Liz Strauss at Successful Blog

Thinking, writing, business ideas … You’re only a stranger once.

February 1, 2007

That’s Okay . . . We’ll Sit in the Dark

Chris Cree wrote this at 10:40 am

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb?

Wait, wait. Don’t tell me. I’m sure I know this one.

Scanning through the headlines yesterday I saw this one:

California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012

One Way to CC It logo

What will they think of next?

Apparently conventional lightbulbs are bad. They are the scourge of the planet and must be banned. That wondrous joy of late night reading that Thomas Edison gave to us nearly 140 years ago has to be cast aside in favor of newer, more expensive technologies.

And California has just the legislature to make this happen.

You see there are folks there who are working on enacting a ban on traditional incandescent lightbulbs. This would leave folks in the Golden State with a couple options.

They could use the new “compact fluorescent lightbulbs” (CFL’s). Or they could just let it get dark at night.

Whatever they do, they probably won’t be able to (legally) continue to use the old style bulbs.

Something must be done! And California may be just the folks to do it.

Ulterior Motives?

The lightbulb article points out that Wal-Mart may be the biggest winner of the new ban when their sales of the new, more expensive, bulbs become required.

Makes me wonder how much Wal-Mart stock some of those law makers own. Or maybe they just get treated well by some retail lobbyests?

I’m waiting to be convinced that these folks really think the planet is at stake.

Is it just me, or are legislators getting more and more ban happy these days?

I mean look at the list of things that either have been banned or are that banning is being talked about: smoking, trans-fats, freon, DDT, leaded gasoline, denying the holocaust (in most of Europe), driving without a seatbelt, driving over 55 mph 65 mph (ok, so maybe that one’s a bad example).

Some of those things are good ideas. But is heavy handed regulation the best answer to solve every problem?

There has got to be a better way.

I don’t claim to have the answers, but if things like the new lightbulbs are really such a good idea for the planet, doesn’t it make more sense for the makers of those lightbulbs to skillfully market them as such so that folks would make more planet friendly buying choices?

I mean I know that from a business perspective companies can get a higher rate of return on their marketing dollars if they can successfully lobby governments to ban the competition’s products than from other efforts.

Can You See Where It’s Going?

I can see where this one is going. These things seem to start in California and then overtake the whole world. And these bans seem to have the effect of building an even bigger gulf between the wealthy and very poor people on our planet.

We banned DDT in favor of more expensive, and less effective insecticides (which generally are more toxic to humans). As a result millions are still suffering and dying from insect born diseases that the wealthy nations have done away with because they can afford the more expensive agents.

Then we banned freon so refrigeration becomes more expensive and now fewer people can afford it. This has meant that refrigeration is that much further out of reach for the poorest countries so they have difficulty preserving their food and medicine. How many have died from malnutrition or disease as a result?

World Light MapNow if this new ban gets traction are we going to put the third world in the dark?

Take a look at that map. Much of the world is already in the dark. And the light that is out there isn’t coming from the poor nations, is it? Should we make them darker?

Of course there are some who genuinely feel that light pollution is a big problem already…

I’m not sure government regulation is the answer. But that’s just The Way I C it.

Chris Cree is a regular contributor here at Successful-Blog and he helps businesses fuel growth through blogging with his consulting business, SuccessCREEations.





Filed under One Way to CC It, Successful Blog |




C'mon. Let's talk!

24 Comments to “That’s Okay . . . We’ll Sit in the Dark”

  1. February 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
    Mike said

    Chris,

    This sort of foolishness is the strongest reason to limit the power of state legislatures. The DDT ban did nothing but kill millions of Africans and make some smug elitists feel good about it. Thank goodness that African countries finally wised up and are now using it very effectively.

    Incandescent light bulbs aren’t harming anyone, and in a few years the alternatives will become cheap enough that people will voluntarily replace the old ones because they last so much longer; it’ll be worth a dollar extra not to have to get up on that ladder every couple of months.

    I agree that “follow the money” would go a long way to figuring out why this silly legislation has been proposed. I’m betting on heavy lobbying by light bulb shops in Yuma and Reno!

  2. February 1st, 2007 at 12:38 pm
    Jeremy David said

    I have to disagree.

    The compact florescent light bulbs actually cost less than incandescents bulbs if you factor in energy usage and how long they last. Why do people still buy the old technology? Because they are used to it? Because they are lazy? Because they do not know the difference?

    Why do many municipalities have legislation requiring people to recycle? Because it works. It actually makes people recycle.

