Ban the Bulb?

[Caravaggio]

Ban the Bulb?
By Luminus Maximus



In a few weeks the US Congress is likely to vote to phase out the standard incandescent lightbulb within a decade. The frantic race to see who can best appease the global warming alarmists will claim another victim, the friendly glow of the direct descendant of Thomas Edison's filament-based light bulb.

Why would the humble lightbulb, a staple commodity that has raised the standard of living throughout the world, be in the bullseye? It was the incandescent electric light bulb that abolished the tyranny of the night. Our 19th and 20th century ancestors believed it one of the greatest gifts of civilization because they had directly experienced life before electric lighting changed everything. In 2002, former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld briefly reminded us of this blessing when he commented on the satellite imagery revealing the nighttime darkness in North Korea, but other than this brief moment, we seem to have forgotten what we owe to Edison's first invention.

Ironically, the lowly lightbulb became one of the icons of the New Deal, forever connected with the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. The REA and the TVA enabled cheap electric power to be available everywhere, even on the remotest farms and ranches. And a substantial part of the American people fell in love with big government because it brought this fruit of civilization, the rollback of the night, to all Americans.

But today, more than anything else, the humble lightbulb is altogether another sort of convenient symbol for big government-a technology dinosaur, perpetrator of evil crimes against the planet. Stopping the wasteful use of kilowatts by American households in the war on greenhouse gases is the new battle cry of the lovers of governmental control over our lives.

There are about 4 billion conventional screw-in light bulb sockets all across America; the vast majority are in homes and apartments. Incandescent light bulbs are in most of these sockets, with some 2 billion or more replaced every year. It is estimated at least $15 billion of electricity is consumed by these inefficient anachronisms, and that by replacing them with more energy efficient types of lightbulbs-primarily post-modern compact fluorescents--that $15 billion could be cut in half.

We are told that as kilowatts could be reduced, we would need fewer nasty coal-fired power generating plants, while winning a major battle against global warming with little pain and even less effort. Everybody wins!

Well, not exactly. Once again, a nice-sounding theory overlooks significant details of the practical outcomes.

Energy conservation lobbyists conveniently overlook the obvious fact that household lightbulbs are primarily used at night-exactly opposite the time of day in which utilities experience peak load demands for daytime heating, air conditioning and commercial lighting. Peak load shedding is what is most necessary for taking coal fired power plants out of commission.

Reducing nighttime lightbulb consumption of kwhs will do almost nothing to shave peak demand. Moreover, with non-peak kwhs reduced at night, utilities will now have fewer revenues on which to earn a return on their invested capital. Utilities must build up their physical plant to meet the peaks, and the capital to finance that equipment has to be paid for 24 hours a day. Thus, utilities will have to raise rates on the remainder of the kwhs we use for everything else, from washing machines to hair dryers to computers.

Household power used by lightbulbs is actually dwarfed these days by major appliances and high tech consumer electronics- such as wide screen TVs, computers and video games along with internet servers, the biggest energy hogs besides cars and trucks.

And since the new CFLs produce inferior light compared to incandescents, we'll need more of them to read, shave, comb our hair and brush our teeth. Assuming literacy and personal hygiene are still hallmarks of civilized life after the global warming alarmists are done with their crusade to rid us of the blessings of the evil civilization that rapes Mother Gaia.

By banning the incandescent lightbulb Congress will forcibly remove a staple commodity from the marketplace, replacing it with products that are far more expensive, less reliable and more hazardous, notably the much ballyhooed compact fluorescent lightbulb (CFL).

CFL lightbulbs have been around for well over a decade. Only recently have they come in enough varieties and flavors to capture about 10% of the available sockets. But they are still at least 5 times more expensive than regular incandescents, which if replaced in their entirety would cost consumers an extra $4 to 5 billion at the cash register. No doubt millions of Americans will enthusiastically embrace this new technology and be willing to pay extra to get it.

But millions more will not fare so well. This ban will be a tax on poor people and the silent majority-retirees on fixed incomes, single working parents, low wage earners working double shifts or two jobs along with the average Joes and Marys who live each week paycheck-to-paycheck. They don't have cable TV to watch the Home and Garden channel, and can't afford to replace their functional if drab table lamp fixtures, much less employ a green ideology-toting residential lighting designer.

For these Americans, burdens come in large packages. Relief arrives less often, and then in small envelopes, such as reduced inflationary pressures on staple commodities like lightbulbs and all the necessities of life purchased at low prices from Wal-Mart. Of course Wal-Mart is yet another enemy of the trendy affluent class that wants to dictate how the rest of us lead our lives.

And guess where the extra purchase prices for these CFLs will wind up? In the pockets of Chinese manufacturers, because not a single CFL is produced in the US.

And it gets worse. As Chinese manufacturers add enough manufacturing capacity to produce ten times as many CFLs , they will need several new coal-fired power plants to run the new factories. This comes on top of the already breathtaking pace today of construction in coal fired electric power plants in China - at a clip of one new plant every week. Don't even think about asking about what kind of pollution control will be operating on those Chinese plants.

A tax on poor people in the US so the Chinese can add more coal fired power plants. Now there's a bright idea.

There's even more to this story: one more dirty little secret that the greens won't tell you about.

CFLs contain mercury. You didn't know that? Just a drop you say? How about up to 5 milligrams per lightbulb. If all 4 billion incandescent sockets were filled with CFLs we'd have 20 billion milligrams of mercury spread around every single US household. By the way, 20 billion milligrams is nearly 50,000 pounds.

That 50,000 pounds of mercury amongst 300 million people, if indiscriminately thrown away, will eventually find its way to your favorite landfill and public drinking water supply. Knock over a table lamp and shatter a CFL in your house, and you have a toxic waste situation on your hands right in the living room, bedroom or dining room.

On the other hand, at least half of all mercury emissions from coal fired power plants currently is captured by scrubbers, and clean coal technologies promise to eliminate 2/3rds of what remains. Not so for CFLs-- which can't operate without mercury.

So there you have it. Congress will soon enact legislation to impose a tax on poor people that will directly pass to Chinese companies, contribute to lower literacy and less personal hygiene while making industrial policy that will increase greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and spread a hazardous heavy metal into the environment.

