Quote:You are wrong about the CFL mandate. LED bulbs are legal.
More electricity used = more money lost. That is one reason people like CFL bulbs.
No I am correct. The CFL mandate does away with incandescent bulbs because they consume more electricity. They are actually worse for the environment, but you won't hear about that.
Incandescent bulbs are cheaper to manufacture thus they are cheaper to purchase. However, they consume more electricity and produce heat which might not be desirable. They are banned. Disposal of them doesn't harm the environment at all.
CFL bulbs are actually more expensive to manufacture and are more expensive to purchase. The up side is that they use less electricity and don't produce heat. The downside is in colder temperatures they take longer to produce the light that they are designed to produce. Also disposal of them isn't as simple as throwing them out because they contain toxic properties that actually harm the environment.
LED bulbs are an alternative that has huge advantages and disadvantages. They give off light immediately, consume less electricity and don't produce heat. The downside is that they are WAY more expensive to produce and therefor more expensive to purchase. Disposal of them has minimal impact on the environment since they don't have any toxic chemicals or gasses, but they do contain silicone which isn't biodegradable.
My point is though, people should be free to decide which kind of light bulb they want to use based on their needs. It's not up to the government to tell us which kind to use. The government as usual is/was wrong with this mandate because even though CFL bulbs consume less electricity, they actually harm the environment more than the other two technologies and the technology that they banned.
Quote:I dare you to prove me wrong because a lot of evidence is out there humans caused the globe to overheat.
Mars is warming, where are the Big Bad SUV's up there? The Coal Fired Plants?, Fossil Fuels being used? Hmmmmmmmmm......
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...rming.html
MAn Made Global warming is the biggest bunch of Male Bovine Droppings there is
Hold up....you guys honestly do not believe humans have a hand in climate change?
JIB, if only CFL bulbs were allowed, why do LED bulbs exist?
Quote:Hold up....you guys honestly do not believe humans have a hand in climate change?
One human certainly did.
Al Gore marketed the idea into his retirement plan after losing the 2000 election.
How arrogant are we as people to believe we could possibly change our climate?!?!
We can't do a thing about climate.
Pollution and other worthwhile efforts? We certainly can and should.
Again, Mother Nature was kidnapped from "real life" when the man made myth was born. She had to go, because she would have reminded us of our common sense.
The sun, not man, controls our thermostat.
Quote:I don't think we disagree with each other at all on this. I'm always in favor of competition especially when it comes to tech. I think it always benefits the consumer and society in the long run. People should have the choice to get whatever they want but I also don't see a problem with incentivising the adoption of more efficient or safer technologies.
My initial post though was about government having a roll in advancing tech that is not immediately profitable. I think there is till a place for that.
I agree with you on this as well. However, you can't just make it a "global" thing. One of the primary responsibilities of the government is the military. That's where it should start. I worked for a company for a while that dealt with alternative energy specifically for the military that can be crossed over to every day people. The problem is, it's not efficient or cost effective... at this point. At that company we also produced products that are used by other parts of the government all of the time (FEMA).
The thing is, people don't really understand how solar, hydrodynamic, wind, etc. power generation works. The energy produced has to be stored and/or converted. Much of the time in a very minimal system that energy is stored in batteries. Now think about the chemicals involved in a simple lead/acid battery like the one in your car. They don't last forever, and disposal of them isn't as easy as throwing it in the trash. In higher end systems lithium batteries are used. Throw those in a landfill and you're polluting just as much if not worse than if you used other means.
I laugh at these people that buy these "hybrid" cars thinking that they are doing something good for the environment and saving a bunch of money on gas. Once those batteries go, they will pay through-the-nose for a new set of batteries, and they are lithium batteries. Guess where those old batteries go? Back into the environment that they supposedly are trying to save.
The bottom line is, the "clean energy" mandates forced through by government do really nothing for the environment.
Quote:JIB, if only CFL bulbs were allowed, why do LED bulbs exist?
I never said that only CFL bulbs were allowed. Incandescent bulbs are the ones that are banned right now.
Quote:I never said that only CFL bulbs were allowed. Incandescent bulbs are the ones that are banned right now.
