- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are incandescent light bulbs banned?
Posted on 1/1/14 at 4:16 pm to cajunangelle
Posted on 1/1/14 at 4:16 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
I remember Bush did a lot of things under the name of GW- Climate change now
Actually it was climate change then. Bush used the term "climate change" because he thought it less frightening than "global warming"
LINK
So you can thank him for that, too.
Though, from a scientific perspective, "climate change" has always been a more general term than
"global warming", and more appropriate. The water flooding your house, for instance, is going to be a far bigger issue to you than the fact it is a few degrees warmer.
This post was edited on 1/1/14 at 4:19 pm
1
Posted on 1/1/14 at 4:17 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
Because the world's supply of tungsten is shrinking at such a rate its use is more important in manufacturing processes than home/business lighting where alternatives are available.
This has been known for awhile now hence the law written awhile back is taking effect now.
Its not some green earth agenda you paranoid poliranters think it is, its simple supply and demand for more essential needs.
You have a faulty understanding of the economic laws of supply and demand. A government ban on a product is an interceding force contrary to supply and demand. If Tungsten is scarce, the price of incandecent bulbs will increase to the point that the market will find more economical choices. No need for a ban.
Posted on 1/1/14 at 4:19 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:So you are saying you do not know.
If you're talking about the ban on selling them into interstate commerce, talk to George W. Bush, who signed it, or the 86 Senators and 314 Representatives who voted for it.
You could have just said, "I don't know"
Way less typing that way
Posted on 1/1/14 at 4:23 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:
If Tungsten is scarce, the price of incandecent bulbs will increase to the point that the market will find more economical choices
There aren't always more economical choices. Especially when it comes to things like chemical elements. There are only so many of them. The market can't really make more (that last more than a fraction of a second before decaying, at least). The law of supply and demand is powerful but it can't break the laws of nature.
Posted on 1/1/14 at 4:33 pm to SpidermanTUba
For crying out loud! The government just PICKED an alternative instead of letting the market. I'm not suggesting that there aren't conceivable situations where alternatives are unavailable, but there are plenty of alternatives here. Nevertheless, you and the other poster simply display your ignorance about supplly and demand. I GUARANTEE YOU that if tungsten was at such a scarcity that incandecent bulbs were going to "run out" in the forseeable future, the price would have started to climb, and steadily incline as the scarcity grew. THAT is how supply and demand works.
Posted on 1/1/14 at 4:37 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:
The government just PICKED an alternative instead of letting the market.
The market doesn't pay the entire cost of the use of incandescent bulbs. To let it make the entire decision would be unfair.
quote:
Nevertheless, you and the other poster simply display your ignorance about supplly and demand.
You're making an ad hominem attack, and its not helping your point at all. Your Econ 101 white board antics don't account for cost externalization. Unless you actually believe its good for the overall environment and overall nation's economy to use more energy, in which case, I'm out of time.
This post was edited on 1/1/14 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 1/1/14 at 4:45 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Yep. Although I disagree with the majority of the last century's jurisprudence, Wickard (the mother of the Raich case LINK ) and Kelo (LINK ) are the two worst, in my opinion.
It's rulings like those that lead me to trust the state less and less the older I get.
Pretty sure I'm gonna be an anarchist one day.
Posted on 1/1/14 at 4:53 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Pretty sure I'm gonna be an anarchist one day.
Come on in the water is fine.
Posted on 1/1/14 at 4:57 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Pretty sure I'm gonna be an anarchist one day.
Posted on 1/1/14 at 4:58 pm to Sentrius
Who brought it about? Lobbyists for the makers of the new types of bulbs.
Posted on 1/1/14 at 4:59 pm to Sentrius
quote:
I'd love to stock up on as much as I can before the Feds close the loophole.
My wife had me go and buy a dozen from Ace Hardware, they have will be selling them for months. They are still legal to sell, if they ordered them before today. They ordered a lot, that and some time of ant poison that has been banned.
Posted on 1/1/14 at 5:16 pm to Sentrius
They say it saves energy but it had the opposite affect in our house. Due to being a new build, all of the lights in our house are fitted for the newer bulbs. However, they let out such little light I keep them all on all the time on top of the lamps. I was getting eye strain from that ridiculous law.
Posted on 1/1/14 at 5:31 pm to Sentrius
quote:Wanting to make the state smaller is like wanting to remove 80% of a tumor.
Pretty sure I'm gonna be an anarchist one day
Posted on 1/1/14 at 5:43 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Actually it was climate change then. Bush used the term "climate change" because he thought it less frightening than "global warming" LINK So you can thank him for that, too.
BS. Bush did not initiate the term 'change' to replace 'warming'. The left did because of the inconvenient fact that the earth is not warming at at all. Stop re writing history.
Re: the original post. The reason that light bulbs are banned is because polar bears have been using them to read their latest copies of National Geographic and the warmth is causing their ice bergs to melt.
Posted on 1/1/14 at 8:02 pm to Gmorgan4982
quote:
Wanting to make the state smaller is like wanting to remove 80% of a tumor.
quote:
Thanks for the new possible sig and sig quote guys.
Posted on 1/1/14 at 8:48 pm to Zach
quote:
BS. Bush did not initiate the term 'change' to replace 'warming'. The left did because of the inconvenient fact that the earth is not warming at at all. Stop re writing history.
Sorry Zach, I forget that whatever you say is true is true. No evidence needed. Scientifically more accurate terms suck!
This post was edited on 1/1/14 at 8:51 pm
Posted on 1/1/14 at 9:55 pm to SpidermanTUba
Messing with light bulbs is as stupid as the Al Gore toilets.
I have one of the olds and one of the new ones. We plunge that new one at least once a week and it gets two flushes almost every use.
The old--never a problem.
I have one of the olds and one of the new ones. We plunge that new one at least once a week and it gets two flushes almost every use.
The old--never a problem.
Posted on 1/1/14 at 9:57 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Why are incandescent light bulbs banned?
It's all about LEDs.
Posted on 1/1/14 at 9:58 pm to BestBanker
quote:
Pols wont allow any new power plants built.
Massively, blindingly false. They're building plants all over the place. There's a nuke plant going up in N. Georgia and they're putting new natural gas plants up in other places.
quote:
No coal use.
Tell that to Big Cajun. It's been a month and a half since I was there and I swear I'm still blowing black boogers.
NRG and other companies still have many coal fired plants. They're just having to offset their CO2 outputs, add scrubbers, etc.
This post was edited on 1/1/14 at 10:03 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News