Ban the bulb is a no-brainer , only this time the empty-headed variety.

Luminus Maximus is the pen name of a longtime observer of the industry
Page Printed from:


http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/ban_the_bulb.html

[lily]

Oh for crying out loud, it's a lightbulb we're replacing not the Statue of Liberty.

I have fluorescents in all my light sockets. Sure they cost a little more, but they also last longer.

So there you have it. Congress will soon enact legislation to impose a tax on poor people that will directly pass to Chinese companies, contribute to lower literacy and less personal hygiene while making industrial policy that will increase greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and spread a hazardous heavy metal into the environment.

I admit I did chuckle through most of the article, but this one literally had me in stitches!

[Buck Laser]

Oh for crying out loud, it's a lightbulb we're replacing not the Statue of Liberty.

I have fluorescents in all my light sockets. Sure they cost a little more, but they also last longer.

So there you have it. Congress will soon enact legislation to impose a tax on poor people that will directly pass to Chinese companies, contribute to lower literacy and less personal hygiene while making industrial policy that will increase greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and spread a hazardous heavy metal into the environment.

I admit I did chuckle through most of the article, but this one literally had me in stitches!

We've futzed around for the last several years trying to find light bulbs that will provide good quality light and reduce our power use. About three years ago, we bought fluorescent torchiere lamps to replace our halogen electricity hogs. They worked great--lots of light and not much heat. But then the switches began failing, and some of the bulbs dimmed noticably. Turns out a new bulb costs $40, and you can't buy a replacement switch.

Then we tried fluorescent bulbs in our fixtures, but the light quality is "dirty," and the bulbs aren't supposed to be used in enclosed fixtures. So I think it may not be such a bad idea for the feds to come up with some workable standards.

This is one of those things that will make some real savings in the long run, and give the right-wingers something relatively harmless to whine about.

[BoogyMan]

I don't know what the problem with trying to push us towards a better solution is Caravaggio. The standard incandescent light bulb is pretty energy inefficient and there are actually some good contenders out there that could provide decent quality light and do so with a more energy friendly footprint as far as Kwh usage.

[firefox]

Florescent bulbs are still only about 28% efficient. Why not go straight for LEDs, which are something like 90-95% efficient? As always, "passing a law" will create more problems than it solves. Also, who do you think this benefits? The original Australian plan was backed by Philips, who apparently couldn't remain profitable selling their products the fair, honest way, so they decided they should force everyone to upgrade, though violence if necessary.

Overall, more efficient bulbs are of course better. Therefore, their benefits should be made known, and customers should be incentivized in a voluntary, peaceful manner.

[Labrocca]

I have replaced MOST of the bulbs in my house with florescants...they ROCK...sure...more expensive but as Lily said...they last a BUTTLOAD longer...years and years even.

[Drocket]

The florescent bulbs are impressive, in terms of how much less power they use, but the real death of the incandescent bulb is going to happen when the LED bulbs get a bit better/cheaper. They make the florescent bulbs look like electricity vacuums, but more importantly they have a better color range and they don't have that annoying flicker effect. The flicker problem is why I only have a couple of florescent bulbs here: reading with a florescent bulb for any length of time gives me a headache.

Anyway, I'm glad to see the government doing something to help push people away from electricity-sucking incandescent bulbs. The whole 'ideal world' of libertarianism is nice and all, but in the real world, the reality is that a massive switchover like this always requires government intervention. The reason is pretty simple: there's always large corporations who have massive investments in the status quo, and they don't let go of that readily.

Corporations are short-sighted entities: even when it's in their long-term interests to do something, they often have to be shoved kicking and screaming into action. For example, right from this article: there's no CFL plants in the US. Why? A blind, deaf and dumb man could see this day coming. But it's not profitable in the short term to build a new plant, so no matter how much can be made long-term, it's not going to happen. It always amazes me how many corporations are lined up and eager to shell out for a pound of cure tomorrow just so they don't have to pay for an ounce of prevention today.

Anyway, one thing to keep in mind is that, much like HDTV, when they say '10 years', they really mean '20 to 30 years'. Again, lots of established entities who will fight this tooth and nail and drag it out as long as they possibly can, even if it's not in their own interests...

[Elrathin]

I'm in favor of pushing to phase out light bulbs, however as firefox said, I am not for the government FORCING it to be done. The change needs to be done by the person, not big brother standing over you telling you what's best.

Now if they want to do better incentives such as tax breaks etc for upgrading that's fine. But let the person do it.

[Elrathin]

Oh for crying out loud, it's a lightbulb we're replacing not the Statue of Liberty.


Lily, I agree that the tone of the article is bad, however the concept is still bad in my eyes. We are literally letting the government force us into making choices for us as to what is good and what isn't.

Instead of a government that helps us in determining things or that gives us breaks for switching things over, we are now moving towards a government that is more controlling over what we do. That I do not like.

Baby steps and all.

[Buck Laser]

Florescent bulbs are still only about 28% efficient. Why not go straight for LEDs, which are something like 90-95% efficient? As always, "passing a law" will create more problems than it solves. Also, who do you think this benefits? The original Australian plan was backed by Philips, who apparently couldn't remain profitable selling their products the fair, honest way, so they decided they should force everyone to upgrade, though violence if necessary.

Overall, more efficient bulbs are of course better. Therefore, their benefits should be made known, and customers should be incentivized in a voluntary, peaceful manner.

Firefox, I'm glad you recognize that it's corporate entities that are attempting to use the power of gummint regulation to achieve their own ends. This is a long-standing practice among corporations. I encountered it years ago in some complicated dealings with 3M, which has been emininently successful in using gummint regulatory power to mandate the use of its products--specifically Scotchlite reflective finishes on license plates and highway signs. They are masters of writing proposed regulatory rules that mandate the use of their product, by devising wording that effectively eliminates any competing product.

See, all these years, you thought it was government that was the enemy, when it was more often than not big corporations that have more money and better hired brains than you. Government is no more your natural enemy than your next door neighbor is. Until we find a way to limit the power of big commercial interests and private companies to influence government decisions, your libertarian ideal will remain just a pipe dream.