    When people’s individual decisions have no impact on others, sure, do whatever you want. But when someone’s actions have impacts on people around them, someone needs to step in and protect everyone… and that person is the Government. I applaud California’s progressive stance on the environment. Over consumption of electricity impacts a lot more than one person’s hydro bill.

  3. February 1st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
    Chris Cree said

    Mike & Jeremy, I guess I look at it from a bit of a mixed perspective. (Oh, there’s a shocker. :roll: )

    I mean I’m all for becoming more energy efficient. I see it as a good use of resources. And therefore I’ll be switching some of our own bulbs to the new ones. Especially those that require me to go up a ladder.

    I don’t mind florescent lights at work or outside at home. But I find the ones I’ve tried so far give off too harsh a light for the inside of our house. So my personal preference inside is incandescent.

    Should I get to choose? Or is it the government’s responsibility to choose for me?

    If it’s the government’s job, where should the line be drawn?

  4. February 1st, 2007 at 1:15 pm
    Jeremy David said

    The great thing about governments is that if you disagree with what they do, you can vote for somebody else.

  5. February 1st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
    Chris Cree said

    That’s true with ours here in the States. Unfortunately much of the world isn’t so fortunate. The other thing is I don’t live in California either…

  6. February 1st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
    Chris @ Martial Development said

    I agree, the inefficient bulbs should not be banned.

    They should be taxed, like alcohol and cigarettes! :D

  7. February 1st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
    Chris Cree said

    Oh. And we see how effective that approach is working on reducing consumption of those two. ;)

  8. February 1st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
    Jeremy David said

    ha ha yes, taxing light bulbs… making them the same price as the fluorescent ones.

  9. February 1st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
    Jeff Brown said

    Jeremy - It’s bad enough you can’t see the forest for the trees, now you feel free to enforce your beliefs on others. Has it ever ocurred to you that ‘poor’ folk cannot afford to ’save’ all that money on the new bulb because of the initial higher cost. Of course not. The next thing is you’ll have subsidies for them taken from the higher taxes I pay just because I happen to earn more money.

    Leave me alone, leave the free market alone, and we won’t have to revisit Jimmy Carter’s America again.

    Where’s Reagan when you need him? :)

    I challenge all liberal thinking people to read Any Rand’s classic novel Atlas Shrugged cover to cover. If you still think the way you do now afterwards I’ll be surprised. We’re living that book in America now.

    In the end, once the takers (liberals) cross the line and there’s not much more to take, the system collapses because the producers (the smart guys) go away. See, we don’t need the takers BECAUSE we produce. We can live without you, but you can’t live without sucking the life (production results) out of us.

    Please - read the book and tell me then how you want to be so silly as to ‘ban’ light bulbs. This approach is why business has been leaving California now for years. Is the next law going to ban businesses leaving the state?

  10. February 1st, 2007 at 5:37 pm
    Rick Cockrum said

    I’m not going to go into the governmental regulations issues, because I’m on the fence about them. They’ve done good and bad.

    Regarding using compact flourescents as opposed to incandescents - if you use the latter you’re throwing money away. You can get a four pack at Lowe’s for $8 dollars. That’s $2 dollars apiece, about the same price as many incandescents. For this you get a bulb that lasts 6000-8000 hours, as opposed to 700-800 hours, and uses a quarter of the electricity. You do the math. Even when they cost $20 apiece and I made $5.25 an hour I used them, because they saved me money. I’ve lived in my house 15years. Some bulbs I’ve never replaced. Only in the bathroom do I use incandenscents, and that is just because the moisture kills the compact flourescents.

    Telling people they are too poor to pay for them is wrong-headed. That’s Walmart thinking. This light costs too much. This shirt is too good. It costs too much for you. That $800 table costs too much for you. It will only last 50 years. Get this cheap one for $100 dollars that will look good for 5 years.

    They aren’t more popular because the economic benefits haven’t been pushed and people identify them with eco-geeks. Instead of telling people the capital expense is too high, convince them to serve their own self interest.

    And move out of California if it so pleases you.

  11. February 1st, 2007 at 5:56 pm
    Stropp said

    I saw some interesting figures a couple of months ago, sorry it was in the local newspaper, so I don’t have a link. (Newspaper… how primitive!) Anyway, the article made the assertion that if every incandescent lightbulb in Australia was replaced with a low wattage bulb, the energy saved would be the equivalent to a medium sized nuclear power plant.
    Now considering Australia doesn’t have any nukes at this stage, nearly all our power comes from coal and gas, those energy savings would reduce our greenhouse emissions substantially.

