The type of household lightbulbs is just the tip of the iceberg.

Queen's Gambit Declined | April 26, 2007, 11:33am | #

Agents of the government are not out to make your life worse they are out to control you.

Come on, that's a bizarre and paranoid viewpoint.

Pro Libertate | April 26, 2007, 11:35am | #

Drastic steps must be taken to save humanity from itself. Therefore, I, Pro Libertate, claim my rightful title as God Emperor of the Earth. Please do nothing until my minions have given you a permission slip. And I mean nothing!

[Insert thunderous applause].

Jennifer | April 26, 2007, 11:36am | #

Even assuming that electricity consumption is not only a cause of global warming but a significant cause that needs to be stopped, I'd rather see an outright electricity ration rather than a ban on how electricity can be used. I have a non-plasma TV which I only watch for three or four hours a week; even with my incandescent bulbs I use less electricity than someone with CFL bulbs who also spends his time glued to a plasma TV and never, ever turns off his computer.

However, I don't buy the idea that electricity is a problem with global warming. Especially considering how much of the electricity I use comes from either hydropower or nukes.

Canada gets a lot of hydropower as well. Huge generating plants by Niagara Falls.

highnumber | April 26, 2007, 11:36am | #

Nuts to you, Russ 2000, you hockey puck!

Dave W. | April 26, 2007, 11:39am | #

What Reinmoose said.

swillfredo pareto | April 26, 2007, 11:44am | #

Come on, that's a bizarre and paranoid viewpoint.

Feel free to articulate why. There are dozens of initiatives at the Federal level that have no other purpose but to control you and your choices.

Jennifer | April 26, 2007, 11:45am | #

Oh, the horror! CFLs put out perfectly decent light and consume less than a quarter of the energy.

The light may seem perfectly decent to you, but not to me. And if it's that goddamned important that I reduce my energy use, I'd rather turn down the heat or turn up the AC than switch to fluorescents. Even assuming the government needs to force energy reduction on people, why not let us decide where to make the cutbacks?

Eric the .5b | April 26, 2007, 11:49am | #

You know, this is actually a case where, if the people involved were sincerely concerned and not just politicians performing a stunt, a carbon tax - or just an electricity tax - would make a Hell of a lot more sense than a clumsy ban on specific products.

Fluffy | April 26, 2007, 11:49am | #

Isn't it kind of a farce to demand this change, when electricity generation is not and has never been the chief culprit in greenhouse gas creation?

Forcing people to pay more for bad light, but then continuing to subsidize the use of the automobile [which IS the chief culprit] makes no sense.

If Canada wants to help global warming so much, how about stopping the construction of new state-financed roads?

All of the conservation means exactly dick anyway. By ramrodding the automobile culture into existence, and offering it up as the definition of "development", we made all of this irrelevant. None of it will mean anything if the Indian and Chinese economies develop a car culture that matches the one in North America. If global warming is real, nothing we do matters relative to the impact increasing the size of the worldwide car culture by five times.

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 11:50am | #

If governments really were worried about excessive energy use, in this case electricity, they wouldn't be putting so much effort in setting electricity rates in order to keep the costs down.

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 11:53am | #

Jennifer,

Even assuming that electricity consumption is not only a cause of global warming but a significant cause that needs to be stopped, I'd rather see an outright electricity ration rather than a ban on how electricity can be used. I have a non-plasma TV which I only watch for three or four hours a week; even with my incandescent bulbs I use less electricity than someone with CFL bulbs who also spends his time glued to a plasma TV and never, ever turns off his computer.

I am taking up the slack for you. The FSFLs in my kitchen are on 24/7 and have been for almost 2 years. Both CRT televisions are on 24/7 along with the CRT computer monitor and computer.

I do have the windows open and the heat-pump off right now during the nice weather, so I guess I am a bit of a slacker there ;)

Sam B | April 26, 2007, 11:54am | #

I agree, but global warming and energy consumption are going to be major issues going forward for everybody on the planet so the government intervention is going to be necessary.

Here's the thing though: even assuming that humans ARE the primary force involved in climate change how much are changing lightbulbs and other environmental activities going to change things now? There is no way to actually measure this kind of "damage" to the environment and that's assuming that these changes are even damaging on net. On the other hand I can tell you for sure that these intiatives are going to cut into people's budgets, hitting poor people the hardest, and they are going to stifle innovation and technologic progress. It seems to be common sense to me that if the damages of an action are well known and can be objectively measured and the benefits are vague and illusory then you should really think twice before taking that action.

