Why can you still buy non-"energy saving" lightbulbs?

[gentlegreen]

It would be good if they would improve the grants for photovoltaics too - my bathroom was red hot this evening - (the roof slopes south and isn't ininsulated yet.)
If I used hot water I would maybe bodge up a thermal collector, but I don't bathe much.

 

[EastEnder]

I have a solution that will simultaneously solve two of the biggest problems facing society today: Electrical appliances being left on standby & the ever rising level of obesity in youngsters.

<drum roll please....>

Step 1: Ban all electronic standby mechanisms.
Step 2: Install a lardy child in every home and make them run around switching stuff on & off as required.

 

[stavros]

Or hook them up to an exercise bike which generates electricity.

Well, i'll ask poundland if they can open a store in my village just to get lightbulbs frm, otherwise there is no wayI can get to one... disadvantage of living in the middle of 'kin nowhere

eBay? You might be able get some off there, although I haven't checked.

Something I read was that Essex County Council was trialling installing energy saving street lights in some quieter areas and may extend the scheme if it proves a success, with other councils watching on. Here's hoping it is, not least because it'll reduce the tax-payers' bills as a result.

 

[Falcon]

Price it properly and let people choose.

If the price of my incandescent bulb includes the cost of mitigating the impact on the environment of my choice, then it is irrelevant (and none of your business) what choice I make.

-OR- treat people like idiots and ban things on the assumption that, even with appropriate information and incentive, they are too stupid to make the right choice.

If you banned every entity that caused an unwanted output irrespective of whether that output was mitigated, you would be compelled to ban everything and we would revert to cave dwelling.

(I suspect I am making a political and philosophical point, rather than an economic or technical response.)

 

[magneze]

... then it is irrelevant (and none of your business) what choice I make ...

This bit rather sums up why the human race will end up extinct sooner rather than later.

 

[EastEnder]

This bit rather sums up why the human race will end up extinct sooner rather than later.

And a jolly good thing too!

Give the penguins a chance to rise up and take over the world - they can hardly do much worse than humans have.

Maybe climate change is a kind of emergent test, a challenge that any sufficiently advanced civilisation will inevitably face after reaching a certain peak of technological advancement. Only the most worthy species will deal with the problem sensibly and survive, the less worthy ones (I'm guessing Falcon is our ambassador in this regard), will destroy themselves in a fit of naivety and hubris. Conveniently leaving the way open for the next species to evolve, take over the planet and eventually face the same test.

Penguins aren't stupid, you know - all that messing around in the arctic, it's in preparation for the nuclear winter resulting from the 3rd world war, started when resources run so low and the planet's so fucked that war is the only remaining, unavoidable option....

<practices swallowing fish whole>

 

[Falcon]

This bit rather sums up why the human race will end up extinct sooner rather than later.

mit·i·gate
v. mit·i·gat·ed, mit·i·gat·ing, mit·i·gates
v. tr.
To moderate (a quality or condition) in force or intensity; alleviate

If the harmful impact has been alleviated, explain why the human race will end. I'm genuinely curious.

 

[magneze]

My point is that the inherent selfishness of the human race, as epitomized by your post, will bring about extinction sooner rather than later. You may have worked this out sooner if you hadn't been busily cut and pasting definitions from a dictionary to support your "point".

 

[EastEnder]

All hail the king!!!

 

[Falcon]

My point is that the inherent selfishness of the human race, as epitomized by your post, .

In what way is the selfishness of the human race epitomized by my post?

If my £1 incandescent light bulb causes the same amount of CO2 to be emitted over its economic life as can be absorbed by one tree, and it costs £10 to plant one tree, then at a cost of £11 my incandescent light bulb can be made emissions-neutral. It should be of no interest to you at that point what choice I have made.

On the other hand, by retaining choice and competition between alternative light bulb technologies, an incentive is created in the market to improve the efficiency with which the CO2 is minimised or sequestered, driving down price and increasing the efficiency of sequestration processes - thereby benefitting humanity.

Regrettably, your prejudiced reading of my post has probably misled you into believing that I was suggesting that I should be allowed to act without consideration for others. I'd suggest that the difficulty of the subject demands a rather higher standard of attention and subsequent debate from you than that. Please feel free to dig the hole you have constructed for yourself a little deeper. However, once you've stepped away from the keyboard for a while you'll discover that this suggestion is actually fairly orthodox thinking from the green movement - about as unselfish group, and as intent on the long term future of the race, as you could imagine!

 

[mauvais]

I started using them this year, because my housemate does. Wouldn't have thought of it before. Seriously, try them, they're great. They used to (older ones) take ages to start up but now it's like two seconds. Bought them at Wilko for around £3. They don't heat up the room in summer so I can actually use the lights! Plus I can put higher rated bulbs than I could normally in cheapy fittings/shades.

 

[magneze]

Regrettably, your prejudiced reading of my post has probably misled you into believing that I was suggesting that I should be allowed to act without consideration for others.

