Australia to Ban Incadescent Bulbs

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Anybody have any suggestions on some CFL bulbs to choose?

So far, the ones that I've found need a lot of time to warm up before they get to full brightness.. and don't react fast enough or provide enough light for quick trips into a room. Is this typical or have I just not found the right kinds?

I recommend the Noma CFL's as I find they are the closest to daylight out of all the brands I have tried.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

I've had good luck with Globe brand CFL's and really like their mini 60w equivilent. Same size as a regular light bulb. They have "cool" light bulbs too if that's your preference.

But yes, not all CFL's are the same. My resale house had garbage Phillips ones in them and they had terrible light output, not to mention slow "on" times.

[Dirty Mr. Clean]

I perfer the LED light bulb over CFL because they give off a nice white tone. They also use even less energy the problem is the price.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...htbulb_r_1.php

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

The government bans a certain good (Why stop there? We ought to ban everything that hurts the environment. Especially humans). What does that have got to do with market forces? Producers keep making those traditional bulbs, so I would say that market forces speak pretty clearly…

It seems pretty clear that the poster was implying that if the manufacturer's of traditional bulbs don't switch to the new kind, they'll go out of business in Australia. Obviously. The 'market forces' the poster speaks of are pretty plain to see here, shouldn't be any confusion about it... if you make a good and that good is barred by the government, you'd better transform your company/product or go broke.

The government is involved in the marketplace. You can't separate one from the other (in any country I'm aware of).

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

Aren't incandescent lightbulbs one of the most inefficient devices ever made? I thought I heard that while watching How It's Made or something?

I believe they are 95% inefficient. Only 5% of the energy it uses goes towards producing light while the other 95% is lost as heat.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

(Why stop there? We ought to ban everything that hurts the environment. Especially humans).

Nice one. The slope is indeed slippery. First they'll want us to change lightbulbs so we produce less pollution and save money, next thing you know humans will be banned. After that, leaded gas.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Nice one. The slope is indeed slippery. First they'll want us to change lightbulbs so we produce less pollution and save money, next thing you know humans will be banned. After that, leaded gas.

And socks. Socks harm the environment. Plus I really really hate wearing them.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Dirty Mr. Clean

I perfer the LED light bulb over CFL because they give off a nice white tone. They also use even less energy the problem is the price.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...htbulb_r_1.php

From what I've read though the LED ones put out a lot less light, but I agree I think eventually that'll be the dominant technology, CFL is just a stepping stone.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Nice one. The slope is indeed slippery. First they'll want us to change lightbulbs so we produce less pollution and save money, next thing you know humans will be banned. After that, leaded gas.

Or even having guidelines mandiating cars have a minimum level of fuel effeciency! *GASP*

I think I even brought this up on the Gore movie thread, that Canada should promote or mandate CFLs.

The only problem is I have lots of light fixtures that are open and don't look good unless it's a clear glass bulb.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

It seems pretty clear that the poster was implying that if the manufacturer's of traditional bulbs don't switch to the new kind, they'll go out of business in Australia. Obviously. The 'market forces' the poster speaks of are pretty plain to see here, shouldn't be any confusion about it... if you make a good and that good is barred by the government, you'd better transform your company/product or go broke.

The government is involved in the marketplace. You can't separate one from the other (in any country I'm aware of).

Market forces: In economics, the forces of demand (a want backed by the ability to pay) and supply (the willingness and ability to supply). (copyright any textbook on economics).

The government is a non market force, I would think thats pretty clear.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

The government is a non market force, I would think thats pretty clear.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Ever heard of governments (executive), parliaments (legislative), NGOs, international organizations, etc.

Guess not....

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Market forces: In economics, the forces of demand (a want backed by the ability to pay) and supply (the willingness and ability to supply). (copyright any textbook on economics).

The government is a non market force, I would think thats pretty clear.

Don't skip the chapter on externalities.

Perhaps a better approach would have been add a tax per incandescent to account for the added pollution each one "costs". This additional "cost" is not accounted for in the current system, so a tax that would account for ALL the costs (including environmental) shouldn't cause much debate. (se the economics textbook section on "Internalizing the exernalities")

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Ever heard of governments (executive), parliaments (legislative), NGOs, international organizations, etc.

