Congress bans incandescent bulbs

Did you vote for that?? I know i didn't nor have i heard anything in the news til yesterday, and that was on a radio talk show..

Thanks to yet another Democrat controlled Congress..

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=59298

You will no longer be able to purchase these bulbs, you will be forced to use the more expensive bulbs with mercury in them..

Do any of these retards have common sense?

WTF is our govt doing??? Why the fvck??? I cant wait to finish my army BS and move to france...

Awesome!!!!

I'm gona make a fortune being an illegal bulb dealer....

Thanks for the heads up Spy....lol

See, now that's how you fish for a source..

I'll hook you up dude,100 watt for a 100 buck's....


Shine a light brother shine a light....

good..... ;)

Moving to more efficient lighting is one of the lowest-cost ways for the nation to reduce electricity use and greenhouse gases. In fact, it actually will save households money because of lower utility bills. Ninety percent of the energy that an incandescent light bulb burns is wasted as heat. And yet, sales of the most common high-efficiency bulb available—the compact fluorescent (CFL)—amount to only 5 percent of the light bulb market. Earlier this year, Australia became the first country to announce an outright ban by 2010 on incandescent bulbs. The changeover in the United States will be more gradual, not mandated to begin until 2012 and phased out through 2014. However, don't be surprised if some manufacturers phase out earlier.



http://www.usnews.com/articles/busin...e-know-it.html



The tiny tiny tiny bit of mercury is the only downside. But Im sure we will come up with a solution of some sort.

I think its a good thing. Ya it may cost you a couple more pennies when you buy them but it will save you a ton in the long run. They are actually cheaper per bulb when you realize they last ten times longer. So a bulb you replace every year will now only have to be reaplaced every ten years; saving you the cost of 9 bulbs. And it saves you a lot on your actual energy bill.

Dont see why this is a bad thing at all.

LMAO @ people thinking Congress gives a shit let alone thinking your vote means anything. They do what they want and will continue to do so until Americans stand together in great numbers, which is not likely to happen.

They have used the media and propoganda to its fullest potential in creating classes, groups and keeping everyone divided. They have made many believe they need the gov't to survive. This indeed is their greatest accomplishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C_Bino

I think its a good thing. Ya it may cost you a couple more pennies when you buy them but it will save you a ton in the long run. They are actually cheaper per bulb when you realize they last ten times longer. So a bulb you replace every year will now only have to be reaplaced every ten years; saving you the cost of 9 bulbs. And it saves you a lot on your actual energy bill.

Dont see why this is a bad thing at all.

---

Its not a bad thing.

Just the whole mercury, which isnt enough to do anything.
But I think people are worried about improper disposal of them. With alot of improperly disposed bulbs, the mercury adds up and can become a serious situation.


but yes, i think its a good thing

I thinks it a pretty good step. I just hope LED lights becomes good and affordable soon so that the whole issue with mercury in CFL can be avoided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C_Bino

I think its a good thing. Ya it may cost you a couple more pennies when you buy them but it will save you a ton in the long run. They are actually cheaper per bulb when you realize they last ten times longer. So a bulb you replace every year will now only have to be reaplaced every ten years; saving you the cost of 9 bulbs. And it saves you a lot on your actual energy bill.

Dont see why this is a bad thing at all.

---

There's no doubt the halogen bulbs are an excellent replacement for the incandescent bulbs, but in a free market the consumer decides what is best not the government or in most cases lobbyists. If the bulb is better, lasts longer, and saves energy than it will naturally replace incandescent bulbs. That's how the free market works. Congress not only has no jurisdiction legislating a ban on incandescents, but if the halogens are as efficient as they claim they have no necessity to legislate it either. The new halogen bulbs would eventually faze out the old bulbs because consumers vote with their money and they would opt to buy the better bulb.

Don't fool yourselves into thinking that the democrats did this because they care so much for the environment or because they want to help cut your energy costs. They did this because they were influenced by global warming acivists (whos votes they need) and corporate lobbyists like GE who stand to make huge profits off everyone in America being forced to buy the new bulbs.

So, while the use of halogen bulbs is a great thing, banning incandescents through legislation is just ridiculous and it's an obvious atempt at political pandering and corporate favoritism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blome

There's no doubt the halogen bulbs are an excellent replacement for the incandescent bulbs, but in a free market the consumer decides what is best not the government or in most cases lobbyists. If the bulb is better, lasts longer, and saves energy than it will naturally replace incandescent bulbs. That's how the free market works.

