4 ms·
I often wonder about these types of regulations. I would much rather see a 1$/bulb tax on incandescent bulbs drive people to more efficient solutions when it's
by onemoreact 15y ago
I often wonder about these types of regulations. I would much rather see a 1$/bulb tax on incandescent bulbs drive people to more efficient solutions when it's reasonable to do so. So, if I want a 150watt light for my attic that is on for 15 hours a year then there is no reason to go with LED's at the same time I am now much better off using an LED for kitchen lighting. Does anyone know why such things are so rarely used?
- Symmetry 15y agoBecause then it would be a tax. Also, we couldn't have the warm fuzzies of having 100% conversion to CFL/LEDs, 99.5% might have the same practical effect, but it doesn't have the same rhetorical force.
- Someone 15y agoI do not know whether to remove only the parentheses, or also the text fragments inside them to get closest to the truth, but I think this changeover is not (only) optimized for the short-term good of consumers. It (also) is optimized for the good of lightbulb producers. They want a fast transition, so that they can scale up production fast. Regulations that forbid production and/or sale of old-style bulbs make such a scale up easier for them. Enforcing a fast change also may have a net positive effect when looking at the entire transition period.
- tomjen3 15y agoBecause politicians want power and there is no power in letting people decide for themselves what they want to do. It isn't going to save me money though, because i am going for the halogen bulbs which save only 30% and then buying those that are a bit more powerful than the bulbs they will replace (ie 40 gets reålaced by a sixty). Fuck politicians.