Queen's Gambit Declined | April 26, 2007, 11:54am | #

Feel free to articulate why. There are dozens of initiatives at the Federal level that have no other purpose but to control you and your choices.

Like what? Why does anybody care about my choices if there's no larger issue involved?

Queen's Gambit Declined | April 26, 2007, 11:55am | #

On the other hand I can tell you for sure that these intiatives are going to cut into people's budgets, hitting poor people the hardest, and they are going to stifle innovation and technologic progress.

In this case, forcing people to buy more energy-efficient light bulbs will help their bank accounts, not hurt them, as they'll save money on their monthly power bill.

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 11:56am | #

or just an electricity tax - would make a Hell of a lot more sense than a clumsy ban on specific products.

We already have that everyplace I know of in the USA. Maybe Canadians really do take that last quited line to absurdity? "Anything that is a U.S.-related program is clearly outside of Kyoto, so that to me is very worrisome."..."It's putting a Band-Aid on cancer."

Pro Libertate | April 26, 2007, 11:58am | #

Queen's Gambit Declined,

Just don't complain if the people in power decide to force you to do something that they think is for the good of mankind. You know, like occupying Iraq. Or forcing you to join the national religion.

Sam B | April 26, 2007, 12:00pm | #

In this case, forcing people to buy more energy-efficient light bulbs will help their bank accounts, not hurt them, as they'll save money on their monthly power bill.

Two points. One, as many people have pointed out the waste from incandescent bulbs is released as heat, so while their power bill may go down their energy bill may go up. Two, if that's really true why do you need a law to enforce this change? Do people really need to be forced to act in their own best interest?

Tweaked | April 26, 2007, 12:02pm | #

Plus, have you ver tried to smoke meth out of a CFL...cannot be done sir...I don't care how sprocked you are. Won't someone please think of the tweakers?!

Queen's Gambit Declined | April 26, 2007, 12:04pm | #

Queen's Gambit Declined,

Just don't complain if the people in power decide to force you to do something that they think is for the good of mankind. You know, like occupying Iraq. Or forcing you to join the national religion.

I don't like the way they force us to drive on the right side of the road and stop at red lights "for the common good". Who are they to decide?

So yeah, this point goes both ways. The whole point of government is to keep people from doing certain things that they'd do otherwise.

joe | April 26, 2007, 12:09pm | #

swillfredo,

"That is very generous of you to help yourself to my property"

Ditto to you.

The additional floodwaters and storm damage my property experiences because of your greenhouse gas emissions are trespasses, just as the flooding and stink your property experiences from my sewer line emissions.

Tell you what, I'll set it up so the outfall lands 1 foot inside the public right-of-way before flowing into your basement. That way, I'm emitting into a commons, not directly into your property.

Jennifer | April 26, 2007, 12:10pm | #

Queen's Gambit is one of the better trolls we've had lately. Possibly because she's so well-fed by the posters here.

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 12:12pm | #

I don't like the way they force us to drive on the right side of the road and stop at red lights

You must be a troll in his late 20's/early 30's.

Nobody drives on the right side of the road because government tells them to. They drive on the right side of the road because they don't want to get killed by other drivers. You can be my guest and try driving on the wrong side of the road if you want. My guess is that your first concern won't be "Gee, I hope the government doesn't catch me."

joe | April 26, 2007, 12:15pm | #

"Just don't complain if the people in power decide to force you to do something that they think is for the good of mankind. You know, like occupying Iraq. Or forcing you to join the national religion."

I like this line of thinking. Since you believe there should be police and courts to enforce trespass laws, you don't get to complain if the police and courts enforce drug laws.

Or, you know, you could actually distinguish between good and bad. But that's a lot more work.

Jennifer | April 26, 2007, 12:16pm | #

Joe, do you actually think this lightbulb ban is the way to help solve the problem of global warming?

jb | April 26, 2007, 12:20pm | #

Jennifer's right, a better way to do this would be a power bill tax. I know we don't like taxes here, but bans are even worse, and an electric use tax like that would hit the problem directly.

Fluffy | April 26, 2007, 12:21pm | #

Queen's Gambit -

The purpose of the government is to prevent citizens from harming one another, or coming to harm from forces from outside the polity.

