Do we need to ban incandescent bulbs?
- Thread starter StoveInNH
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
Well actually the question at the top is the poll. This is a discussion.There is a long history showing that the government breaks things. But let's stay on topic. This is a yes or no poll.
And yes the government has screwed up plenty. But so has the free market system.
NoGoodAtScreenNames
Feeling the Heat
As the 11th person to vote, I question if this rigorously designed poll would stand up to peer review for statistical significance…
That being said, the overwhelming consensus of the poll is that we ban them, so I don’t see why anyone in power would fear a backlash.
That being said, the overwhelming consensus of the poll is that we ban them, so I don’t see why anyone in power would fear a backlash.
Agreed. The phasing out of incandescents for general use lighting is an old topic. It has been a very gradual transition that now has reached conclusion. Special purpose bulbs are excepted.
I still use them in the winter when the 90% heat, 10% light is a good trade off!
I don’t count on them for heat, but when the cabin is less than 10F, any little bit of BTU love is appreciated!
I don’t count on them for heat, but when the cabin is less than 10F, any little bit of BTU love is appreciated!
I voted no because incandescent bulbs have already phased out on their own. I do not think the ban is necessary. However, the ban does not affect me too much either so I don't care. I do think LED bulbs are necessary to cut energy consumption so if people weren't adopting them on their own I would then support banning incandescent bulbs. And as others have noted, it's just a ban on standard "general use" bulbs, not all incandescents. I still can buy my lava lamp bulbs 🙂
Hah. You're on a forum, you're gonna get discussion whether you want it or not! 😉
It was the impending ban date and milestones set by the 2007 bill that got the ball rolling. Otherwise, I don't think much change would have happened.
tlc1976
Minister of Fire
That’s a good point. I do think that consumers would eventually all switch on their own once an alternative technology became an all around better value. Cheap enough, longer lasting, considerably more efficient, equivalent look and fit for fixtures and lampshades. CFLs didn’t do all that. It took awhile, but I see LED bulbs in Dollar Tree now.
But that can only happen if we have something to switch to. It’s cheaper and easier for manufacturers to just keep cranking out the same old incandescents. Unless a mandate is put in place for more efficient products (or unless there’s competition cutting into profits), there’s really no initiative to spend the resources to build something of a totally different design.
Yes. CFLs disappointed. We tried them and liked the lower power consumption and lifespan, but the slower warmup, dimmer and disposal issues negated the advantages. The final ban was not a unilateral move. Industry majors were part of the decision. This was supposed to take place a couple of years ago but was temporarily delayed.
bogieb
Minister of Fire
This poll is set in a section (The Green Room) that a lot of people probably don't visit. And the question is moot as there has been a planned ban anyway, so others may look at the question as trolling for inflammatory discussion that they have no wish to participate in.
So no, it wouldn't stand up to peer review.
This was not intended to be scientific. It's a poll . . . on an internet forum.
Not was a I trolling. Just looking to better understand the "temperature" here.
Yah, absolutely.
I was confused, I saw two different phrasings of the poll question.
The thread title was
"Do we [present tense] need to ban incandescent bulbs" - to which I would say no.
Then I see on the poll,
"Do you support the ban on incandescent bulbs" - to which I would say yes, because in 2007 when "the ban" was passed it was needed. So I changed my vote to yes since I think this was the actual question being voted on.
I also agree that this was a bit of a leading question since there was never an actual ban on all incandescent bulbs per se, only certain types that do not meet the general lighting efficiency standards.
We had free markets in the past. You never learned about the oil and railroad barons, Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle", or the medical quackery in the USA before regulation came along? The top 1% will be fine but not most of us.
bogieb
Minister of Fire
Huh, I could have sworn this thread was in the Green Room section, but it ain't, so I stand corrected (I can't believe that no one called me out on that
)
sloeffle
Minister of Fire
You realize we are NOT sending kids down into mines or having them work ( which they still do BTW - those regs seem to be really working ) in slaughter houses. We are talking about light bulbs.
I don't mean to railroad this thread, but the comment I quoted has nothing to do with light bulbs either.
Last edited:
Sadly the free market does not have a track record of properly accounting for the cost of environmental pollution, including CO2 emissions, which is going to seriously bite us in the a$$. You might not think it's as bad as sending kids down mines but climate change is having a real and significant negative impact on every human being on the planet and the outlook is only getting worse for future generations.
Throughout modern history, humanity and profits have been treated as being exclusive from one another. Fixing Love Canal, the flaming Cuyahoga River, PCB intrusion in Pittsfield, MA, arsenic contamination in Tacoma, WA, etc. have not been cheap at all. Superfund cleanups have cost billions. Another billion has been earmarked in the IRA. And this doesn't touch the devastating effects of unchecked plastics production which is now in our food, air, and showing up in our bloodstreams. Then there are the forever chemicals (PFAS) which never break down in our bodies yet were pretty much unregulated until recently. There are hundreds of other examples of where industry did not regulate itself because it was not in the interest of profit and the shareholders. So we get bans, like getting the lead out of gas and recently for PFAS, to protect public health.
Fortunately, this is changing and greater mindfulness is showing up in some boardrooms. Unfortunately, it has often taken large lawsuits to bring about this awareness.
Fortunately, this is changing and greater mindfulness is showing up in some boardrooms. Unfortunately, it has often taken large lawsuits to bring about this awareness.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
Climate change is arguably worse than children in mines. However, since the children are still working despite the regulations, might as well just get rid of them and let the children work legally 😂😜
sloeffle
Minister of Fire
Since a moderator is running this topic down the toilet I might as well take it to the septic tank. 
First off, my initial comment was directed towards the topic of this discussion light bulbs. My comment has noting to do with kids working in slaughter houses, coatings on frying pans, the making of batteries, clean water, or plastic or gasoline production. I love how people spin one comment out to mean something else. 
Lets focus on the topic, light bulbs and only light bulbs. The majority of the people in this country buy based off price alone. Lets assume ( pretend world ) there's a hardware store near your house. You walk into that hardware store and a there's a LED bulb for $1, and a incandescent bulb costs $2. 99 times out of a 100 what are most people going to buy, they are going to buy the cheapest thing. The manufacturer of the incandescent bulb is going to realize via reduced sales volume that they aren't selling any bulbs. Most manufacturers that want to stay in business will probably switch to building LED bulbs for half the price. Since the manufacturer of the incandescent bulbs is no longer building those bulbs they will eventually disappear from the marketplace. No different than what GE or any other manufacturer has done over the last number of years.
First off, my initial comment was directed towards the topic of this discussion light bulbs. My comment has noting to do with kids working in slaughter houses, coatings on frying pans, the making of batteries, clean water, or plastic or gasoline production. I love how people spin one comment out to mean something else. Lets focus on the topic, light bulbs and only light bulbs. The majority of the people in this country buy based off price alone. Lets assume ( pretend world ) there's a hardware store near your house. You walk into that hardware store and a there's a LED bulb for $1, and a incandescent bulb costs $2. 99 times out of a 100 what are most people going to buy, they are going to buy the cheapest thing. The manufacturer of the incandescent bulb is going to realize via reduced sales volume that they aren't selling any bulbs. Most manufacturers that want to stay in business will probably switch to building LED bulbs for half the price. Since the manufacturer of the incandescent bulbs is no longer building those bulbs they will eventually disappear from the marketplace. No different than what GE or any other manufacturer has done over the last number of years.
I would buy an LED bulb for $2.99 over an incandescent bulb for $.99. it's still a better deal.
sloeffle
Minister of Fire
- Status
