Normally a ban is on a product that is safe to use. We are not talking about banning lead paint here! (Note the consumer legislation irony, forcibly replacing a cheap, simple, safe, popular and easily bright product, with an expensive, complex, mercury-releasing, unpopular and more difficultly bright product as the main suggested replacement).
CO2 gas? Light bulbs don't give out any gases - power stations do. Cars, unlike light bulbs, also give out CO2 emissions: But inefficient combustion engine cars are taxed for CO2 emissions, not banned because of them.
Where there is a problem - deal with the problem. Dealing with emissions (for all they contain, whatever about CO2): http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
So what is this light bulb ban all about? This is simply a ban to reduce electricity consumption.
As such, like taxes reducing consumption of cigarettes, alcohol and "carbon tax" on petrol/gasolene, clearly light bulbs could be taxed too
Supposed energy savings don't hold up ( http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards) and taxes are in themselves not justified, simply a better alternative than bans, also for pro-ban politicians to gain income on the reduced sales - which they can of course use for renewable energy projects etc.
Europeans (like Americans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (European Commission and light industry data 2007-8) Banning what people want gives the supposed savings - no point in banning an impopular product!
If new LED lights - or improved CFLs etc - are good, people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point). If they are not good, people will not buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves/tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.
All Comments
We are not talking about banning lead paint here!
(Note the consumer legislation irony,
forcibly replacing a cheap, simple, safe, popular and easily bright product,
with an expensive, complex, mercury-releasing, unpopular and more difficultly bright product as the main suggested replacement).
CO2 gas?
Light bulbs don't give out any gases - power stations do.
Cars, unlike light bulbs, also give out CO2 emissions:
But inefficient combustion engine cars are taxed for CO2 emissions, not banned because of them.
Where there is a problem - deal with the problem.
Dealing with emissions (for all they contain, whatever about CO2): http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
So what is this light bulb ban all about?
This is simply a ban to reduce electricity consumption.
As such, like taxes reducing consumption of cigarettes, alcohol and "carbon tax" on petrol/gasolene,
clearly light bulbs could be taxed too
Supposed energy savings don't hold up
( http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards)
and taxes are in themselves not justified,
simply a better alternative than bans, also for pro-ban politicians to gain income on the reduced sales - which they can of course use for renewable energy projects etc.
Europeans (like Americans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (European Commission and light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings - no point in banning an impopular product!
If new LED lights - or improved CFLs etc - are good,
people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves/tubes were banned…
they were bought less anyway.