But I question your use of the term "violence" as a synonym for regulation. The consequences of flaunting regulations are practically never violence--unless you use a very loose definition of the term.

[Caravaggio]

Oh for crying out loud, it's a lightbulb we're replacing not the Statue of Liberty.


Lily, I agree that the tone of the article is bad, however the concept is still bad in my eyes. We are literally letting the government force us into making choices for us as to what is good and what isn't.

Instead of a government that helps us in determining things or that gives us breaks for switching things over, we are now moving towards a government that is more controlling over what we do. That I do not like.

Baby steps and all.


Eggsactly!...it`s all about choice...but some individuals are willing to cede that to big Govt.

[lily]

Lily, I agree that the tone of the article is bad, however the concept is still bad in my eyes.Â*Â*We are literally letting the government force us into makingÂ*Â*choices for us as to what is good and what isn't.

Instead of a government that helps us in determining things or that gives us breaks for switching things over, we are now moving towards a government that is more controlling over what we do.Â*Â*That I do not like.

Baby steps and all.


Yes, that sentence was directed at the tone of the article. As for government forcing us. I guess there's a fine line, between forcing and phasing out.

[AlonzoMourning23]

What's the difference between the government forcing us not to use asbestos and the government forcing us not to use energy chugging light bulbs?

[Caravaggio]

What's the difference between the government forcing us not to use asbestos and the government forcing us not to use energy chugging light bulbs?


Asbestos is known to kill people...light bulbs do not!

[Buck Laser]

What's the difference between the government forcing us not to use asbestos and the government forcing us not to use energy chugging light bulbs?


Asbestos is known to kill people...light bulbs do not!


So what have you got against saving energy? That IS the point, isn't it?

[Elrathin]

So what have you got against saving energy? That IS the point, isn't it?


If a person wants to conserve energy they can, if they do not, then they pay the extra fees. What's next? Telling people they can't have Christmas lights on their house?

[AlonzoMourning23]

What's the difference between the government forcing us not to use asbestos and the government forcing us not to use energy chugging light bulbs?


Asbestos is known to kill people...light bulbs do not!


Get rid of the asbestos and it's no longer harming anyone, unless they already have problems. Energy misuse will harm future generations.

[Caravaggio]

What's the difference between the government forcing us not to use asbestos and the government forcing us not to use energy chugging light bulbs?


Asbestos is known to kill people...light bulbs do not!


Get rid of the asbestos and it's no longer harming anyone, unless they already have problems. Energy misuse will harm future generations.


That`s what the doom sayers are telling us...light bulbs are killers!

[piratemonkey]

Lily, I agree that the tone of the article is bad, however the concept is still bad in my eyes.Â*Â*We are literally letting the government force us into makingÂ*Â*choices for us as to what is good and what isn't.


Eggsactly!...it`s all about choice...but some individuals are willing to cede that to big Govt.


The exactly same argument could be used against:

Fuel economy standards
Seat belt laws
Smoking laws
Pollution laws and regulations
Immunization requirements for schools
Workplace safety regulations
Food handling regulations
Alchohol age limits
etc.

When an individual's choice effects other people, it's no longer just that individual's choice.

[Elrathin]

When an individual's choice effects other people, it's no longer just that individual's choice.


PM, no offense but the amount of light someone is using from a regular incandescent light bulb is no where NEAR the amount of electricity that is currently being produced by commercial applications (i.e. Las Vegas etc). If people REALLY are serious about conserving electricity, they would start in the business sector first.

People pay to use electricity. I pay a certain amount each month to use it. If I use a lot of it, I pay a lot of it. If I conserve, than I don't pay as much.

If you really want to get people to conserve than you charge them extra after so many KWH. What that standard would be I don't know, because I know of some people that use all fluorescent lights in their houses and they waste electricity.

Bottom line is you don't need government interfering on frigging light bulbs.

[piratemonkey]

When an individual's choice effects other people, it's no longer just that individual's choice.


PM, no offense but the amount of light someone is using from a regular incandescent light bulb is no where NEAR the amount of electricity that is currently being produced by commercial applications (i.e. Las Vegas etc).Â*Â*If people REALLY are serious about conserving electricity, they would start in the business sector first.

This isn't an argument against regulating lighting.

It's an argument for regulating other things in addition to lighting.

Much of Vegas' electric bill comes from lighting those big signs and hotel rooms, which could just as easily be lit by LED's that use less than 1/10 the energy.


People pay to use electricity.Â*Â*I pay a certain amount each month to use it.Â*Â*If I use a lot of it, I pay a lot of it.Â*Â*If I conserve, than I don't pay as much.

How is this argument at all different from the argument against Fuel Economy Standards?


If you really want to get people to conserve than you charge them extra after so many KWH.Â*Â*What that standard would be I don't know, because I know of some people that use all fluorescent lights in their houses and they waste electricity.

This solution, while a creative one, is predicated on the assumption that KWH usage is a metric that most people know about their home.

Unfortunately, this isn't true.Â*Â*(E.g. How would you know when you went over?Â*Â*You wouldn't.)


Bottom line is you don't need government interfering on frigging light bulbs.


So far, your arguments aren't very convincing.

[Elrathin]

This isn't an argument against regulating lighting.

Yes, it is. You are telling people exactly what they can use for their lighting.


Much of Vegas' electric bill comes from lighting those big signs and hotel rooms, which could just as easily be lit by LED's that use less than 1/10 the energy.

And what about the cost of converting those? If you're talking about Grandfathering for people then fine, but that is not what I'm hearing.


How is this argument at all different from the argument against Fuel Economy Standards?

Fuel economy standards were also done due to pollution. As far as I know there are no pollutants in light.


This solution, while a creative one, is predicated on the assumption that KWH usage is a metric that most people know about their home.

Unfortunately, this isn't true. (E.g. How would you know when you went over? You wouldn't.)

Then people should find out shouldn't they? You are asking entire households to pay for converting their old lights to new ones, they should at least know why.



So far, your arguments aren't very convincing.