You said there is a CFL mandate.
Incandescent bulbs had their advantages, but after seeing how bright CFL and LED bulbs are, I could never go back.
Quote:
How arrogant are we as people to believe we could possibly change our climate?!?!
How naive to think that the massive scale at which humans consume natural resources won't have an effect on the climate. It took natural processes billions of years to produce the oil and gas we will deplete in just a couple of centuries.
Quote:No I am correct. The CFL mandate does away with incandescent bulbs because they consume more electricity. They are actually worse for the environment, but you won't hear about that.
Incandescent bulbs are cheaper to manufacture thus they are cheaper to purchase. However, they consume more electricity and produce heat which might not be desirable. They are banned. Disposal of them doesn't harm the environment at all.
CFL bulbs are actually more expensive to manufacture and are more expensive to purchase. The up side is that they use less electricity and don't produce heat. The downside is in colder temperatures they take longer to produce the light that they are designed to produce. Also disposal of them isn't as simple as throwing them out because they contain toxic properties that actually harm the environment.
LED bulbs are an alternative that has huge advantages and disadvantages. They give off light immediately, consume less electricity and don't produce heat. The downside is that they are WAY more expensive to produce and therefor more expensive to purchase. Disposal of them has minimal impact on the environment since they don't have any toxic chemicals or gasses, but they do contain silicone which isn't biodegradable.
My point is though, people should be free to decide which kind of light bulb they want to use based on their needs. It's not up to the government to tell us which kind to use. The government as usual is/was wrong with this mandate because even though CFL bulbs consume less electricity, they actually harm the environment more than the other two technologies and the technology that they banned.
To add on, I think LED bulbs last significantly longer than CFL and Incandescent as well.
Quote:How naive to think that the massive scale at which humans consume natural resources won't have an effect on the climate. It took natural processes billions of years to produce the oil and gas we will deplete in just a couple of centuries.
You described a resource issue, not a climate one. Yes, there is a resource concern.
Glad you brought that up, because it illustrates that issues are oversold to produce the attention desired. BLM, just pick any single left wing issue. It's why we can't talk about issues. Too much exaggeration and hyperbole. "Devil, evil, precipice..." yadda yadda.
I was told by my college professor that by 1994 the world would consume its last drop of oil.
In a nutshell, that gives a complete picture of how the left oversells its ideas to scare or shame others into compliance.
What's great for the US, should we continue to remain a strong free country with economic freedoms, whenever that day *truly* comes we will have the people and technologies to adapt. Always have, always will. Economics drives necessary change. The problems come from poor economic decisions that artificially drive change. That stifles the economy and gets us no faster to change that actually helps us move forward.
Wrong again pirkster. Climate change is partially caused by what Dragon mentioned. Naive is the perfect word to describe your stance on climate change.
Until corporations can lead by example and fight climate change, why should your average citizen?
Quote:Until corporations can lead by example and fight climate change, why should your average citizen?
Average citizens make up those corporations.
Quote:Average citizens make up those corporations.
The term "average citizen" doesn't apply to people who run corporations. Just stop.
Quote:The term "average citizen" doesn't apply to people who run corporations. Just stop.
You are not allowed to tell me to stop.
Quote:Average citizens make up those corporations.
A CEO and BOD making 7 figure salaries do not classify as "Average" citizens.
Someone mentioned near the beginning the airlines flying these archaic planes trying to get every mile out of them they can. Are they leading by example?
Quote:Wrong again pirkster. Climate change is partially caused by what Dragon mentioned. Naive is the perfect word to describe your stance on climate change.
Did you read anything I linked yet? Or am I right about you afraid and unwilling to do so?
UNINFORMED is the perfect word to describe your flaccid opinions.
Quote:A CEO and BOD making 7 figure salaries do not classify as "Average" citizens.
Someone mentioned near the beginning the airlines flying these archaic planes trying to get every mile out of them they can. Are they leading by example?
No they aren't, but they are taking advantage of the lack of a federal requirement to make airplanes environmentally friendly. Until the government makes that mandate, they are going to put money over everything else.