Guess not....

Go right ahead. Tell me all about how gov't is a "non-market force". I'll give you five words before you trip over yourself.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

The government bans a certain good (Why stop there? We ought to ban everything that hurts the environment. Especially humans). What does that have got to do with market forces? Producers keep making those traditional bulbs, so I would say that market forces speak pretty clearly…

Yes that's the leap I'm making there.
I guess I'm saying if the environment changes (and I mean the economic environment which includes politicians responding to the will of voters) and a company can't adapt, who cares? Not I.
What exactly are you arguing against?

[photon]

Here's a question, I assume it's been looked at, but does the additional energy and waste from producing a CFL over a normal bulb outweigh the savings in energy/waste over the life of the CFL?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Nice one. The slope is indeed slippery. First they'll want us to change lightbulbs so we produce less pollution and save money, next thing you know humans will be banned. After that, leaded gas.

I love how people think that the government making decisions that dictate our behaviour is a bad thing. If people are so good at making their own decisions, then why do we need governments and laws at all?

And if governments aren't market forces, why do they decide what about 40% of all our income gets spent on? Shouldn't it be my choice whether I want to put a sidewalk in my front yard or not?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Yes that's the leap I'm making there.
I guess I'm saying if the environment changes (and I mean the economic environment which includes politicians responding to the will of voters) and a company can't adapt, who cares? Not I.
What exactly are you arguing against?

Against the sad fact that a company goes broke simply because politicians outlaw their product just to make their voters happy.

If the company goes broke when consumers willingly stop buying their products and they willingly go green - I have no problem with that. Heck, I used to pay a premium for Origin green energy...

PS Shazam, you are not worth arguing with (arrogant, lacks basic knowledge).

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

PS Shazam, you are not worth arguing with (arrogant, lacks basic knowledge).

You rock dude! You can't even back up your "knowledge" eh?

I do find it hilarous that you get your panties in a twist over something as stupid as ILBs. Of all the gov't "intrusions" to bitch about...

I wish I could wire my basement using lamp cord. Stoopid gov't wants me to use NM cable instead. Next thing you know they'll make me use decora switches!

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Against the sad fact that a company goes broke simply because politicians outlaw their product just to make their voters happy.

If the company goes broke when consumers willingly stop buying their products and they willingly go green - I have no problem with that. Heck, I used to pay a premium for Origin green energy...

PS Shazam, you are not worth arguing with (arrogant, lacks basic knowledge).

Changing technology throws your whole argument out the window. Light is a basic need. There is finally an alternative to some obviously bad and dated technology. People have a tendenancy to do as they always have, especially if it is cheaper, so for the common good governments have to make decisions on the population's behalf in instances like this.

Its the exact same story as leaded gasoline. People would not have stopped using it of their own accord. It was cheaper. I'm sure many companies that made the lead additives for gasoline either went out of business or faced hardship due to the banning of leaded gas. As a result though, the average lead level in people's blood dropped. It was a government mandated change that benefited the entire population. Are you arguing that was a bad decision?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Changing technology throws your whole argument out the window. Light is a basic need. There is finally an alternative to some obviously bad and dated technology. People have a tendenancy to do as they always have, especially if it is cheaper, so for the common good governments have to make decisions on the population's behalf in instances like this.

Its the exact same story as leaded gasoline. People would not have stopped using it of their own accord. It was cheaper. I'm sure many companies that made the lead additives for gasoline either went out of business or faced hardship due to the banning of leaded gas. As a result though, the average lead level in people's blood dropped. It was a government mandated change that benefited the entire population. Are you arguing that was a bad decision?

If the government forced you to stop eating butter, your cholesterol level would drop and you would benefit from that.

Should the government force you to stop eating butter?

Should the government force everyone to exercise? That would benefit the whole population, no? What kind of argument is that?

The point is not whether the decision is good or bad (that depends on the point of view of every individual) but whether or not someone has the right to impose their will upon you. Can they force "good things" (from their perspective) on someone who might not even be interested?