    I’m not a big supporter of government control. I often lament the nanny state mentality of our government, but it is important for governments to regulate certain things. Speed limits for instance. Corrupt and unethical business practices for another.

    Sometimes a good thing can be achieved by prompting the people with a little regulation.

  12. February 1st, 2007 at 7:53 pm
    Chris Cree said

    OK. How about a technical tangent question for someone who knows more than me? (Yes. Yes. I know that category includes all y’all, as they say down here in Georgia.)

    Is electrical production a zero sum game?

    What I mean is, I get what happens when there isn’t enough electricity in the system. Brownouts and blackouts.

    But is there ever a problem of too much electricity in the system? They don’t store up the excess for later on like putting hay in a barn, do they? How do they know exactly how much is going to be consumed so that they produce the right amount?

    (I know. I know. My ignorance is showing.)

  13. February 1st, 2007 at 8:26 pm
    Rick Cockrum said

    My ignorance shows here, too, but I think it’s more like a car. You want to speed up (increased demand), so you put your foot on the gas, the engine spins faster, delivering more power to the wheels. You take your foot off, the motor slows down, supplying less power. As long as you stay in operating limits, everything is cool. The motor will only supply up to a certain amount of power. The less you demand, the less it supplies. The less you supply, the less fuel you use.

  14. February 1st, 2007 at 10:15 pm
    Jeff Brown said

    Rick - And move out of California if it so pleases you.

    An excellent example of a liberal with nothing else to say. They resort to a personal attack.

    >Even when they cost $20 apiece and I made $5.25 an hour I used them, because they saved me money.

    You bought those $20 lights while earning a whole $10,920 a year? And you lived in California? When 1958? You were either living with your parents, or your wife was making some serious coin at the time.

    What you’ve said is while making $5.25/hr you decided to take 9.5% of your weeklly GROSS pay to buy one light bulb? If that isn’t the kind of thinking that proves government should stay out of my personal decision making, I don’t know what is.

    If the average guy can’t see the evil in state government telling him what light bulb he can buy, then the dumbing down is officially a success.

  15. February 1st, 2007 at 10:31 pm
    Chris Cree said

    Hey, Guys! Let’s all play nice here or we’ll loose our crayons and our drawing privileges.

    Good people can genuinely disagree and still be good folks.

  16. February 1st, 2007 at 10:41 pm
    Jeff Brown said

    Chris - Please indicate where I’ve spoken of anything but behavior. There’s been nothing personal said in anything I’ve posted.

    If any comment can be made which is not supportable factually, should we ignore it in order to be caught playing nice?

    Nonsense is nonsense any no matter the crayon used. My comments are not, and never have been personal. Of course, being told to leave the state if I wish was very personal. Undressing that comment for what it was is what blogging is all about. Words have meaning - and running away from their meaning gets us nowhere.

    If my stating the obvious is offensive to some, maybe it’s time they either face up to the truth, or come up with a convincing argument. If I told my 15 year old nephew that a man was supporting himself on $5.25 an hour any time in the last decade, AND he was spending his hard earned money on $20 light bulbs, he’s look at me like the RCA dog, and for good reason.

    Chris, it’s obvious how you view the world, and I suspect we’re mostly rowing the same boat. Nice means you’re taking on the behavior or the thinking, not the person. That’s what I’ve done.

  17. February 2nd, 2007 at 7:03 am
    Chris Cree said

    Jeff, I realized as I was lying in bed last night that my crayon comment might be misunderstood as condescending. I’m not the type of person to say “we” when I mean “you”. I meant me too.

    My point in the crayon comment was that if all of us (myself included) don’t play nice here then I will self censor and stop writing opinion posts like this here at Successful-Blog (effectively “loosing” my drawing privileges).

    Liz’s # 1 rule is be nice, and I don’t want be inciting potential riots on her blog. Or even be creating an environment where folks get so passionate about their comments that they unintentionally say things that are less than nice.

    Me, I grew up in New York and I’ve got pretty thick skin and I can laugh at myself when others disagree with me (most times).

    But I also know there are many folks out there who are much more sensitive to what is said about them. I don’t want to create an environment here that drives those folks away from Liz’s blog.

    I’ll pick on a couple of your remarks here specifically. One, because you asked, and two because you know we do pretty much agree on a lot of the underlying stuff here. Please understand I could point to others and make these same kind of points, (and perhaps even my original article).

    You opened comment #9 with “Jeremy - It’s bad enough you can’t see the forest for the trees, now you feel free to enforce your beliefs on others.” I read that and thought, “Ouch. Well I guess Jeremy won’t be back now.” Seemed a little personal to me.