It's not my job to convince why it shouldn't be done, it's yours to convince why it should be done. So far I have not seen anything substantial as to why the government needs to be doing this except for big business opportunities in lobbying pay.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Fuel economy standards were also done due to pollution. As far as I know there are no pollutants in light.


And the energy used to power them?

[Elrathin]

And the energy used to power them?


Is produced no matter what the levels are. Take a look at the coal burning plants, they operate at nearly the same levels no matter what the energy usage.

[piratemonkey]

This isn't an argument against regulating lighting.

Yes, it is.Â*Â*You are telling people exactly what they can use for their lighting.

You misunderstand... your first argument wasn't an argument against regulating lighting.

To say that other sectors are worse with their energy usage is an argument to reduce those other sectors' energy use.Â*Â*It's NOT an argument that we shouldn't reduce our energy use.



And what about the cost of converting those?Â*Â*If you're talking about Grandfathering for people then fine, but that is not what I'm hearing.

As stated in the article that began this thread, we are talking about not producing more incandescent lights, not immediately banning them.

LED lights can use a standard socket.Â*Â*I have them in my house.

Fuel economy standards were also done due to pollution.Â*Â*As far as I know there are no pollutants in light.

Huh?

Pollution is exactly why would be done.Â*Â*The pollution produced in making the energy to power the bulb.


Then people should find out shouldn't they?Â*Â*You are asking entire households to pay for converting their old lights to new ones, they should at least know why.

Because LED light bulbs save an a**load of energy and thereby reduces pollution.

Again, no "conversion" is necessary.Â*Â*You just buy an LED bulb when your incandescent burns out.



It's not my job to convince why it shouldn't be done, it's yours to convince why it should be done.Â*Â*So far I have not seen anything substantial as to why the government needs to be doing this except for big business opportunities in lobbying pay.


Wow.Â*Â*I thought the benefits were obvious.

Explain to us how exactly "big business" would benefit from this...


And the energy used to power them?

Is produced no matter what the levels are. Take a look at the coal burning plants, they operate at nearly the same levels no matter what the energy usage.


What?Â*Â*This is getting silly now.

You are actually saying that if, in 10 years, our energy consumption was 30% less, (due to LED use, more effective insulation, more efficient compressors on refridgerators, etc.) that our energy plants would still be producing the same amount of energy as they do today?

c'mon.:rolleyes:

[AlonzoMourning23]

And the energy used to power them?


Is produced no matter what the levels are.Â*Â*Take a look at the coal burning plants, they operate at nearly the same levels no matter what the energy usage.


Sure, they'd burn twice the amount of coal that was needed just for the sake of burning it/

[Elrathin]

What? This is getting silly now.

You are actually saying that if, in 10 years, our energy consumption was 30% less, (due to LED use, more effective insulation, more efficient compressors on refridgerators, etc.) that our energy plants would still be producing the same amount of energy as they do today?

c'mon.:rolleyes:


I'm not Stoner PM, so please refrain from insults. Silly? No, not when you take into account the increase in population in the next 10 years as well. Yes, they will be producing the same amount just like we have for the past 10 years.

[piratemonkey]

I'm not Stoner PM, so please refrain from insults.Â*Â*Silly?Â*Â*No, not when you take into account the increase in population in the next 10 years as well.Â*Â*Yes, they will be producing the same amount just like we have for the past 10 years.


If your arguments are silly, I will call them silly, regardless of who you are.

This is again, silly.

How much power would we be using if the population increased 20%, but we didn't put into place conservation measures?

More or Less than if we had started conserving now?

C'mon El.Â*Â*Saying that using less energy won't result in less energy production is a silly argument.Â*Â*That IS true if I just didn't turn on one light today.Â*Â*The power plants will still produce the same amount of energy.Â*Â*But if everyone conserved a substantial amount, Energy Companies aren't going to throw money away by regularly producing more energy than is needed.

That just doesn't make sense.

[Sugar]

I think the bulb should bave been banned 10 years ago. It is still not too late. Banning the bulb is just one part of the solution , the other is to make an alternative (CFL or LED) at similar prices to the enduser. The Industry has to come out with a alternative whcih mathces the bulb in cost yet is much more energy effecient. If this measure succeeds then straight away ther will be atleast 25% reduction in the electricity demand.

[bluchap]

LED bulbs consume almost only 10% of the energy consumed by a ordinary bulb. However, mass production of led bulbs is going to bring down the prices to an acceptable level for the common man to start replacement of the bulb. Till then we can only pray to the govt and the manufactureres to bring down the price.

[nmspl]

Bulb manufactureres should come forward and convert their manfacuring units to that of LED bulbs. This would ensure that there is no unemployment on this ground. The governement can give some sort of support by funding the conversion process to make it easy for the manufacturers adopt the new technology.

[deepk]

If the manufacturers do not swithc over to LED voluntarily, the govenment must put up regulations to force them to switch production lines.

[Sugar]

Bulb manufactureres should come forward and convert their manfacuring units to that of LED bulbs. This would ensure that there is no unemployment on this ground. The governement can give some sort of support by funding the conversion process to make it easy for the manufacturers adopt the new technology.


Why should the government fund the conversion. When they opend the new factories producing the bulbs, did the Govt fund their factories. So why now.

[bluchap]

Bulb manufactureres should come forward and convert their manfacuring units to that of LED bulbs. This would ensure that there is no unemployment on this ground. The governement can give some sort of support by funding the conversion process to make it easy for the manufacturers adopt the new technology.


Why should the government fund the conversion. When they opend the new factories producing the bulbs, did the Govt fund their factories. So why now.



Yes you are right Sugar, why should the govt fund the conversion. Its prvate project and profits are also private so there is no reason for any govt. to share the burden of project conversion.