Congress not only has no jurisdiction legislating a ban on incandescents, but if the halogens are as efficient as they claim they have no necessity to legislate it either. The new halogen bulbs would eventually faze out the old bulbs because consumers vote with their money and they would opt to buy the better bulb.

Don't fool yourselves into thinking that the democrats did this because they care so much for the environment or because they want to help cut your energy costs. They did this because they were influenced by global warming acivists (whos votes they need) and corporate lobbyists like GE who stand to make huge profits off everyone in America being forced to buy the new bulbs.

So, while the use of halogen bulbs is a great thing, banning incandescents through legislation is just ridiculous and it's an obvious atempt at political pandering and corporate favoritism.

---

That argument is based on the hidden assumption that consumers consume in a rational manner.

You could argue in the same way for why it was stupid to ban the use of freon. You could either educate the public on the environmental effects of freon and then hope they will buy the better products, or you can ban it outright. Sometimes the second option is the most efficient.

Most consumers consume on habit, very few rationaly look at two bulbs and consider which one will be cheapest and most energy efficient over say 10 years. Especially not when it comes to such small expenses. Banning a obsolete technology in this case isnt much different than mandating emission standards for cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern

You could argue in the same way for why it was stupid to ban the use of freon. You could either educate the public on the environmental effects of freon and then hope they will buy the better products, or you can ban it outright. Sometimes the second option is the most efficient.

Most consumers consume on habit, very few rationaly look at two bulbs and consider which one will be cheapest and most energy efficient over say 10 years. Especially not when it comes to such small expenses. Banning a obsolete technology in this case isnt much different than mandating emission standards for cars.

---

so why are we still driving auto mobiles?? talk about an obsolete technology..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spywizard

so why are we still driving auto mobiles?? talk about an obsolete technology..

---

obsolete in what way :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blome

There's no doubt the halogen bulbs are an excellent replacement for the incandescent bulbs, but in a free market the consumer decides what is best not the government or in most cases lobbyists. Blome don't kid yourself this is a great example of a free market and the effects of capitalism on government. Hence the consumer being big business… If the bulb is better, lasts longer, and saves energy than it will naturally replace incandescent bulbs. That's how the free market works. Congress not only has no jurisdiction legislating a ban on incandescents, but if the halogens are as efficient as they claim they have no necessity to legislate it either. The new halogen bulbs would eventually faze out the old bulbs because consumers vote with their money and they would opt to buy the better bulb.

Don't fool yourselves into thinking that the democrats did this because they care so much for the environment or because they want to help cut your energy costs. They did this because they were influenced by global warming acivists (whos votes they need) and corporate lobbyists like GE who stand to make huge profits off everyone in America being forced to buy the new bulbs.

So, while the use of halogen bulbs is a great thing, banning incandescents through legislation is just ridiculous and it's an obvious atempt at political pandering and corporate favoritism. Blome I agree with you very much on this point.

---

This is ultimately a great example of a free market and the effects of a free market on government… Our government is the best government money can buy… ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spywizard

so why are we still driving auto mobiles?? talk about an obsolete technology..

---

I think we still need auto mobiles. We just need to work on efficiency of the combustion engine and emissions problems. I don't see another solution to make for my 40 mile commute any easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern

obsolete in what way :unsure:

---

More obsolete is the enrgy souce/production used in Automobiles still today is what I would say.. I doubt automobiles will become obsolete anytime soon but their power sources certainly are decrepit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fat Guy

This is ultimately a great example of a free market and the effects of a free market on government… Our government is the best government money can buy… ;)

---

What are you talking about? Ultimately a great example of a free market? In a free market "an Item of any sort" gets replaced by "a better item of any sort" because its better and/or cheaper... to make an item illegal because of lobbiests or for mere pandering just to show "the government cares about the planet" is bullshit and is closer to corporate fascist economics then free market economics..... LOL...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fat Guy

Blome don't kid yourself this is a great example of a free market and the effects of capitalism on government. Hence the consumer being big business…

---

Lobbying is a symptom of government intervention in economic matters, therefore it's not a result of capitalism or free market principles. Lobbying wouldn't exist if corporations thought they had no chance in influencing legislation in their favor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern

That argument is based on the hidden assumption that consumers consume in a rational manner.

You could argue in the same way for why it was stupid to ban the use of freon. You could either educate the public on the environmental effects of freon and then hope they will buy the better products, or you can ban it outright. Sometimes the second option is the most efficient.

Most consumers consume on habit, very few rationaly look at two bulbs and consider which one will be cheapest and most energy efficient over say 10 years. Especially not when it comes to such small expenses. Banning a obsolete technology in this case isnt much different than mandating emission standards for cars.

