CFLs - the bulb everyone except the government hates

[PearlSB4U]

..and if you fail to succeed in convincing the group you're right, civil disobedience is always an option.

For any given wattage incandescent bulb, you can get more light intensity (# of lumens) from fewer watts via CFLs, LEDs & several other lighting options. By insisting on using incandescents, you are costing yourself more $...but...good for you...I guess.
You're also using more than your fair share of energy, but we disagree on where the balance should be struck between your individual rights & the rights of society.
You're like those moms who drive their kids to soccer practice in a Hummer---even though they're using way more than their fair share of energy, they are proudly exercising their individual rights!

 

[30ashopper]

For any given wattage incandescent bulb, you can get more light intensity (# of lumens) from fewer watts via CFLs, LEDs & several other lighting options. By insisting on using incandescents, you are costing yourself more $...but...good for you...I guess.

I've run the numbers with CFLs, the savings isn't that compelling. Plus, the light quality (in my view) is far superior with incandescent. It's a personal choice.

You're also using more than your fair share of energy, but we disagree on where the balance should be struck between your individual rights & the rights of society.
You're like those moms who drive their kids to soccer practice in a Hummer---even though they're using way more than their fair share of energy, they are proudly exercising their individual rights!

My fair share? :roll:

 

[idlewind]

For any given wattage incandescent bulb, you can get more light intensity (# of lumens) from fewer watts via CFLs, LEDs & several other lighting options. By insisting on using incandescents, you are costing yourself more $...but...good for you...I guess.
You're also using more than your fair share of energy, but we disagree on where the balance should be struck between your individual rights & the rights of society.
You're like those moms who drive their kids to soccer practice in a Hummer---even though they're using way more than their fair share of energy, they are proudly exercising their individual rights!

If I am paying for the energy I use then what business is it of anyone including the government as to how much energy I use?

 

[poppy]

me, me, me, me, me, me, it's all about me

 

[idlewind]

me, me, me, me, me, me, it's all about me

No it is about individual rights and liberty.

 

[PearlSB4U]

If I am paying for the energy I use then what business is it of anyone including the government as to how much energy I use?

It's Society's business. If we humans as a group have limited resources, it's not fair for the rich & powerful to overuse, leaving less (or none) for the rest of us.

As I said in an earlier post: the CFL debate is a specific instance of the more general debate about where to strike the balance between rights/responsibilities of the individual vs. the rights/responsibilities of society as a whole. I hope you agree that it should be a balance & not totally one-sided. ?

 

[Gidget]

What right does the federal government have that allows it to tell me what kind of light bulb I can buy? I think the arguments stand on their own.

I can't speak for you, but there are many who don't want the government involved regarding lightbulbs but are pretty cool with the government involved regarding a woman's right to choose and same sex marriage.

 

[30ashopper]

I can't speak for you, but there are many who don't want the government involved regarding lightbulbs but are pretty cool with the government involved regarding a woman's right to choose and same sex marriage.

I agree to a point on same sex couples. Government should not be involved deciding what is or isn't a valid marriage, that's up to the church or individual. But you still have to solve all the legal rights issues somehow. Legal civil unions as defined by the states seem the best solution there, with states being required to respect other states decisions via Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution.

On abortion I also agree, as long as you're not dealing with a situation where the pregnancy is past the point of viability. After that point, it makes sense to me that the child should be entitled to some protections under the law. (I'd be interested to know how you feel about that Gidget.) These are edge cases though in the overall debate on abortion. Generally I agree people should have the right to control their own bodies.

 

[PearlSB4U]

If the nation converted entirely to solid-state lighting, it would save enough electricity to power the entire country for 18 months, according to the Department of Energy.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-clean-energy-led-bulbs

 

[30ashopper]

If the nation converted entirely to solid-state lighting, it would save enough electricity to power the entire country for 18 months, according to the Department of Energy.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-clean-energy-led-bulbs

Support for basic research is one of the few useful roles of government. Using efficiency standards to force unproven and in some cases potentially dangerous new technologies on consumers is wrong. There's no need to force anything on consumers if solutions available are compelling to people. When government has to force something upon a populace it serves as proof positive the solution they are pushing is not compelling enough. This almost always results in market distortions that often hinder true innovation in the field and hurt individual groups in ways proponents can't possibly predict.

Efficiency through choice, not force.