[Mayberry]

Interesting thread. My 2 cents worth is, that the market will dictate what happens, and the market is starting to demand energy efficiency. As LED bulbs come down in price due to increased production, the incandescent bulb will be phased out. LEDs are starting to take over in automotive applications, and especially in the trucking industry. They are also replacing incandescents as navigation lights for boats because of the brighter, more concentrated light, and the lower power consumption is especially attractive to sailboaters who run their electrical systems off of batteries most of the time. Government intervention won't be necessary. As far as power plants go, I was a control room operator in a power plant, so I have a little insider information on the subject. A previous poster hit the nail on the head about peaking loads during the daytime, and incandescent light at night not being much of a factor. But large coal fired plants, especially older units, are designed as "base loaded" plants, meaning they are meant to run full bore 24/7. They are at their most clean and efficient state running wide open. There are a lot of smaller "peaking" plants that start up during peak demand and shut down afterwards. There are some coal fired plants that do this, but a lot of them are gas turbine plants fueled by liquid fuel oil, natural gas, or both. Coal plants are not easy to start up or shut down. There is new "clean coal" technology out there that involves a coal "gassification" process that superheats the coal, essentially vaporizing it, then feeding the gas to gas turbines. This process is much cleaner than a classic coal fired plant, and can help reduce dependence on oil. As electricity demand increases, and it will in spite of conservation efforts, due to population growth, new plants will still have to be built. Clean coal and nuclear are the way to go. America has a large supply of coal, might as well put it to use. And nuclear plants are clean and very safe. There is the issue of nuclear waste, but technology is being developed to recycle this waste to be reused as reactor fuel. Hopefully battery technology will improve by leaps and bounds as well, allowing for "distributed generation" achieved by solar panels on every home. Maybe solar isn't the best option in the northern states, but the sunbelt is screaming for them. Things are happening, folks. It just takes time.

[Truth_and_Power]

"Peak load shedding is what is most necessary for taking coal fired power plants out of commission."

I just have to say that this is completely wrong on a several fronts. First of all, peak load is most often satisfied with plants which are easier to crank up and shut down within a few hours because you really just need that peaking power from like noon to 5pm or so, depending on weather and locality factors. Coal plants cannot be cranked up and shut down quickly, there are polution and hence regulatory consequences for this which can result in major fines. You will find it is mostly natural gas plants and oil-burning plants that are used for peaking power.

Secondly, taking coal plants out of commission is not the goal, the goal is to burn less coal. So it doesn't matter what time of day you are using less energy.. less is better.

Thirdly, don't give me the "well other stuff uses lots of electricity too" argument. It's total b.s., lightbulbs use a lot no matter how you slice it. That's about as good as the "well there's a lot of co2 in the atmosphere already" argument against human influenced global warming.

The points about mercury seem pretty valid and worth considering. Hopefully the government will take this into consideration when passing legislation.

From what I hear, the bulb costs are pretty much offset by the energy savings, so I don't see what the big argument is. If you have a problem with nothing being produced in the u.s., perhaps your problem is with global trade or u.s. environmental policy. But it's usually the same people opposing this stuff that will argue loudest for globalization and whatever future-mortgaging scheme the neocons come up with next.

Just like the catholic church, those that stand in the way of progress are going to get run over.

[Truth_and_Power]

Ooops... didn't see your rebuttal of the peaking power argument mayberry. Looks like we have careers just one degree of seperation apart.

[1Samuel8]

As stated in the article that began this thread, we are talking about not producing more incandescent lights, not immediately banning them.Big deal. That is a red-herring because it comes down to the same thing.
Households do not stock-pile or hoard multi-generational life-time supplies of light-bulbs. They buy them from suppliers as they need them.


LED lights can use a standard socket. I have them in my house.Interesting. How much do LED lightbulbs cost?
Please do not just quote the sticker-price. Include the entire cost to the environment in your calculation.

But if everyone conserved a substantial amount, Energy Companies aren't going to throw money away by regularly producing more energy than is needed.If the goal is to reduce the pollution created by energy consumption, the price paid by the consumer for electricity should be raised incrementally until electricity production and resulting pollution generated are both reduced.

Banning incandescent lighbulbs is worse than silly.

[Truth_and_Power]

Please do not just quote the sticker-price.Â*Â*Include the entire cost to the environment in your calculation.Â*Â*


Be sure to ask for the impossible, it makes your arguments harder to refute.


But if everyone conserved a substantial amount, Energy Companies aren't going to throw money away by regularly producing more energy than is needed.If the goal is to reduce the pollution created by energy consumption, the price paid by the consumer for electricity should be raised incrementally until electricity production and resulting pollution generated are both reduced.Â*Â*

Banning incandescent lighbulbs is worse than silly.


A pro-taxes libertarian.. who knew.Â*Â*So to avoid forcing lightbulb manufacturers to change their ways, we should impose what would have to be a multi-billion dollar tax on electricity to cause market forces to enact the same change.Â*Â*Nevermind the fact that every poor grandmother's refridgerator and air conditioner is going to cost them $500 more per year.Â*Â*It's all worth it so we don't have any nasty regulations on the american lightbulb industry.Â*Â*Am I summing up your plan correctly?

Oh wait, I see. Rich people should be allowed to pollute and wear bald-eagle hats, it's the poor that should be priced out of destructive behavior.

[Truth_and_Power]

Hey following that line of thought, perhaps we could make murder legal, but subject to a "murder tax" of $100,000. Then we could allow market forces to reduce the murder rate.

[1Samuel8]

Hey following that line of thought, perhaps we could make murder legal, but subject to a "murder tax" of $100,000. Then we could allow market forces to reduce the murder rate.I never said anything about a tax.



Please do not just quote the sticker-price. Include the entire cost to the environment in your calculation.Be sure to ask for the impossible, it makes your arguments harder to refute.That is the point.
The cost to the environment is irrefutably eliminated from the cost consumers pay. That has to change.


A pro-taxes libertarian.. who knew. So to avoid forcing lightbulb manufacturers to change their ways, we should imposeSNIP
I never said anything about imposing a tax.

The energy industry should stop getting subsidies.

[Truth_and_Power]

The cost to the environment is irrefutably eliminated from the cost conumers pay.Â*Â*That has to change.Â*Â*

The energy industry should stop getting subsidies.


Ok, I guess I understand your position better now.. I guess. How do you put a price on rising sea levels? What's the price of eliminating edible seafood from a bay or inlet? Are we just talking about making up an arbitrary system to relate money to quality of life and then using that to uh... (not tax) uh.. "increase" the prices of goods and services?

