More Crap From the "Party of the Poor"

Published on January 30, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

I like compact flourescent light bulbs. I really do.

In fact, you will not find traditional incandescent bulbs in our house for that reason. And our nominal electric bill (average bill between 30-50 bucks a month) reflects that and other energy saving options that we implement around our house.

But I'm going to readily acknowledge that good flourescent light bulbs do not come cheap. The cheapest ones aren't worth buying, frankly, and you have to go somewhere in the $2-3 a bulb range to find a bulb that will actually last. Honestly, it's worth it in the long run.

But given the average 3 bedroom home, and the almost inevitable minimum of 10 lightbulbs throughout the home, and you can see where converting to all flourescent might not be an affordable option for some, in light of the fact that incandescent bulbs are about 1/10 the price. In other words, for the cost of one flourescent bulb, you can light the entire house with incandescents (of course, you pay more in the long run, but honestly, that's not something the poorer members of the community see, especially since utilities are covered by welfare programs, light bulbs are not).

And so, armed with this knowledge, it seems ludicrous that California would be seriously considering implementing a ban on incandescent light bulbs. And yet they are. If the loonies in the legislature have their way, Californians will no longer be allowed to purchase incandescent bulbs. And as usual, the poorest will be the hardest hit by their insane laws, because the cost of outfitting the aforementioned 3 bedroom home with compact flourescent bulbs would be half a day's wages for a minimum wage employee, not the kind of outlay one expects to put into light bulbs.

The proposal to ban incandescent bulbs is yet another symptom of a government run amuck, a government that has lost touch with the people it was elected to represent. If you want to cut electric usage, increase rates. Make electricity pricey, and families will do more to conserve, and consumption will drop. But to even consider banning consumer choices, especially in ways that could very well hurt the poor financially, is contemptible and disgusting.

Comments (Page 1)

SanChonino

on Jan 30, 2007

it seems ludicrous that California would be seriously considering implementing a ban on incandescent light bulbs.

Would you expect anything less from that crazy state?

This is ridiculous. It's, as you said, "another system of a government run amok" . . . but such is life. Can we truly expect anything else from either party?

kingbee

on Jan 31, 2007

The cheapest ones aren't worth buying, frankly, and you have to go somewhere in the $2-3 a bulb range to find a bulb that will actually last

i've never paid more than than a buck; a year or so ago, i found a place that was sellin 2 per pack for $1. i've only had a single bad one.

given the average 3 bedroom home, and the almost inevitable minimum of 10 lightbulbs throughout the home, and you can see where converting to all flourescent might not be an affordable option for some

both la's dwp and socal edison (and very likely all the other electic utilities in the state) happily rebate part of the price for fluorescents. even if they're currently buying 25 cent incandescents (cheapest i've ever seen), a 1000% increase in the price of bulbs hasta be wayyyyyyy down the list of financial concerns for anyone living in 3-bedroom anythings--except perhaps a 'this old box' add-on projects--$25.00 a year hardly compares to a minimum $1000 monthly rent or mortgage payment.

it seems ludicrous that California would be seriously considering implementing a ban on incandescent light bulbs. And yet they are. If the loonies in the legislature have their way, Californians will no longer be allowed to purchase incandescent bulbs. And as usual, the poorest will be the hardest hit by their insane laws,

same thing could be said about leaded gas.

the cost of outfitting the aforementioned 3 bedroom home with compact flourescent bulbs would be half a day's wages for a minimum wage employee

considering his takehome aint gonna be enuff to pay the rent, he'll be spared the torment of having to read his eviction notice while sitting on the bare floor dulling his hunger pangs by drinking his fill of free cold water.

Dr Guy

on Jan 31, 2007

Hmmm....I see a lucrative black market springing up! Can anyone say "UPS"?

Locamama

on Jan 31, 2007

I think this would be a great thing for the environment. They aren't saying that everyone will have to replace all their lightbulbs on one day. Just when a lightbulb burns out the only available replacement will be the CFC not the incandescent. Even people who don't have a lot of money should be able to afford to replace their lightbulbs as they burn out.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 31, 2007

I think this would be a great thing for the environment.

If you think those Beverly Hills mansions are going to be lit with compact flourescents, you're mistaken. And some of those places use more electricity than a small town.

I think this is a HORRIBLE response. I agree we need to take care of the environment, but not through silly legislation like this. Frankly, any place that bans incandescent bulbs and doesn't have any provision in city building codes for houses to be built to reuse their greywater for landscaping is pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.

same thing could be said about leaded gas.

Yeah, because I see all the black smoke emanating from incandescent bulbs, kingbee.

Sorry, but this is nuts.

greywar

on Jan 31, 2007

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, January 31, 2007
I think this would be a great thing for the environment.

If you think those Beverly Hills mansions are going to be lit with compact flourescents, you're mistaken.

Damn straight... no one likes flourescent chandeliers

SanChonino

on Jan 31, 2007

no one likes flourescent chandeliers

It makes the gold glow in an odd way . . .

"Jeeves, what happened to the chandelier. It looks brassy."