---

No, the arguement is based on the assumption that consumers have the right to choose what to buy. Whether they consume rationally or not is in their best interest, not mine or yours. I, for one, will buy halogen bulbs because it's a better product, but I don't care what anyone else buys.

I also don't buy the arguement that most consumers buy on habit. Sure there are many people who don't care what they buy or what they save, but the vast majority of consumers (the ones that effect the direction of most businesses and what they offer) do care what they spend their money on. That includes the smallest items/purchases such as toothpaste, light bulbs, and food brands to the largest items such as housing, cars, furniture and computers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blome

No, the arguement is based on the assumption that consumers have the right to choose what to buy. Whether they consume rationally or not is in their best interest, not mine or yours. I, for one, will buy halogen bulbs because it's a better product, but I don't care what anyone else buys.

I also don't buy the arguement that most consumers buy on habit. Sure there are many people who don't care what they buy or what they save, but the vast majority of consumers (the ones that effect the direction of most businesses and what they offer) do care what they spend their money on. That includes the smallest items/purchases such as toothpaste, light bulbs, and food brands to the largest items such as housing, cars, furniture and computers.

---

You earlier wrote this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blome

There's no doubt the halogen bulbs are an excellent replacement for the incandescent bulbs, but in a free market the consumer decides what is best not the government or in most cases lobbyists. If the bulb is better, lasts longer, and saves energy than it will naturally replace incandescent bulbs.

---

That is ONLY true if consumers consume in a rational manner, in this case consuming rationally would mean buying the product that is economicaly better in the long term. Now the simple fact that the majority of light bulb consumers hasnt switched over to the obviously superior CFL even though they have been around since the 80's prove that consumers doesnt consume rationally.

If consumers doesnt consume rationally the better product wont neccesarly replace the worse product. In most cases this doesnt matter, but when it comes to environmentaly damaging products it does.

There are many cases when what you consume effects me. If you buy a refigerator with freon, a car with poor particulate filter or even the incandescent bulb that just so slightely increase air pollution by slightely higher energy consumption. Although I agree that banning the incandescent bulb doesnt really make a significant difference.

But in those cases the free market seems inefficient, would the emission standars for cars be what they are today without regulation? Would freon be gone from refrigerators without a ban? Since consumers in many cases doesnt consume rationally I dont se anything wrong with some bans or regulations as long as they dont infringe on anyones living standard.

I seriously doubt most people spend any time rationalising over what toothpaste or light bulb they should buy, I hardly know anyone that does and that includes most I know that are very well educated and intelligent. :scratch: Familiarity usually seems like the most important thing.

To sum up what I mean.

If we have a product where there are alternatives that are equally functional or better but that has a significantly smaller environmental footprint, then I dont se anything wrong with banning the worse product. Sometimes pragmatism must take precendece over principle/ideology.

Why should the consumer be free to choose a product that is detrimental to everyone when there are options that arent? Its a whole different thing if there are no options though.

Edison is turning over in his grave right now... lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muriloninja

LMAO @ people thinking Congress gives a shit let alone thinking your vote means anything. They do what they want and will continue to do so until Americans stand together in great numbers, which is not likely to happen.

They have used the media and propoganda to its fullest potential in creating classes, groups and keeping everyone divided. They have made many believe they need the gov't to survive. This indeed is their greatest accomplishment.

---

AMEN!

They have used the media and propoganda to its fullest potential in creating classes, groups and keeping everyone divided. They have made many believe they need the gov't to survive. This indeed is their greatest accomplishment.

where is this qoute from murilon its from that Zeitgest right or that guy who created america from freedon to facism.

hey murilon make a link with the links to those movies. they woke me up off my ass.

LOL and those movies arent on TV either i wonder why.....

Make a thread with it people will listen to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern

That is ONLY true if consumers consume in a rational manner, in this case consuming rationally would mean buying the product that is economicaly better in the long term. Now the simple fact that the majority of light bulb consumers hasnt switched over to the obviously superior CFL even though they have been around since the 80's prove that consumers doesnt consume rationally.

---

Now you're ignoring the law of supply and demand. The halogen bulbs have been around for a while, but the demand for them wasn't high enough for consumers to seek them out. Now that oil is at $120/barrell consumers are looking to cut energy costs and as a result the profits of halogen bulbs will grow. However, this is not because of congressional legislation. Businesses chase profits and when they see a market for long lasting, energy efficient bulbs they'll either get onboard or get beat by their competitor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern

If consumers doesnt consume rationally the better product wont neccesarly replace the worse product. In most cases this doesnt matter, but when it comes to environmentaly damaging products it does.