If you want to get rid of energy industry subsidies, would you start with internal subsidies or the Iraq war? Please don't tell me it's about terrorism.. the only reason anyone from america has ever been to the m.e. outside of jerusalem/etc and the pyramids is because of oil. And al-qaeda would never have attacked us if u.s. & western powers had not had their hands in the region. Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying al qaeda, I'm just noting cause and effect from a u.s. perspective.

[1Samuel8]

Ok, I guess I understand your position better now.. I guess. How do you put a price on rising sea levels? What's the price of eliminating edible seafood from a bay or inlet?In answer to all of those questions: you can not put a price on them.


Are we just talking about making up an arbitrary system to relate money to quality of life and then using that to uh... (not tax) uh.. "increase" the prices of goods and services?Myself, no. That is not what I would advocate.
What we need is to eliminate public property. If all land (and water) was under private jurisdiction, it would be managed and defended against pollution. In the long run, people generally want to leave an inheritance to their children.


If you want to get rid of energy industry subsidies, would you start with internal subsidies or the Iraq war? Please don't tell me it's about terrorism.. the only reason anyone from america has ever been to the m.e. outside of jerusalem/etc and the pyramids is because of oil.We agree. It is all about oil.
All subsidies -- internal and external -- should be eliminated. Along with private property, that is the only way of reducing environmental abuse.

[Truth_and_Power]

Samuel,

I think you greatly overestimate humans' capacity for responsibility and forward-looking decisions. And who will own the air? What about the people that dump sewage into the river at the downstream end of their property and fish at the upstream end? I think you're operating from an idealogical viewpoint that would not work out so well if it were actually implemented. There are always going to be shared assets.

[1Samuel8]

And who will own the air?Probably nobody would own the air.


What about the people that dump sewage into the river at the downstream end of their property and fish at the upstream end?Those people would be subject to the wrath of the people who live downstream.
Would YOU pollute somebody else's water supply? I would be afraid to do so.


I think you're operating from an idealogical viewpoint that would not work out so well if it were actually implemented. There are always going to be shared assets.Correct. However, there will always be shared risks. One of those risks would be the risk of retaliation.

Right now, the ability to defend your property is severely curtailed. Furthermore, the responsibility of protecting a lot of public property is in the hands of public servants. Thus, we have pollution.

At the very least, can you accept that the vast majority of pollution is a by-product of the transportation industry?

[Elrathin]

What we need is to eliminate public property. If all land (and water) was under private jurisdiction, it would be managed and defended against pollution. In the long run, people generally want to leave an inheritance to their children.


Typically private property is used to make one thing and that is money. So if money is made, to hell with how the land is used. No more wildlife refuge and hello to whatever will make the most money. No thank you.

[1Samuel8]

Typically private property is used to make one thing and that is money. So if money is made, to hell withDo you know ANYBODY who owns a house?

[Elrathin]

Do you know ANYBODY who owns a house?


Yes, myself. I own four, one to live in and I rent out 3. Maybe you need to do a little reading but typically houses appreciate in value over the years, hence increasing worth. It's an investment.

I don't own a house so that it's worth goes down. Wake up, get some coffee, then come back it helps.

[1Samuel8]

I don't own a house so that it's worth goes down. Wake up, get some coffee, then come back it helps.Congratulations.
Now, do tell us: Do you dump your trash on your own property?
Do you let anybody else freely pollute on your own property?

[Truth_and_Power]

And who will own the air?Probably nobody would own the air.Â*Â*Â*Â*


What about the people that dump sewage into the river at the downstream end of their property and fish at the upstream end?Those people would be subject to the wrath of the people who live downstream.Â*Â*
Would YOU pollute somebody else's water supply?Â*Â*I would be afraid to do so.Â*Â*


I think you're operating from an idealogical viewpoint that would not work out so well if it were actually implemented.Â*Â*There are always going to be shared assets.Correct.Â*Â*However, there will always be shared risks.Â*Â*One of those risks would be the risk of retaliation.Â*Â*

Right now, the ability to defend your property is severely curtailed.Â*Â*Furthermore, the responsibility of protecting a lot of public property is in the hands of public servants.Â*Â*Thus, we have pollution.Â*Â*

At the very least, can you accept that the vast majority of pollution is a by-product of the transportation industry?


So you're actually advocating a return to mob-rule? No need for laws, if someone pollutes your river you drive over there with a shotgun and take care of it. No, wait, I mean an M-60 with grenade launcher mounted on your jeep.. I forgot we were in the post-law era.

And I guess if we don't like power plants polluting we can just pick up some C-4 (atleast that's american made) and take care of the problem. No civil servants involved, very efficient.

Seriously? I think you are way off the trail of pragmatism here buddy.

[Truth_and_Power]

I don't own a house so that it's worth goes down.Â*Â*Wake up, get some coffee, then come back it helps.Congratulations.Â*Â*
Now, do tell us: Do you dump your trash on your own property?
Do you let anybody else freely pollute on your own property?


Am I really going to have to look up a list of superfund sites? Not all private property is used for residence.

[1Samuel8]

So you're actually advocating a return to mob-rule? No need for laws, if someone pollutes your river you drive over there with a shotgun and take care of it. No, wait, I mean an M-60 with grenade launcher mounted on your jeep.. I forgot we were in the post-law era.No, that is not what I advocate. I advocate that people can not be free to pollute without consequences.

The natural result is that it is cheaper and easier for neighbors to respect eachother's property. Fighting is expensive and risky.


Seriously? I think you are way off the trail of pragmatism here buddy.What do you think keeps our price of oil down and our pollution up?
Expensive tax-payer subsidized fighting. You pay one way or you pay in a different way. Take your pick.

[Elrathin]

Congratulations.
Now, do tell us: Do you dump your trash on your own property?
Do you let anybody else freely pollute on your own property?


I don't personally, but have I seen property where people have? Yes, absolutely. The problem is you assume everyone is responsible. They are not. I don't trust the majority of people to handle currently private lands. I'm glad you do.