That's why the government "keeps people from doing certain things".

The problem here is that they can't demonstrate that using an incandescent bulb is harming anyone.

Even if global warming was proven, that would only prove that using large amounts of electricity frivolously was a harm, and thus could justify an electricity tax. An incandescent bulb used prudently will still use less electricity than a flourescent bulb left on all the time, which I promise to do if required to use them.

NoStar | April 26, 2007, 12:22pm | #

Naturally the Canucks would promote the CFL. I doubt that 'Meruhcuns will ever get use to seeing two 50 yard lines.

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 12:23pm | #

a better way to do this would be a power bill tax.

NO!!!

A better way is to get government out of the business of setting energy rates. What the fuck is the point of putting a tax on a government-lowered power bill?

Reinmoose | April 26, 2007, 12:24pm | #

I'm sorry Queen's Gambit, but this really is one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever read:

In this case, forcing people to buy more energy-efficient light bulbs will help their bank accounts, not hurt them, as they'll save money on their monthly power bill.

Sam B had it right. Why do you have to force people to do something that's in their best interest?

Also, I'd like to point out (again) that there ARE negative externalities to policies like this. Like the energy and resources necessary to manufacture all of the CFLs Canada will ever need. If they don't have the industry to be able to do that, they'll have to import them from someplace else (China?), feeding China's light bulb industry, where light bulbs are likely not produced as environmentally as they are in Canada... but then I have an idea. Why not make a law saying that all light bulbs have to be bought from a Canadian company? That will fix everything

joe | April 26, 2007, 12:24pm | #

Jennifer,

I think that setting sunset dates for inefficient technologies is a good way to spur the innovation of technologies to replace them, yes.

It just became much more lucrative for someone to invent a better incandescent light bulb.

swillfredo pareto | April 26, 2007, 12:28pm | #

Queen's Gambit is one of the better trolls we've had lately. Possibly because she's so well-fed by the posters here.

I am all for other viewpoints, troll or otherwise, as long as they have something to say and can do it without being a complete asshole. We need something to do with all the extra food the Freedom To Farm Act generates anyway.

ed | April 26, 2007, 12:30pm | #

As bootleg bulbs will still be plentiful, the Canadian government will have to outlaw the old screw-in receptacles and then mandate new fluorescent-bulb-end thingies that work only with the new government approved dedicated receptacles, each of which will have a yearly licensing fee, like British television. This will make for hilarious Canadian comedy sketches that will be copied by Saturday Night Live and not laughed at by the studio audience.

Reinmoose | April 26, 2007, 12:30pm | #

Oh, and Fluffy, I hear what you're saying about subsidizing the car culture, and Russ 2000 about artificially setting lower power rates.

You'll notice, however, that neither of your posts got any response from the "government will fix it" crowd because it BLOWS their mind that we're not currently experiencing the negative effects of capitalism, but rather of government intervention. It's too much to handle for some people to think that maybe, to fix a problem, instead of doing something, we must do just the opposite.

Jennifer | April 26, 2007, 12:32pm | #

I think that setting sunset dates for inefficient technologies is a good way to spur the innovation of technologies to replace them, yes.

Joe, my question was "do you think banning incandescent bulbs is the way to solve global warming," not "do you think technology should be banned after it becomes obsolete."

Also, what about the other issues addressed here, such as letting people choose how to reduce their electricity use? If I'm only allowed to use X watts of electricity per year, I'd rather keep my incandescents, put on a sweater and turn down the heat. Why is this a problem, do you think?

Jon H | April 26, 2007, 12:33pm | #

Now now, let's not get our panties in bunches.

The target year is 5 years away. That's plenty of time for the market to come up with an affordable, acceptable alternative.

Right? Surely high-output LED bulbs will come down in price and be tuned in color balance by then.

(Or is the magic of market-based techno innovation like a mentalist's powers - it doesn't work under scrutiny by non-believers.)

Miggs | April 26, 2007, 12:34pm | #

Hmmm...has anyone ever seen Queen's Gambit and Dan T. in the same room together?

I. Self. Divine. | April 26, 2007, 12:38pm | #

I'm not sure if QG and good 'ol Dan T. are the same person...Dan T irritated the hell out of me, but QG just makes me want to club baby seals. HOI and QG, however...definitely one and the same.

