If these bulbs would really save people money and they were as good, why are they mandated?

Either these bulbs aren't as good at producing light or they aren't cheaper or some combination of the two. But it they really were so unambiguously better, why are people having to be forced to buy the new bulbs?

Californians can start saying goodbye to traditional 100-watt incandescent light bulbs now that the state has become the first in the country to require a new standard for the screw-base bulbs.
Experts say the new rules, which took effect New Year's Day, will save residents money and energy. California is already the nation's leader in energy efficiency standards.
As of Saturday, what used to be a 100-watt light bulb manufactured and sold in California will have to use 72 watts or less. The 72-watt replacement bulb, also called an energy saving halogen light, will provide the same amount of light, called lumens, for lower energy cost.
Similar new standards for traditional 75-watt, 60-watt and 40-watt incandescent bulbs will go into effect in California over the next few years, with wattages reduced to 53, 43 and 29 respectively.
The new rule does not ban incandescent light bulbs; it just requires those bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient. And it only affects incandescent light bulbs manufactured after 2011, not light bulbs already in use or on store shelves. . . .

Labels: , ,


Blogger Carteach said...

Most time, the simple words "Follow The Money" would be all that's need to unravel such a story of insanity.

In this case, we must also take into account the religion of 'environmentalism', and it's highest belief: "Making others do as you demand is the road to inner self forgiveness".

1/02/2011 7:42 AM  
Blogger juandos said...

Stupid is as stupid does...

Is it any wonder that this sort of thinking has lead California to go broke?

1/02/2011 2:20 PM  
Blogger Lighthouse said...

It's noteworthy how manufacturers welcome these bans....

why welcome being told what to do?

Of course, it saves them from having to market the more profitable but unpopular alternatives!

Regulators keep extolling “How great the new energy saving LED
lighting etc will be”: Fine.
Then let the manufacturers get off their backsides and market those
“great” products accordingly,
rather than look to ban the popular cheap (and own unprofitable)
competition so as to make easy profits out of Joe Citizen.

“Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run”?
Battery (Energizer bunny!) and washing up liquid manufacturers can
imaginatively advertise and sell such products – if they are good
So can light bulb and other manufacturers,
rather than force people into buying overly-expensive inferior
products they would not otherwise buy.

How manufacturers and vested interests have pushed for the ban on regular light bulbs,
and lobbied for CFL favors: ceolas.net/#li1ax
with documentation and copies of official communications

3/25/2011 9:38 AM  
Blogger Lighthouse said...


- California could of course tax rather than ban light bulbs, TV sets,
buildings, cars etc based on energy efficiency, at least with a liberal ideology,
cross-financing the green alternatives so people are not just "hit by taxes"
and the state govmt gets a big income
(2 billion nationwide sales of cheap easily taxable relevant light bulbs alone)
(see http://ceolas.net/#li23x practical example )

3/25/2011 9:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home