California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012

[Diesel1]

Interesting idea

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
Continued

Most of my bulbs are the fluorescent type lightbulbs. Not for any green issues, but because I was sick of the ordinary kind popping all the fucking time. Oh and they save me money 

[240 is Back]

Dat's cause a lot of Cali is gonna be under salt water in 40 years.

Don't get mad.  I'm only being real.

[Stark]

Dat's cause a lot of Cali is gonna be under salt water in 40 years.

Don't get mad.  I'm only being real.

well most of the guys here are going to hit 60 when that time comes

[BRUCE]

Dat's cause a lot of Cali is gonna be under salt water in 40 years.

Don't get mad.  I'm only being real.

Actually, you're daydreaming again.  Besides, if you think changing some lightbulbs is going to stop the sea level rising you're more lost that I thought.

[240 is Back]

Actually, you're daydreaming again.  Besides, if you think changing some lightbulbs is going to stop the sea level rising you're more lost that I thought.

I never said lightbulbs made a lick of difference.  I commented on their motive.  It sure as hell isn't going to change anything on the macro level.

[Hedgehog]

Actually, you're daydreaming again.  Besides, if you think changing some lightbulbs is going to stop the sea level rising you're more lost that I thought.

At least California is trying.

And step by step, we can turn it all around.

Little steps, all the way. If banning regular lightbulbs helps cutting energy dependence, then it's a good thing.

It could probably speed up the process of making the alternatives cheaper too.

-Hedge

[BRUCE]

At least California is trying.

And step by step, we can turn it all around.

Little steps, all the way. If banning regular lightbulbs helps cutting energy dependence, then it's a good thing.

It could probably speed up the process of making the alternatives cheaper too.

-Hedge

Righto - let's get to work right away banning the following things too:

- Bushfires
- Volcanoes
- Earthquakes

That should put a quick smart stop to these pesky Global Warming contributors.

[G o a t b o y]

Righto - let's get to work right away banning the following things too:

- Bushfires
- Volcanoes
- Earthquakes

That should put a quick smart stop to these pesky Global Warming contributors.

Don't forget flatulent bovines!

[BRUCE]

Don't forget flatulent bovines!

Why not? We all know how banning something inevitably changes behaviour 

[Hedgehog]

Righto - let's get to work right away banning the following things too:

- Bushfires
- Volcanoes
- Earthquakes

That should put a quick smart stop to these pesky Global Warming contributors.

Instead of trying to bring the funny, trying to ridicule it, why don't you try to bring some argument against the California Law.

Good luck.

-Hedge

[BRUCE]

Instead of trying to bring the funny, trying to ridicule it, why don't you try to bring some argument against the California Law.

Good luck.

-Hedge

Loosen up big guy it's not the end of the world - or is it?

Argue against Californian Law?  Which one?  How about you 'bring some argument' to my IPCC thread, instead?

[BRUCE]

Instead of trying to bring the funny, trying to ridicule it, why don't you try to bring some argument against the California Law.

Good luck.

-Hedge

Oh and while I'm on that, my post may have been tongue-in-cheek a little, but notice that you have not responded to my point that these natural events create exponentially more carbon dioxide to be pumped into the atmosphere than your lightbulbs will save.  So who is 'ruining' the earth?

[Hedgehog]

Oh and while I'm on that, my post may have been tongue-in-cheek a little, but notice that you have not responded to my point that these natural events create exponentially more carbon dioxide to be pumped into the atmosphere than your lightbulbs will save.  So who is 'ruining' the earth?

If we could control vulcano eruptions, sure, then by all means, I would be in favor of turning them off.

But we can't, so why do you even bring it up?

I like to discuss the things man actually can change.

That's where we can make the necessary changes to turn around the development that is happening right now.

-Hedge

[BRUCE]

If we could control vulcano eruptions, sure, then by all means, I would be in favor of turning them off.

But we can't, so why do you even bring it up?

I like to discuss the things man actually can change.

That's where we can make the necessary changes to turn around the development that is happening right now.

-Hedge

Why bring it up?  I think you're a little less ignorant than that.  If we have forces of nature causing unimaginable amounts of carbon to be released into the atmosphere, and you and I believe this directly impacts the world's temperature, then surely it highlights the insignificance of such schemes.  Let's try and be a little more realistic about such token environmental gestures.