Reinmoose | April 26, 2007, 12:39pm | #

Jon H -
It doesn't work when people try to make s*** up! Don't be such a dick. You can't say that "LED bulbs will come down in price in 5 years" is a market-driven idea, because nobody knows! What a lame argument.

Jon H | April 26, 2007, 12:40pm | #

"Sam B had it right. Why do you have to force people to do something that's in their best interest?
"

Because people are often stupid and short-sighted, and really don't consider what's in their best interest, and what isn't. They keep doing things out of habit, not out of thoughtful consideration.

Given that most people buying incandescents have probably never bought a CFL, may not know what a CFL is, and probably couldn't tell you whether a given bulb is incandescent or CFL, I'd guess most people haven't really thought much about their bulb options lately.

Fluffy | April 26, 2007, 12:41pm | #

Jon -

That's not really a market outcome.

Having the state dictate "We demand you produce technology X!" and then sit back and wait is not really a market mechanism.

That's like passing a law demanding cold fusion in 5 years and then calling it a market failure if it doesn't happen.

Queen's Gambit Declined | April 26, 2007, 12:44pm | #

Nobody drives on the right side of the road because government tells them to. They drive on the right side of the road because they don't want to get killed by other drivers. You can be my guest and try driving on the wrong side of the road if you want. My guess is that your first concern won't be "Gee, I hope the government doesn't catch me."

Then why is there a law in place that prohibits you from driving left of the yellow line?

Reinmoose | April 26, 2007, 12:45pm | #

If people don't know what's in their best interest, why not tell them? Why aren't the CFL makers going out being like "OMG! Our light bulb will save you SO much money"... oh wait, they're already doing that. And there are plenty of little activist groups going around touting the wondrous wonders of CFLs.

It's not like you've got some giant incandescent light bulb conglomerate spewing anti-CFL lies and beating the CFLs to a pulp. You've got light-bulb conglomerates being like "We're all Green! Buy a CLF and you'll save money!" and power companies being like "Buy a CFL and you'll save money!" How much more public information do we need?

Dreamer | April 26, 2007, 12:55pm | #

If only we had a centrally planned economy, where the smartest people tell us nitwits what to do, and all the people are well-fed and prosperous.

Dave W. | April 26, 2007, 1:01pm | #

It just became much more lucrative for someone to invent a better incandescent light bulb.

They should have one that automatically switches to non-incandescent mode when the ambient temperature goes over a comfortable room temperature (eg, 68 degrees). That way, you get nice light so long as you keep the thermostat down, but you get ugly depressing light if you crank the heater. Net energy savings over current tech for furnace intensive Canada.

Sadly, I don't think my concept is compatible with Canada's proposed legislative scheme. Oh, well. One less patent application I have to write this week.

Cracker's Boy | April 26, 2007, 1:04pm | #

"It just became much more lucrative for someone to invent a better incandescent light bulb."

Almost. Incandescents are about to be banned, which will provide a market incentive for someone to invent a better non-incandescent light bulb.

CB

MikeP | April 26, 2007, 1:05pm | #

Then why is there a law in place that prohibits you from driving left of the yellow line?

Because it's a Schelling Point, the violation of which can cause direct and immediate harm to others.

What does this have to do with prohibiting the selection of light bulbs that cause no direct and immediate harm to anyone?

MikeP | April 26, 2007, 1:08pm | #

Almost. Incandescents are about to be banned, which will provide a market incentive for someone to invent a better non-incandescent light bulb.

An intelligent law would be written something like, "No lighting device will be sold that emits less than 30% of its energy as visible light."

Of course, I take it as a given that the new Canadian law is not written this way.

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 1:10pm | #

Then why is there a law in place that prohibits you from driving left of the yellow line?

The laws came after the yellow lines. Are you assuming most people ignored the yellow lines before the laws?

Blue | April 26, 2007, 1:10pm | #

"The whole point of government is to keep people from doing certain things that they'd do otherwise."

Oh man, this belongs on the dumb Rosie quotes thread. That's some good trollin' there QGD.

Fluffy | April 26, 2007, 1:14pm | #

There's a law about yellow lines because the roads belong to the state, and as the property owners the state can make up whatever rules they want regarding yellow lines, pink lines, orange rectangles, etc.

Nick M. | April 26, 2007, 1:27pm | #

I.S.D.