[1Samuel8]

I don't personally, but have I seen property where people have? Yes, absolutely. The problem is you assume everyone is responsible. They are not.No, I do not assume they are responsible. I assume that people like you -- non-polluters -- will be the most successful in the long run.

[Truth_and_Power]

So you're actually advocating a return to mob-rule?Â*Â*No need for laws, if someone pollutes your river you drive over there with a shotgun and take care of it.Â*Â*No, wait, I mean an M-60 with grenade launcher mounted on your jeep.. I forgot we were in the post-law era.No, that is not what I advocate.Â*Â*I advocate that people can not be free to pollute without consequences.Â*Â*

The natural result is that it is cheaper and easier for neighbors to respect eachother's property.Â*Â*Fighting is expensive and risky.Â*Â*


Seriously?Â*Â*I think you are way off the trail of pragmatism here buddy.What do you think keeps our price of oil down and our pollution up?Â*Â*
Expensive tax-payer subsidized fighting.Â*Â*You pay one way or you pay in a different way.Â*Â*Take your pick.


Look around the world dude, find the places with the weakest governments. Does that look like a nice place to live? No, it does not. The local industrial polluter will just hire Blackwater to protect them and they will stink up the earth until god holds his nose. Look at how american corporations behave in south america, in africa. That is not what we want here. I agree about consequences, I just don't think violence is the way to accomplish them, and I think that your solution of implied-violence-causing-efficient-compliance is a pipe dream.. so put down the pipe!

[1Samuel8]

Look around the world dude, find the places with the weakest governments.What do you mean by a "weak" government?

[Truth_and_Power]

Look around the world dude, find the places with the weakest governments.What do you mean by a "weak" government?


A government that doesn't stop its citizens from doing as they please. Perhaps you would call it "least restrictive". Is there any industrialized nation where your philosophies are followed and successful? Please don't cite some place like the bahamas where all they make is drinks with little umbrellas.

[1Samuel8]

Look around the world dude, find the places with the weakest governments. Does that look like a nice place to live? No, it does not. The local industrial polluter will just hire Blackwater to protect them and they will stink up the earth until god holds his nose. Look at how american corporations behave in south america, in africa.In that case, you will find those other places around the world have both foreign influence and a lack of private property rights. Both are wrong.


That is not what we want here.Unfortunately, nobody owns the air and off-shoring pollution is coming to bite us in the ass.


I agree about consequences, I just don't think violence is the way to accomplish them, and I think that your solution of implied-violence-causing-efficient-compliance is a pipe dream.. so put down the pipe!It is not a pipe dream.


Is there any industrialized nation where your philosophies are followed and successful?Of course not. That is why pollution is gradually becoming a global problem. You can not off-shore it anymore the way you suggest you can.

[Elrathin]

No, I do not assume they are responsible. I assume that people like you -- non-polluters -- will be the most successful in the long run.


That is a great faith to put into people and given track records I just can't do that at this time. It's commendable you have that faith in people, but I do not.

[1Samuel8]

That is a great faith to put into people and given track records I just can't do that at this time.What track record?

[Truth_and_Power]

That is a great faith to put into people and given track records I just can't do that at this time.What track record?


He is saying that he doesn't think people will play nice without a government to control things. You appear to think that if government were removed from the equation that everything would get better. Neither of us can really find any evidence to support your position about human nature.. in essence, Locke was wrong and Hobbes was right.

[1Samuel8]

in essence, Locke was wrong and Hobbes was right.-- and neither of those guys lived in a world with global pollution problems.

[Truth_and_Power]

in essence, Locke was wrong and Hobbes was right.-- and neither of those guys lived in a world with global pollution problems.


They lived in a world with human nature, and that is what we are talking about here.

[1Samuel8]

Human nature is simple: people are inherently selfish.

Public spaces give people a natural way to hide their responsibility to maintaining their physical environment. Hence, we get pollution.

[Truth_and_Power]

Human nature is simple: people are inherently selfish.Â*Â*

Public spaces give people a natural way to hide their responsibility to maintaining their physical environment.Â*Â*Hence, we get pollution.


Then why are there superfund sites on private land?

[1Samuel8]

Then why are there superfund sites on private land?Those lands are abandoned. It does not matter who "legally" owns them.

[Truth_and_Power]

Then why are there superfund sites on private land?Those lands are abandoned.Â*Â*It does not matter who "legally" owns them.


But you were saying that if we remove regulations pollution will not happen because of some kind of magic economic capitalistic social pressures or something. I'm just wondering what you think about all of the obvious exceptions to that theory. It just seems kind of divorced from reality.. rooted in theory and ideology only.

[1Samuel8]

I am saying that ALL land must be privately owned. That includes the roads.


I'm just wondering what you think about all of the obvious exceptions to that theory. It just seems kind of divorced from reality.. rooted in theory and ideology only.You can not use those as exceptions because there is public lands between the abandoned land and here. Let me illustrate:
polluter standing on his own land <---> public roadway <---> abandoned polluted land
The public roadway is part of the problem.

Like I said before, public spaces give people a natural way to hide their responsibility to maintaining their physical environment. Your example of a Superfund Site is invalid. It is the same as a person throwing litter out their car window when they drive on a roadway.

Consider all land (including roads and transportation media) to being privately owned. Somebody who wants to pollute will have to cross somebody ELSE's private land to get there. Nobody will allow somebody to pollute right next door to themselves. -- it decreases their property value.

[Truth_and_Power]

I am saying that ALL land must be privately owned.Â*Â*That includes the roads.Â*Â*


I'm just wondering what you think about all of the obvious exceptions to that theory.Â*Â*It just seems kind of divorced from reality.. rooted in theory and ideology only.You can not use those as exceptions because there is public lands between the abandoned land and here.Â*Â*Let me illustrate:Â*Â*
polluter standing on his own land <---> public roadway <---> abandoned polluted landÂ*Â*
The public roadway is part of the problem.Â*Â*

Like I said before, public spaces give people a natural way to hide their responsibility to maintaining their physical environment.Â*Â*Your example of a Superfund Site is invalid.Â*Â*It is the same as a person throwing litter out their car window when they drive on a roadway.Â*Â*

Consider all land (including roads and transportation media) to being privately owned.Â*Â* Somebody who wants to pollute will have to cross somebody ELSE's private land to get there.Â*Â*Nobody will allow somebody to pollute right next door to themselves. -- it decreases their property value.


