3 ms·

It's perfectly reasonable to complain about the government banning incandescent bulbs. For a drop in the bucket of energy savings, they took away a choice that

It's perfectly reasonable to complain about the government banning incandescent bulbs. For a drop in the bucket of energy savings, they took away a choice that many people preferred in favor of mainly fluorescent bulbs which are an environmental hazard. Thank God for decent LED lights in the last few years or the irony would still be pretty thick. It's a great example of poor environmental policy and you dismiss criticism as "weird anxiety". It's not weird to dislike other people forcing you to make choices that they think are for your own good.

myko 7y ago
> For a drop in the bucket of energy savings Incandescent bulbs last months, LEDs last years and use 5x less energy. > Thank God for decent LED lights in the last few years or the irony would still be pretty thick. Do you think we would be better off using incandescents? I think the main thrust of your point is that you don't think the government should be able to tell folks they can't use crappy bulbs. I think without government intervention LEDs wouldn't be where they are today, which is partly due to that weird anxiety I mentioned, and that's unfortunate.
- triangleman 7y ago
  It's still a drop in the bucket compared to, for instance, closing the SUV "light truck" efficiency loophole. Which one was more politically palatable? The one with the grand gesture and minor actual savings of course. Forgive me for getting a little cynical about government policy, it must be that weird anxiety creeping up again. Also you need to take into account the total manufacturing cost of the light. I believe that only recently have some LEDs (and not good ones with a decent spectrum) reached parity with incandescents in terms of TCO. Finally, I would look at the market for computers and find how much government intervention it took to advance the technology in that industry. Why would the market for light bulbs be any different? Businesses had already switched to fluorescent for cost savings, why can't consumers be allowed to make similar cost/benefit choices?

myko 7y ago

> For a drop in the bucket of energy savings Incandescent bulbs last months, LEDs last years and use 5x less energy. > Thank God for decent LED lights in the last few years or the irony would still be pretty thick. Do you think we would be better off using incandescents? I think the main thrust of your point is that you don't think the government should be able to tell folks they can't use crappy bulbs. I think without government intervention LEDs wouldn't be where they are today, which is partly due to that weird anxiety I mentioned, and that's unfortunate.

triangleman 7y ago
It's still a drop in the bucket compared to, for instance, closing the SUV "light truck" efficiency loophole. Which one was more politically palatable? The one with the grand gesture and minor actual savings of course. Forgive me for getting a little cynical about government policy, it must be that weird anxiety creeping up again. Also you need to take into account the total manufacturing cost of the light. I believe that only recently have some LEDs (and not good ones with a decent spectrum) reached parity with incandescents in terms of TCO. Finally, I would look at the market for computers and find how much government intervention it took to advance the technology in that industry. Why would the market for light bulbs be any different? Businesses had already switched to fluorescent for cost savings, why can't consumers be allowed to make similar cost/benefit choices?