I think there was a thread last week where HOI was outed as Dan T. He made a comment about changing his handle because his other was being spoofed so much. Judgin by his "email address" he was also $400 haircut.

joe | April 26, 2007, 1:32pm | #

Jennifer,

I do not think that banning incandescent light bulbs is a sufficient strategy for solving global warming.

Cracker's Boy,

D'ohh!

Mike P,

I agree, it would be better to have a law that doesn't pick technologies, just sets the standard and lets the private sector figure out how to meet it. For this reason, I think the hybrid-car tax benefit should be rewritten based on an mgp standard.

Pro Libertate | April 26, 2007, 1:35pm | #

joe,

Huh? You must be arguing with the Pro Libertate in your head. That sounds like an insult, but, actually, it's possible, since I'm currently having chips implanted in all of my subjects' skulls.

In any case, 'tweren't me making remarks about "forcing" people to do things for the "greater good". My point was that the guys calling the shots determine what's the "greater good", and you better be prepared for some consequences that you don't like when you cede so much power to the government.

Even if you think mankind will be exterminated next year if we don't do something about global warming, banning incandescent bulbs makes virtually no sense. It's a "we're doing something" moment, and that's all it is.

joe | April 26, 2007, 1:51pm | #

Pro Libertate,

Once you agree that there will be a state at all, you are ceding some power and decision-making authority to them.

I can tolerate the "but what if the government does something you dislike" argument from principled anarchists, but not from the-state-should-enforce-my-rights libertarians. You want the government to be limited to doing what you deem legitimate; so I do I. That we disagree on the definition of "legitimate" does not make you any less supportive of a government that enforces correct behavior than me.

Gray Ghost | April 26, 2007, 1:57pm | #

A possible down side to Ethan's proposed light bulb shop in Maine. Plenty of hysteria to go around in the linked story. It does bring to mind the question of where you're supposed to throw these bulbs out when they "burn out".

Banning incandescents strikes me as insane. The beef against incandescents don't last as long as CFLs and use more power per lumen. For the first case, why should the government care? If the thought is that it takes a lot of greenhouse gasses to make a bulb (I have no idea whether that's true or not) and that we should minimize the number of bulbs made, then just place a small tax on each bulb.

For the second case, aren't we already penalized on the amount of power we use when we receive our monthly bill? How is the "excess" power an incandescent bulb uses any more deadly to the environment than the power a blender, plasma TV, or A/C unit uses? If someone wants to pay for the excess energy their light bulbs use, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Pro Lib, as usual, hits it on the head. "It's a we're doing something moment, and that's all it is."

Gray Ghost | April 26, 2007, 2:01pm | #

The second sentence, second para, makes more sense if you insert "is that they" between incandescents and don't.

I'm still stunned at the idea that a "legitimate" area for government regulation and prohibition includes the light bulbs its citizens may use.

Reinmoose | April 26, 2007, 2:21pm | #

Joe,
The difference that you point out between yourself and libertarians, while true, can be a bit more specific.

You say: "You want the government to be limited to doing what you deem legitimate; so I do I. That we disagree on the definition of "legitimate" does not make you any less supportive of a government that enforces correct behavior than me."

I see the difference this way:
Libertarians want a certain set of rules on which everyone can agree (what are seen as human rights.. the right to live, the right to property, the right to self determination). Aside from those rules, we say "Ok... GO!"
You, and presumably other supporters of government involvement, want mostly the same human rights, but then they want a lot of input as to how people go about fulfilling those rights. To me, the self-determination clause is the one that separates libertarians from government-lovers.

So as for how I see it, it's not an issue of gradient, it's an issue of criteria to define an individual's human rights.

crimethink | April 26, 2007, 2:33pm | #

First off, I agree that banning incandescent light bulbs is stupid.

Second, I can't help but notice that those of you who are whining about fluorescent lights draining your lifeforce or whatever, need to GET A LIFE!

metalgrid | April 26, 2007, 2:39pm | #

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 10:11am | #
If we're worried about excessive use of electricity, then plasma TV's ought banned before incandescent light bulbs. Those fuckers use a ton of juice.

I replaced my CRT TV with a nifty 61" DLP one about 2 years ago and cut my electrical bill by about 60 bucks/month despite watching more television. Didn't realize plasmas were just as bad as CRT.

Also Cracker's Boy:
The bulbs either:
Light up as soon as you turn them on; just like an incandescent

These are called cold CFLs or CCFLs for short. They're slightly less efficient than normal CFLs but work on dimmers/3way switches and have longer life than regular CFLs and also don't heat up like other bulbs. Also, more expensive than the rest - 10-15 bucks a pop usually.