There are many cases when what you consume effects me. If you buy a refigerator with freon, a car with poor particulate filter or even the incandescent bulb that just so slightely increase air pollution by slightely higher energy consumption. Although I agree that banning the incandescent bulb doesnt really make a significant difference.

But in those cases the free market seems inefficient, would the emission standars for cars be what they are today without regulation? Would freon be gone from refrigerators without a ban? Since consumers in many cases doesnt consume rationally I dont se anything wrong with some bans or regulations as long as they dont infringe on anyones living standard.

I seriously doubt most people spend any time rationalising over what toothpaste or light bulb they should buy, I hardly know anyone that does and that includes most I know that are very well educated and intelligent. :scratch: Familiarity usually seems like the most important thing.

---

You're confusing my arguement. I'm not saying we need complete deregulation of the market. I'm simply saying that we need minimal governmental intervention. Obviously, if something is harmful to others, like freon, than the government has a responsibility intervene. In fact, protection of it's citizens is one of governments limited roles.

I'm with blome on this one, I'm a fan of the cfl, I buy them and I use them. But, for some cases I like a real light bulb. Near my bed where I read I just don't like the fvckers, they bother my eyes for some reason, it gives me a headache. They don't dim, and they take forever to reach full bighness. I like to have options and choices in my life.

They should make me more cheap power with alternative and nuclear power rather than take away my option to pay for extra energy if I so desire.

And yes I've been drinking and posting again if it doesn't make sense.

lol this just benefits the light bulb makers.

not restricted supply gives them the upperhand.

HAHA i wonder if the energy minister has some shares or is a major investor of some big lightbulb company.

Hell maybee donald's rumsfeild 3rd cousin needed some money and Haliburton's business is drying up.

The government should never fvck with the free market. it just makes it worse for us.


Seriously i would like to know who the hell made this ****in decision and if they went and bought some shares on halogen light bulbs.

But as always its always presented by your wonderful pretty media as something humanitarian and environmentalist.

In the end it comes down to the government putting the noses in our business! They should try doing what they were elected to do for a change! It's actually good for us republicans because every day that the dems and libs screw off in congress makes it that much easier to get them the hell out!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blome

Now you're ignoring the law of supply and demand. The halogen bulbs have been around for a while, but the demand for them wasn't high enough for consumers to seek them out. Now that oil is at $120/barrell consumers are looking to cut energy costs and as a result the profits of halogen bulbs will grow. However, this is not because of congressional legislation. Businesses chase profits and when they see a market for long lasting, energy efficient bulbs they'll either get onboard or get beat by their competitor.

---

Well this was more or less my point, a superior product wont neccesarly replace a inferior product. We are saying the same thing in different languages. If energy prices go up then people will look harder at energy efficient products just like you say(i.e act more rationally which increase demand). My point is, why wait? :unsure: Nobody is worse of if we instead go in and pull the inferior product of the shelf tomorrow.

90% of the population doesn't know how to dispose of these light bulbs properly. Once these mercury bulbs hit the landfill, then the environmental impact starts...

Not quite that straightforward, if we replace one incandescent bulb, say 40 watt strenght, with a CFL. During the lifetime of the CFL it will save around 320 kWh electricity.

If the electricity was produced by coal power it would have meant the release of around 25mg of mercury, a CFL on the other hand contains around 6mg of mercury. So even if you assume the CFL will be broken and the mercury released its still a net saving of 19 mg of mercury.

The problem is of course shifted a bit aswell, the coal power plant distributes the mercury efficiently while CFL's throw into a landfill will cause a much larger local impact.

If you happen to get electricity mostly from nuclear, hydro, wind or solar then of course the CFL would cause a larger mercury emission than if you stuck with incandescent bulbs. So in countries like france, sweden and swiss its stupid to change bulbs. In most parts of america however its benificial. Energy efficiency is only environmentaly benificial when the majority of energy production is from fossil fuels.

But soon LED lights will hit the market big time and that will put a end to CFL's.

Good points! Either way, mecury will be in our water and in our air.
I am not sure how I feel about this, although albeit, these bulbs do save a lot of energy.

I just spoke with a guy about the new lights coming out for night mountain bike trail riding and it's all LED's, and I'm told they're even brighter than the HID's.


I don't know about other parts of the country,but in California they're really pushing those CFL's, it seems like every store you go in there's always a huge display of them. As soon as I can afford it I'm going to switch to led's.