[Hedgehog]

Why bring it up?  I think you're a little less ignorant than that.  If we have forces of nature causing unimaginable amounts of carbon to be released into the atmosphere, and you and I believe this directly impacts the world's temperature, then surely it highlights the insignificance of such schemes.  Let's try and be a little more realistic about such token environmental gestures.

Humans consumption have impact on the amount of carbon released. The amount of carbon, can always be debated.

But the question is what we can do to limit the amount of carbon we release, and how our societies can be made to waste as little as possible of the resources of our planet.

Since we currently have no influence over the other carbon released, and other parameters.

We can do our thing.

So lets do just that.

-Hedge

[BRUCE]

Humans consumption have impact on the amount of carbon released. The amount of carbon, can always be debated.

But the question is what we can do to limit the amount of carbon we release, and how our societies can be made to waste as little as possible of the resources of our planet.

Since we currently have no influence over the other carbon released, and other parameters.

We can do our thing.

So lets do just that.

-Hedge

I don't totally disagree with you here, Hedge, it's just that I think banning lightbulbs is the equivalent of urinating into the wind.

[ieffinhatecardio]

I don't totally disagree with you here, Hedge, it's just that I think banning lightbulbs is the equivalent of urinating into the wind.

If every lightbulb in the whole state of California were changed you don't think it would make any meaningful difference?

How about every lightbulb in the US?

While I agree it's certainly not a groundbreaking measure I don't agree that it would have no benefit. It might even motivate people to be a little bit more aware of what they do. That's a good thing.

[Hedgehog]

I don't totally disagree with you here, Hedge, it's just that I think banning lightbulbs is the equivalent of urinating into the wind.

If this law is the only effort, then yes, there is little meaning.

But with 100's, or 1000's small efforts in different ways, through voluntarily efforts, legislative measures, cooperative joint efforts, international, regional, et al...

I believe all these small things together can make a difference. It's really about changing the attitude.

I'm no tree hugger. I don't believe that trees have feelings or shyte like that.

I simply believe that if our scientists give us a prediction that we may risk a global disaster that would make all previous problems seems like futile...

Then my take is: Why gamble that they may be wrong? What's the harm in changing our lives for a more energy efficient society?

For one, it would make the world a safer place, since USA wouldn't be oil import dependent.

Frankly, I don't see this as a political issue. The ways on how to make our society is the political issue IMO.

It's not how fast we need to make the transition. It's how we should do it. The time table is determined by scientist, and Greenpeace or the Oil Lobby can't do much about that.

-Hedge

[Camel Jockey]

I don't totally disagree with you here, Hedge, it's just that I think banning lightbulbs is the equivalent of urinating into the wind.

A 30 watt fluorescent puts out the same output as a 100 watt incandescent. Isn't that a big difference?

[BRUCE]

A 30 watt fluorescent puts out the same output as a 100 watt incandescent. Isn't that a big difference?

Is it a big difference compared to say, the bushfires we've just had in Australia?  And how do you ban a lightbulb, exactly?  Is it easier than stopping people taking drugs?

[Camel Jockey]

Is it a big difference compared to say, the bushfires we've just had in Australia?  And how do you ban a lightbulb, exactly?  Is it easier than stopping people taking drugs?

Isn't there ecological succession after forest and bust fires? Plus bush fires are a part of nature, but how we use our energy isn't. We have the power to CHOOSE how we use our energy.

Who do you think honestly gives a damn about conventional bulbs? Not like banning it would create a black market. I don't think they should ban it outright though, but maybe impose heavy taxes to discourage people from buying it. Flouros are only like a few dollars more expensive than the regular one's and last a lot longer.

[BRUCE]

Isn't there ecological succession after forest and bust fires? Plus bush fires are a part of nature, but how we use our energy isn't. We have the power to CHOOSE how we use our energy.

Who do you think honestly gives a damn about conventional bulbs? Not like banning it would create a black market. I don't think they should ban it outright though, but maybe impose heavy taxes to discourage people from buying it. Flouros are only like a few dollars more expensive than the regular one's and last a lot longer.

Actually, the fires we had here were of such intensity that nothing much is expected to be able to regenerate for a good while.  The reason, ironically, being lack of human intervention in the environment.  We used to extensively back burn to ensure fires did not rage out of control, and cattlemen were allowed to have animals graze in the highlands.  This is no longer permitted, and so, we have some of the worst bushfires seen in this state.