They wait about 3 seconds, then light up just like an incandescent

These are the regular CFLs that everyone is so insistent people buy. Doesn't work on dimmers/3way circuits.


They light up as soon as you flip the switch, but are very dim; taking about a minute to come to full 100-watt equivalent brightness.


These are the old fluorescents I think. Not entirely sure since I haven't run into any recently.

metalgrid | April 26, 2007, 2:40pm | #

cold CFLs

bah, that should read cold cathode CFLs.

Jennifer | April 26, 2007, 2:44pm | #

Second, I can't help but notice that those of you who are whining about fluorescent lights draining your lifeforce or whatever, need to GET A LIFE!

No, that comment needs to be directed to those who think that outlawing certain forms of lighting will save the earth.

Hell, they don't have to get a life if they don't want to. They just need to stop fucking around with mine.

Eric the .5b | April 26, 2007, 2:46pm | #

I'm just waiting for the backlash once people in general become aware of these laws and face not buying incandescents. That will be amusing. It'll be doubly amusing when, as weirdly seems to happen now and then, some Team Blue True Believer pops up and blames folks like us for it.

hilliard | April 26, 2007, 3:01pm | #

I'm curious as to how many people on H&R simultaneously think that:

a) dissenters are "whining" about light sources

and

b) Seasonal Affective Disorder is a legitimate problem that people suffer from

megs | April 26, 2007, 3:05pm | #

I'm in Canada and already have a stockpile. CFLs are nice in certain areas (in certain fixtures where the light looks nice and not so artificial) and make sense in rooms where the lights will be on for a sustained duration, but that's it.

Canada and the whole Kyoto thing is pretty hilarious right now, though:
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20070422

Oh, and I wasn't affected by SAD until I moved from the south to Canada. But it actually is a huge, legitimate problem for me. Part of it is surely that I'm used to southern winters and the cold and lack of light and not being able to go outside really does get to you. I don't know anyone raised here who has it though.

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 4:00pm | #

I replaced my CRT TV with a nifty 61" DLP one about 2 years ago and cut my electrical bill by about 60 bucks/month despite watching more television. Didn't realize plasmas were just as bad as CRT.

You also didn't realize that DLP is not plasma.

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 4:21pm | #

I can tolerate the "but what if the government does something you dislike" argument from principled anarchists, but not from the-state-should-enforce-my-rights libertarians.

Well joe, this is why you are a troll. Anarchy is principled but minarchy isn't?

joe | April 26, 2007, 4:31pm | #

Minarchy is principled, Russ 2000.

Minarchists arguing "you can't complain about any use of government power, because you support some other uses of government power" are not.

Troll is just another word for
No point left to argue.
Said nothing, that's all you've said to me.

Jennifer | April 26, 2007, 4:36pm | #

Joe, I know I've asked this on other threads, but what point are you trying to make here? You've admitted that you don't think light bulb bans will solve the global warming problem, yet you seem to think this ban is a good idea; 'hooray for laws against obsolete technologies.' So what exactly is your position on this ban, and why?

Anonymous | April 26, 2007, 4:56pm | #

Haven't had time to read all posts, so may be repeating already-posted material, but several technical points:

Yes, the color of fluorescent lights is way colder (more blue) than that produced by incandescent bulbs. Incandescent bulbs produce light at 3200 Kelvins, fluoro at about 2800 Kelvins.

Dislike for bluish lighting is not whining -- unless you discount all the psych research on seasonal affective disorder.

The proper measure of light output is the Lumen -- fluoros do produce more lumens per watt than do incans, but the color temp differs, as noted above.

Fluoro lights flicker -- some people can consciously detect this, for others it's a subliminal stimulus. CFL's less flickery. Flickering bugs the hell out of those that can see it, cf "whining, SAD"

The enviro community deliberately ignores the mercury problems created by fluoro light disposal.

LED's are 'spensive, but last (almost) forever and are not point-sources of contaminants.

Good point raised above about waste heat from incans not being a problem in colder climates.

Disappointed in the gratuitous comments about whale and seal oils -- this would seem to be the result of something other than the dispassionate analysis which should be the libertarian ideal.

Another Anon | April 26, 2007, 5:03pm | #

Disappointed in the gratuitous comments about whale and seal oils -- this would seem to be the result of something other than the dispassionate analysis which should be the libertarian ideal.