Regrettably, your predjudiced reading of my post seems to have misled you into believing that I was aiming my criticism at yourself. I was actually aiming it at the general "none of your business" attitude, which I still believe is symptomatic of the general malaise of the human population.

 

[EastEnder]

If my £1 incandescent light bulb causes the same amount of CO2 to be emitted over its economic life as can be absorbed by one tree, and it costs £10 to plant one tree, then at a cost of £11 my incandescent light bulb can be made emissions-neutral. It should be of no interest to you at that point what choice I have made.

When you've successfully lobbied parliament to make it a legal requirement that one tree is planted for every incandescent light bulb sold, come back and we'll talk.

On the other hand, by retaining choice and competition between alternative light bulb technologies, an incentive is created in the market to improve the efficiency with which the CO2 is minimised or sequestered, driving down price and increasing the efficiency of sequestration processes - thereby benefitting humanity.

What benefit is conveyed to the manufacturers of incandescent bulbs by reducing the CO2 produced over the lifetime of the bulb?

Last time I checked, incandescent bulbs don't have any kind of CO2 rating on the pack.....

If incandescent bulbs are available, people will buy them. Whilst I'm sure you're a paragon of environmental awareness, many people don't give a flying fuck. Trust me - they really don't care. If a reduction in choice is what's required to force everyone to use the more environmentally friendly option, then good. Reduce my choice. Infringe on my shopping freedoms. Got for it. I'm sure I'll find it within me to cope.

Consider this: If incandescent bulbs were outlawed, all the bulb manufacturers would be able devote all their bulb R&D budget to developing energy saving bulbs. The market would be 100% energy saving bulbs, all the factors that affect competition would be directly solely at them. The end result? Greater innovation, more variety, lower prices.

 

[Falcon]

When you've successfully lobbied parliament to make it a legal requirement that one tree is planted for every incandescent light bulb sold, come back and we'll talk.

Are you suggesting that the basis for banning light bulbs is to relieve you of the effort of lobbying parliament for the necessary legislation to make them sustainable?

If a reduction in choice is what's required to force everyone to use the more environmentally friendly option, then good.

I'm sure that would be true if a reduction in choice was required. However, it is not required. A price differential of, say, £10 would be perfectly sufficient to achieve exactly the same outcome.

many people don't give a flying fuck ... If incandescent bulbs were outlawed, all the bulb manufacturers would be able devote all their bulb R&D budget to developing energy saving bulbs.

Explain to me how you believe these statements of yours can be simultaneously true.

Why would manufacturers do that? Once you had helpfully removed any competition, what incentive would there be for the manufacturers to refine the environmental performance of their product further? The purpose of a company is to maximise profit. The purpose of R&D is to reduce the cost of a product so you can make more profit (often at the cost of increased environmental impact) or increase the price you can charge for it so you can make more profit. The purpose of R&D is not to improve environmental performance, unless that allows you to charge more for it - which by your own admission, you cannot, as that is not something people in general value enough to pay for voluntarily. Once the market had been captured (from incandescent technology), why would a CEO choose to divert an incremental dollar from his shareholder's pocket into an R&D budget?

Eh, no. The bulb manufacturers would be able to return the money they would otherwise have had to spend on R&D in order to compete with the alternative technology to their shareholders in the form of dividends. The effect of banning incandescent light bulbs would be to reduce the total amount of investment on CO2 mitigation, and increase the shareholder profits of the monopoly technology.

Hardly the outcome you would have intended, I imagine.

 

[Falcon]

I was actually aiming it at the general "none of your business" attitude, which I still believe is symptomatic of the general malaise of the human population.

I'm still left wondering why, if you have read my posts, you believe my position is symptomatic of 'general malaise', or calculated to hasten the demise of our species. I am advocating political action over supine passivity, and the spectacular over the insufficient (a.k.a. 'practical').

In turn, I'm unable to reconcile your preference for the practical over the spectacular with your apparent concern about malaise. Would you care to expand?

 

[magneze]

I'm still left wondering why, if you have read my posts, you believe my position is symptomatic of 'general malaise', or calculated to hasten the demise of our species. I am advocating political action over supine passivity, and the spectacular over the insufficient (a.k.a. 'practical').

In turn, I'm unable to reconcile your preference for the practical over the spectacular with your apparent concern about malaise. Would you care to expand?

Christ, I didn't say your position was symptomatic of the general malaise but the "none of your business" attitude was. Am I not saying it slowly enough?

I'll gladly espouse practical solutions over spectacular ones because, by definition, they are practical and therefore more likely to happen. It's that simple.

 

[Falcon]

Is the test whether they are likely to happen, or whether they are likely to work? Would you concede there is a difference?

 

[magneze]

Is the test whether they are likely to happen, or whether they are likely to work? Would you concede there is a difference?

I would define a practical solution as being one that will both work and is likely to happen.

 

[Falcon]

Quite so. So for the reasons set out in the previous post, banning incandescent technology will not, by itself, 'work' and therefore satisfies only one of the two conditions that you specify.

So we are compelled to consider more difficult solutions. This is the conclusion that most Green groups have arrived at.