    Then in comment #16 you opened by stereotyping Rick and claiming he had nothing to say then closed it by saying that all who disagree with you are dumb.

    I don’t have a clue how Rick feels, but I can see how some folks might be offended by that. Perhaps a bunch who might not have commented yet but now are may be having second thoughts about ever commenting here.

    My goal of this post was to stimulate some discussion about the idea of government regulation: how much is too much? My hope was that we could look at the pros and cons of the ideas and all gain insight from the ensuing discussion.

    I nearly didn’t run this post after I wrote it because I thought I might have been a bit too inflammatory for Successful-Blog. So maybe I’m being hypersensitive.

    I just don’t want to be creating an environment where folks are afraid to post their opinion because they will get flamed by someone who disagrees with them.

    I don’t think we’re at that point. I just want to be sure we don’t go any further in that direction.

    I hope that answers your question, Jeff.

  18. February 2nd, 2007 at 8:19 am
    Rick Cockrum said

    Jeff, The California remark was uncalled for. I apologize for it. It didn’t add to the discussion, and wasn’t aimed at you personally. When I made it I had no idea where you live. I’ve never lived in California, and have never had a wish to do so.

    To say don’t spend $20 dollars on something that will save you $40-$60 dollars over it’s lifetime doesn’t make sense to me.

    Chris, I’m sorry I steered the direction of the thread more from your point, the amount of governmental regulation of our lives, to the benefits of using the CF bulbs.

    With the cost of the CFs comparable to incandescents now (and you don’t have to buy them at Walmart), I don’t see how forcing their use will hurt people in lower income brackets. Whether their use should be forced, about that I’m on the fence.

  19. February 2nd, 2007 at 9:18 am
    ME Strauss said

    Hi guys,
    Folks are still sleeping in California . . . but I know another voice will be heard from.

    I know all three of you, and you are three of the best guys I could imagine. Character, intelligence, integrity, passion for what you do and what you believe in — that describes you all.

    I’m proud to have you all as my friends. The world would miss you, if you were gone.

  20. February 2nd, 2007 at 10:36 am
    Ken said

    How about some facts. Two months ago I bought a 4 pack of these “long lasting - thus cheaper” fluorescent bulbs. Within 30 days two of the 4 had burned out. So what’s this claim about long-lasting bulbs? I suppose some statistics expert could explain how those bulbs cost less, but I would just have one more reason not to believe statisticians.

  21. February 2nd, 2007 at 11:30 am
    Jeff Brown said

    Rick - I just think we’re both passionate thinkers, if that makes sense to you. It’s becoming clear to me you’re just a guy like me who really has no unkind intent. I apologize to you for not responding in a kinder gentler way. You deserved better.

    Chris - I never took anything you’ve said here as condescending. I understood your crayon comment pretty much the way you intended. Sometimes I don’t filter my side of the conversation in a way that puts me in a better light. :)

    Incredible as it sounds, it wasn’t my intent to be personal, but rather address ideas. It’s clear that I failed miserably in my attempt to execute that intention. Please accept my apology.

  22. February 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 pm
    Chris Cree said

    OK Cool. I have some friends that love to debate like I do. We sometimes get intense about it but we both understand each other and are totally OK with our intensity.

    Unfortunately others around us often think we are getting angry with each other and don’t like being around us when we get into our debates. (My wife is one of those people.) They don’t get our style.

    In the same way there are bunches of folks who hang out here at S-B who may not be saying much, but are listening. I try to keep them in mind as I go back and forth here.

    Now about them light bulbs…

  23. February 2nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
    Rick Cockrum said

    Ken, I would have taken them back and tried to get my money back or exchanged them. They shouldn’t have gone like that. I’ve had a couple of bad bulbs, but nothing like 50%. Bathrooms are the only environment I’ve seen them not do well in.

    Jeff, no worries. I let myself get upset about the reference to ‘poor’ people, and I shouldn’t have. I’m sorry. Some people are poor, and buy cheap things. Their poverty is on the inside. Some people are in a lower income bracket, and buy the best things they can afford to get their money’s worth. I’ve been both. There is a difference.

    I’ve got to admit, it was interesting being referred to as a liberal.

    None of this addresses Chris’ issue about whether the government should regulate what type of light bulbs we can buy. There are few people who would say all government regulation is bad. The question is, how do you decide where to draw the line?

  24. February 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
    Chris Cree said

    Bingo! Where should the line be drawn?

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

C'mon Let's Talk!