How much energy does that 4 ft T8 bulb up your tailpipe use? More than it takes to chill my drink down to proper consumption temperature?

Pro Libertate | April 26, 2007, 5:05pm | #

You left out human oils in your disappointment. I'm disappointed in your disappointment. I don't like wasted Soylent Corporation jokes.

I do like the LEDs' potential. Pricey now but probably not forever.

Reinmoose | April 26, 2007, 5:14pm | #

Pro Libertate
If the market works like we say it should, LEDs will come down in price exactly in time for the 2012 ban on incandescent light bulbs. That's how it works, right?

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 5:17pm | #

Pro Libertate | April 26, 2007, 5:20pm | #

Indeed! Whenever the market does anything good, the statists tell us that no, it was their harebrained regulations/warnings that saved us.

Bully for them.

Sam-Hec | April 26, 2007, 5:21pm | #

quick thoughts:

government should not ban the incandescant.

but, government should tax inneficient products (eg incandescants) and services, and use much of the funds tlo subsidize highly efficient goods and srevices.

Government should also require of itself to go carbon-free/net zero-energy/whatever government buildings and services asap. It should not put such requirements on private consumers.

Someone should invent and make a wintersafe CFL for the Canuks, with a built in heater and an insulated shell.

Eventually CFLs should be banned (or taxed or something) for mercury content.

'They' need to keep working on good LED alternatives...I tried a few, they suck as bulb replacements. Maybe in four years.

Sam-Hec | April 26, 2007, 5:24pm | #

p.s.
the Ban/Tax on mercurial CFLs might be better done as a deposit system instead, like glass bottles and aluminum cans. CFLs 'can be' recycled. A reason to bother would help reduce Mercury waste.

Russ 2000 | April 26, 2007, 5:29pm | #

Troll is just another word for
No point left to argue.

No, troll is a word for being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, even if you have to make up an argument no one else was making.

That we disagree on the definition of "legitimate" does not make you any less supportive of a government that enforces correct behavior than me.

No libertarian on this thread was making an argument for behavior enforcement.

The libertarian/minarchist principle is based on government being the enforcer of remedies for specific, proven damages resulting from specific, proven actions. When the subject is as vague as global warming, there is nothing specific and proven on either the damge or action side. If you want to point out libertarians supporting government behavior enforcement, at least do it in a thread where a so-called libertarian has actually made such an argument (like an immigration thread).

AI | April 26, 2007, 5:41pm | #

I replaced my CRT TV with a nifty 61" DLP one about 2 years ago and cut my electrical bill by about 60 bucks/month despite watching more television.

And the government didn't even make you do it!

joe | April 26, 2007, 6:44pm | #

Jennifer,

I've stated that this ban is not sufficient to solve the global warming problem. That doesn't make it wholly useless, or wrongheaded.

Believe it or not, I haven't made up my mind. I'm reserving judgement until I can draw a conclusion that isn't pulled out of my ass.

Russ2000, stop cowering behind semantics. "Behavior enforcement," whatever you want to call it, my point is perfectly clear. I'm not interested in your dodgy word games.

Freaking denialist. "It's not PROVEN, it's not PROVEN!"

Jennifer | April 26, 2007, 7:09pm | #

I've stated that this ban is not sufficient to solve the global warming problem. That doesn't make it wholly useless, or wrongheaded.

Really? What is useful or rightheaded about it? Even assuming that cutting home electricity consumption is something government needs to mandate, how is banning one specific little piece of technology of which many people are fond better than simply saying "You can have X watts of electricity, do with it as you wish?"

(I'm also willing to guess that where incandescent bans are in place or will be, no exceptions are made for, say, people with solar panels who get all their electricity from the sun and can keep incandescent bulbs burning forever without doing jack to the atmosphere.)

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 8:43pm | #

Speaking of efficiency, my measure of fuel efficiency on a vehicle is how much horse power I can get out of a gallon of fuel.

NoStar | April 27, 2007, 1:15pm | #

Hey Jennifer,

You should ask joe how much jail time does he think an incandescent bulb user should get?

Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 1:19pm | #

You should ask joe how much jail time does he think an incandescent bulb user should get?

Heh heh heh. Yesterday I was personally insulted by the Chief of Police in the main town I cover.

That's when a journalist knows she totally kicks ass.

<