Environment and Property Rights

Re: 2007 Senate Bill 578 (Criminalize incandescent light bulb sales after 2011 )

Lighthouse10 — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:30:40 GMT

I think I have just about the longest (?) list of reasons why a ban on light bulbs is wrong

There is of course a bigger point here too, about consumer freedom http://ceolas.net/#el30x

As far as consumers are concerned, they can decide for themselves if any running cost savings in buying this-or-that product is worth it for them, when they compare with advantages that inefficient versions always have, or they would not be so popular (whether, say, fast heat from fan/bar heaters, bright and broad spectrum light from light bulbs, or contrast and viewing angle advantages of plasma screens).

In contrast, the 2 main issues for society and therefore politicians to consider are
1. The depletion of energy resources
2. The emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases

The depletion of energy resources (including "wasting electricity") is itself not a problem that needs regulation:
1. Renewable energy sources already exist, and are increasingly deployed.
2. As finite sources become scarcer, their price rises, reducing such consumption anyway, and the choice of renewable energy resources becomes more natural on the market place. Taxes or subsidies can of course speed up the effect before then.

Carbon emissions do seem to be a problem:
1. Whether or not global warming would be taking place anyway, the current general consensus is that carbon emissions aggravate the effect.
2. As an overall principle, if any man made ecological disturbances can practically be limited or contained, that is a desirable course of action.
3. Unlike with energy depletion, energy markets do not themselves react to increasing carbon emissions.

Carbon emissions should therefore be the focus for politicians in legislation, involving any energy efficiency measures required - not the other way round.

The argument that
"Supply side carbon emission reduction is too slow and expensive, we must also act on consumption, banning products that don't meet defined efficiency standards"
doesn't hold up.

1. Because, as can be seen ( http://ceolas.net/#em1x onwards ) generation and distribution efficiency can be addressed in several ways, not all of which need take time, and some of which need organizational thinking, rather than money.

2. Because -if needed- appropriate taxation as described ( http://ceolas.net/#gg4x ) not only raises funds, it quickly limits and redirects consumption as required, with much more future adaptability regarding scope and application than bans.

OMG, anyone see WallE by Disney Pixar? Great message.

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:28:13 GMT

Hope our legislators take their kids, then look their kids in the eyes and take some bold action.

Anyone know how fast global warming will make Great Lakes SALTY?

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:26:22 GMT

That would be a shame. What a waste of fresh water.

These bulbs really SHOULD be phased out

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:25:28 GMT

unless you can swim REALLY well.

Nazi's

Anonymous Citizen — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:25:05 GMT

Now your a criminal if you use the wrong kind of light bulbs.......incredible!

He's not nuts, dumbass.

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:19:40 GMT

Take a class.

It's government's business because EDUCATED people know human

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:18:34 GMT

nature is to waste natural resources. It's not a sin, it's our nature. Take a long look in the mirror. Then get over it. Smart leaders legislate to work around flaws in human nature .

Very bold Sen. Gleason. I like it.

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:16:00 GMT

You don't pussy foot around.

Al Gore, you know, my messiah, would be proud, I imagine.

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:15:14 GMT

If replacing with snow cone bulbs is the SINGLE biggest thing to do to

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:14:35 GMT

reduce global warming, then why not MANDATE it? It's logical. Plain and simple.

Unless you have stock in the old lightbulb, it's not a bad idea

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:13:03 GMT

tick, tock

Might not be a bad idea. Are other states doing this? Tick, tock

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:11:54 GMT

only 9 years left to reverse global warming....

Might not be a bad idea. Are other states doing this? Tick, tock

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:11:17 GMT

only 9 years left to reverse global warming....

disposal

Anonymous Citizen — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:57:47 GMT

toss them in the lakes and rivers, that will get even with the fools

stockpile

Anonymous Citizen — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:55:21 GMT

you would have to sell the bulbs on a dark street corner and most likely have yourself nailed in a lightbulb sting,,.. with swat surrounding you