The journey from there to here

Link

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 3)
6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Feb 06, 2007
miler,,,,ugh....james m taylor is one of the guys who is psid by exxonmobil to pontificate this b.s.

i appreciate the research, but the source is poor...and quite frankly, it's not even worth starting a debate over.

take care:)


Umm, I think you should go back and read again. Mr Taylor "may be" who you say he is. However take a "good" look at "where" he's getting his info from....

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001
on Feb 06, 2007
Umm, I think you should go back and read again. Mr Taylor "may be" who you say he is. However take a "good" look at "where" he's getting his info from....


from a discredited study from 2000-01.

garbage in, garbage out...and 1 article (even if it wasn't discredited) would hardly outweigh the mountain of evidence that shows the effects of global warming.

next...
on Feb 06, 2007
from a discredited study from 2000-01.

garbage in, garbage out...and 1 article (even if it wasn't discredited) would hardly outweigh the mountain of evidence that shows the effects of global warming.


Please show me a source where it was a discredited study. Because I can find no such thing.
on Feb 06, 2007
So why aren't they working more on alternative energy and less on regulating the end user?


Because when forming public policy, you want to go after the low hanging fruit first. Alternative energy takes a little bit of time between idea and project implementation. Changing a light bulb is an IMMEDIATE means for reducing both energy and CO2 emissions. Moreover, the consumer actually saves money over the life of the product.

Additionally, the International Energy Agency has found that:
The carbon dioxide emissions saved by such a switch would, it concludes, dwarf cuts so far achieved by adopting wind and solar power


"Nineteen percent of global electricity generation is taken for lighting - that's more than is produced by hydro or nuclear stations, and about the same that's produced from natural gas," he told the BBC News website.

The carbon dioxide produced by generating all of this electricity amounts to 70% of global emissions from passenger vehicles, and is three times more than emissions from aviation, the IEA says.


Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5128478.stm

Sometimes Government is forced to make public policy decisions for the good of everyone. Given CA's fragile electric grid and the state's desire to curb CO2 emissions, this mandate seems like a very reasonable course of action.
on Feb 06, 2007
tell ya what miler,,,go watch the oscar nominated "inconvenient truth" that features nobel prize nominee al gore and get back to me. this is gettin boring goin round and round with ya,,,
on Feb 06, 2007
tell ya what miler,,,go watch the oscar nominated "inconvenient truth" that features nobel prize nominee al gore and get back to me. this is gettin boring goin round and round with ya,,,


So a nomination makes one an impeccable source? Strange, a prize did not make the peanut farmer - to many of his collegues - an impeccable source on the Middle east.
on Feb 06, 2007
Strange, a prize did not make the peanut farmer - to many of his collegues - an impeccable source on the Middle east.


he's still the only person on the planet who ever existed who actually brought a peace accord between israel and any of it's enemies. if ya can't give credit where it's due, then i got no use for ya...

on Feb 06, 2007
oops,,,misread something....ignore this
on Feb 06, 2007
oops,,,misread something....ignore this


Misread a lot since I never said he did not get a peace accord. I was commenting about his latest novel and how many of his friends and advisors have said he was full of poop. Best to read what is written - not what you want someone to write.
on Feb 06, 2007
"he's still the only person on the planet who ever existed who actually brought a peace accord between israel and any of it's enemies. if ya can't give credit where it's due, then i got no use for ya..."


Then you should credit Walter Cronkite. He's the one who arranged it to begin with.
on Feb 06, 2007
Then you should credit Walter Cronkite. He's the one who arranged it to begin with.


Cronkite should get some credit, indeed. i also like what walter has said about the senseless drug war that this country foolishly continues to pursue. but don't diminish what carter did. it was truly historic.
on Feb 06, 2007
his latest novel


talk about your basic moment of unintended revelation. each and in total, dr guy's blogs are, as i've frequently suggested, works of fiction represented (ineptly more often than not) as fact. his comment on carter's book tells it all so clearly: he has plans to compile them for publication.

it's gonna require an incredible effort on his part but i can sorta vaguely envision him being recognized as the literary equivalent of borat's not quite so amusing brother.
on Feb 06, 2007
it's gonna require an incredible effort on his part but i can sorta vaguely envision him being recognized as the literary equivalent of borat's not quite so amusing brother.


that's GOOD ONE! lol

let's not be too hard on the lil pundit tho, he's just trying to grasp some straws and save some face. i'm not sure he's capable of apologizing. but his staunch efforts to be ignorant of facts, some of which he wrote himself, is something dick cheney would be damn proud of. and g gordon liddy would truly admire. there's somethin you can hang yer hat on there guy...have a nice day:)
on Feb 06, 2007
talk about your basic moment of unintended revelation. each and in total, dr guy's blogs are, as i've frequently suggested, works of fiction represented (ineptly more often than not) as fact. his comment on carter's book tells it all so clearly: he has plans to compile them for publication.

it's gonna require an incredible effort on his part but i can sorta vaguely envision him being recognized as the literary equivalent of borat's not quite so amusing brother.


Guess you are choosing to remain ignorant instead of just pretending to be. But then that is your problem not mine.
on Feb 06, 2007
let's not be too hard on the lil pundit tho, he's just trying to grasp some straws and save some face. i'm not sure he's capable of apologizing. but his staunch efforts to be ignorant of facts, some of which he wrote himself, is something dick cheney would be damn proud of. and g gordon liddy would truly admire. there's somethin you can hang yer hat on there guy...have a nice day:)


I was mistaken. I thought you could read and understand english. I will not make that mistake again. But for the 2 borat clowns in the crowd, please show me where I am wrong. Please. I so want to think that liberals really can think, and not just regurgitate talking points.
6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last