Well the economic argument does not hold water because property value is not the only source of money. A factory can make many many times the value of the land it sits on in income. In fact just the containment and disposal costs of toxic waste could quickly exceed the value of the land they are dumped on. So they DEFINITELY have an economic motive to pollute, which is why there are those superfund sites. I really don't see how you can dispute that.

Overall your theories of property reorganization are very extreme IMO. Do you have any example of any country or province where such a system is in place or would this be more of an experimental theory? Sound like it would be pretty chaotic with property wars occuring where businesses buy the land surrounding a property and refuse to give right of way, effectively negating the value of such property nearly completely. I see very little chance for your beloved hotdog vendor to survive in such an environment. These kind of changes would probably quickly lead to a feudal system.

[1Samuel8]

In fact just the containment and disposal costs of toxic waste could quickly exceed the value of the land they are dumped on. So they DEFINITELY have an economic motive to pollute, which is why there are those superfund sites. I really don't see how you can dispute that.Just because they have an economic motive to pollute does not mean you should expect everybody else around them to permit it. You really are not grasping the concept of ALL land being private.


Overall your theories of property reorganization are very extreme IMO. Do you have any example of any country or province where such a system is in place or would this be more of an experimental theory?Why should there be?
Go back a million years ago, could you give an example of any place that had democracy or penicillin or an internet or airplanes? No.


Sound like it would be pretty chaotic with property wars occuring where businesses buy the land surrounding a property and refuse to give right of way, effectively negating the value of such property nearly completely.That is not the suggestion.

You really like to present ridiculous exaggerations. How about I say something like: "Sound like it would be pretty chaotic with people thinking of wars occuring etc. etc. etc. Therefore, we should not let people think!"



Let me be concise:
Nobody would pollute or do anything nefarious to a piece of privately owned land for fear of suffering a reprisal by the property owner of that piece of land.

[Truth_and_Power]

Why should there be?Â*Â*
Go back a million years ago, could you give an example of any place that had democracy or penicillin or an internet or airplanes?Â*Â*No.Â*Â*

Well I was just asking if it was experimental or proven. Experimental I guess.



That is not the suggestion.Â*Â*

You really like to present ridiculous exaggerations.Â*Â*How about I say something like: "Sound like it would be pretty chaotic with people thinking of wars occuring etc. etc. etc. Therefore, we should not let people think!"Â*Â*


Is it ridiculous? If I owned a business in such a system I would probably employ such a tactic (buying surrounding land and denying right of way). In fact even in our current system there are many legal disputes about right of way and I have known a person who was denied access to his own land by the very people that sold it to him! How's that for realism?


Let me be concise:Â*Â*
Nobody would pollute or do anything nefarious to a piece of privately owned land for fear of suffering a reprisal by the property owner of that piece of land.


If you don't want me thinking up scenarios for myself, you should be specific about "reprisals". It is general terms like that which lead me to think on my own about what reprisals would occur. The only two I could think of were right of way denial and violence. Violence is too easy a battle for the rich to win.. same with RoWD, which is why I suggested that such a system would quickly lead to feudalism.

[1Samuel8]

Well I was just asking if it was experimental or proven. Experimental I guess.At the extreme, it is hypothetical.


Is it ridiculous? If I owned a business in such a system I would probably employ such a tactic (buying surrounding land and denying right of way).I think it is ridiculous. Why would you isolate yourself?


In fact even in our current system there are many legal disputes about right of way and I have known a person who was denied access to his own land by the very people that sold it to him! How's that for realism?Again, it is a bad example. Such disputes are all surrounded by non-privately owned land.

You really have trouble with accepting the concept of ALL land being privately owned.


The only two I could think of were right of way denial and violence. Violence is too easy a battle for the rich to win..Correct but like I said before in post #52 (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=4423&pid=56718) above, violence is expensive and risky. In large scales, wars are only fought by states and governments because they do not pay for it and they do not bear the risks -- they force the tax-payer to do so.


same with RoWD, which is why I suggested that such a system would quickly lead to feudalism.Feudalism is not a situation where ALL land is privately owned. Feudalism involves a state government or a monarch or some form of coercive power.

[Truth_and_Power]

RoWD would be a way to isolate someone else, not yourself. Land would quite literally be power in this sense, therefore more wealth would make aquiring more wealth easy.. I think this system would quickly lead to a situation where almost all wealth was controlled by a very few. The very few would in essence become governments in their own right, by necessity. Voila, feudalism.

I am not trying to throw up an extreme version of what you are suggesting in order to make you look foolish. In my opinion what you have put up IS extreme, and in your criticisms of my opinions of the practical effect of the policies you suggest, you actually say that my fault is not properly concieving of ALL land being privately owned. So i'm too extreme and not extreme enough?

If you want to explain how such a system would work in concrete practical terms, without using vague words like "repercussions" or "force them to", I would be happy to listen. Otherwise we're probably at an impasse. It's been fun, thanks for the debate.

[1Samuel8]

If you want to explain how such a system would work in concrete practical terms, without using vague words like "repercussions" or "force them to", I would be happy to listen.Fine.
Eliminating corporate cronyism and special government privilege for industry would be a start.

[Pookie]

Hmmm. I have been using the flourescent bulbs all over my house for three years. I know they are little more expensive but my power bill has gone down.
Purrs,

[deepk]

with the use of LED bulbs it will come down more. plus the life of LED bulb is much more that a CFL.

[Buck Laser]

with the use of LED bulbs it will come down more. plus the life of LED bulb is much more that a CFL.


I was just looking at the price of LED room lights on the web last night, and the price right now for an equivalent to a 75 W bulb seems to be about $75.
At that price, I'm gonna have to wait awhile before I replace my incandescents. And for the moment, I can't find fluorescents with the same light quality. For those who are interested, here's a link to a current supplier of LED lights.LED lights for the home (http://www.besthomeledlighting.com/home)