Ziggystyles

on Jan 31, 2007

We have started buying some florescent bulbs. Spendy little suckers and havent used them long enough yet to see a difference...but our regular bulbs are starting to burn out and we are replacing them. In the kitchen, of the 5 available lights, 3 are now flourescent. One thing that I notice is there is a delay from when I flip the switch to when those blubs turn on. It happens with another table lamp we have in the house. I know there is a delay with flourescent bulbs (usually reasonably small), but sometimes it takes a second or two to fire up and then sometimes its like they need to warm up to finally get to full brightness. We also put one outside to replace the burnt out incandescent; flip the switch and you cant even tell it is on....takes a while to get going. Need to mount some friggen flood lights out there!

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 01, 2007

Truth is, ziggy, they really DO save money over the long term. But I haven't seen good ones at the dollar or less prices kingbee is describing; although as he mentioned and I have seen elsewhere, there are subsidy programs in CA that may affect the prices of the bulbs. Even at the prices I pay, though, the savings are insane.

But the light isn't up to par. I know they say a 20 watt bulb produces as much light as a 75 watt, but I can tell you for a fact this isn't so. I'm a person used to using 40 to 60 watts, and I have yet to find a 20 watt that matches the light output.

I just think this whole circus is absurd and that this is a poor way to get the desired result. In EVERY case where a product has been banned/taxed heavily in one state, the "grey market" has thrived (Wisconsin's tax on colored margarine comes to mind, as does Colorado's ban on strike anywhere matches, and New York's massive cigarette taxation). The net result of all of this will be lost sales revenue in CA, as honeowners who don't want to switch will not.

bakerstreet

on Feb 01, 2007

Never used one. Do they come in really low wattage? The bulb I keep in my work area is 40 watts, and it annoys me sometimes.

No, I don't think the government should be doing this. I think California is paranoid about it because of their 'rolling blackout' culture and the mess they had with their power companies. I think before they worked their way down to light bulbs they could address air conditioning, and folks that don't respect them.

I used to live in a HUD housing project for a while when I left college, and there were people who regularly sat around in the middle of the summer leaving their front doors or windows open, etc. You'd go into their apartments and find their windows cracked to let the smoke out, middle of summer, icebox cold with the air conditioning turned down as low as they could stand it. Then they'd gripe and complain about the bills.

That was in a moderate climate of east tennessee. Imagine what the cooling expense is in Southern California. I would think that lightbulbs would be one of those issues that you'd get around to after you came up with something substantial to deal with the real problems.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 01, 2007

Never used one. Do they come in really low wattage? The bulb I keep in my work area is 40 watts, and it annoys me sometimes

Yes, they do come in pretty low wattages. You might want to check them out. The upside is, they last quite awhile.

kingbee

on Feb 01, 2007

because I see all the black smoke emanating from incandescent bulbs

i was offering as an example another product that was legislated outta existence even though it was less expensive than its replacement. if i'd been given a dollar each time i hadda endure someone lecturing me about the benefits of leaded gas vs the drawbacks of unleaded, i might be a republican today.

yet, strangely enuff, these days people are driving their cars just as fast and for a hell of a lot more years than previously.

more importantly, your kids now have one fewer thing in common with napolean.

as far as smoke color goes, what emanates from power plant stacks may resemble cute lil cumulus formations but if you're ever forced to choose between spending an hour in a long tunnel full of bumper-to-bumper traffic or testing stack emissions without a ventilator, the healthier choice would be the former. them nasty-lookin clouds of exhaust might might give you a hell of a headache and shorten your life by a few days or weeks; on the other hand, the last thing you ever see could easily be damn near invisible as it billows outta the stack.

kingbee

on Feb 01, 2007

the ones i use pull 20w and provide illumination comparable to 60w incandescents. i've been discouraged from using one in the the flex-neck lamp i use to light up the area around my computer because all the fluorescent bulbs i've tried have been longer than the flared shade causing them to be much more distracting or interfering than the 75w incandescents in there now.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 01, 2007

as far as smoke color goes, what emanates from power plant stacks

That's funny, I never saw smoke emanating from windmills, hydroelectric dams, or solar panels, kingbee.

I'm not saying that changing to CFL's isn't a good idea; it's a GREAT idea, actually...I'm saying I see it as being ridiculous to legislate. And I don't think it's analogous to gasoline at all.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Feb 01, 2007

one thing that neither your article or the link mentioned was that phillips, the largest maker of incandescent bulbs, plans to stop making them anyway by 2016. also, california's biggest electric utility, southern california edison has given away over 1,000,000 florescent bulbs because it's actually cheaper to give the bulbs away than fuel the power plants.

and it isn't all just about conservation of electricity. both articles neglected to mention that the savings are not only the 55 bucks per bulb, per year. it also would cut about 1300 pounds of carbon dioxide per bulb, per year. The California Energy Commission estimates that eliminating incandescent bulbs will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.82 million metric tons per year.

i'm not sure this ban is necessary, as incandescents will probably go the way of the 8 track tape eventually. but in arguing against it, you neglected to point to the real motivations that are about much more than saving a few bucks. and you neglected to mention the assistance being provided by socal edison.

california has some serious problems with co2 emmissions, and this bill is about dealing with that. it is not how you tried to shallowly frame it as some "big government" trying to stop business from happening.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!