"A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs."
For full article see
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/energy_california_lightbulbs_dc
2007-01-31 02:45:18 · 12 answers · asked by Seeker 4 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
I'm extremely and painfully light sensitive and CFLs are terrible for me. They zap my energy and wear me down with their brightness, even the "warmer" ones. I hope my state doesn't go through with this unless better shading options or better CFLs come along. Can you imagine a black market for incandescent lightbulbs?
2007-02-01 16:17:07 · answer #1 · answered by freed 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a sales person for a lighting distributor, I'm rather against this idea. It not only takes away our rights, but seems totally ridiculous IMHO. Sure, we do save electricity, but there are several applications as to which a CFL/FL won't fit (or look good) within certain environments, whether commerical or residential.
It's bad enough that we already have Title 24 (law in which we're supposed to use atleast 50% of FL in kitchens...I think).
I think this lawmaker really should spend a year learning all the pros and cons of lighting in general (there's a lot to learn).
2007-02-07 09:07:13 · answer #2 · answered by ladysecretz 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Did a quick walk through of my house. Most of the bulbs are specialty sizes and shapes. Maybe 20% are directly replaceable with the high efficiency lights. If I did all the recessed lighting I could jack it up to around 70% but that would wreck the directional lighting effects designed into the structure.
Hope my frequently silly but well intentioned state modifies this bill before they vote.
I'd rather not have to go to Nevada to buy bulbs. But wait! Lake Tahoe, skiing, and hiking are on the way! Hooray!
2007-01-31 12:05:05 · answer #3 · answered by Craig H 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hope they make them last a little longer, those bulbs have a bit of mercury in them, so hopefully they will watch their landfills and make sure they doing poison their groundwater. Otherwise its a good idea that can save alot of energy, Though it is getting close to crossing a line by making it a law that you cant use them. I'm sure it will be one of those things where they just cant sell any more of them.
2007-01-31 12:05:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Seems reasonable. I use all florescent bulbs. I used to buy 60 watt light bulbs to save money. Now for some parts of the home, I buy 100 watt florescent and use less energy than the 60 watt bulb. They use about 5x less power and can last up to 10x longer.
2007-01-31 02:53:58 · answer #5 · answered by Big C 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You can't even take a s*it in this country anymore without breaking a law. If someone wants me to use diffrent light bulbs, encourage me, not force.
2007-02-08 02:20:41 · answer #6 · answered by Azalea 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It sounds good to me as only 5 percent of the energy they used is transferred into light.
2007-02-08 02:20:23 · answer #7 · answered by Krayden 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I just read that story this morning. Frankly, it's a good idea IMO..I keep promising myself I will buy CFL's next time I need bulbs and keep forgetting. They sure as heck last a lot longer too!
2007-01-31 02:49:49 · answer #8 · answered by sage seeker 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A very good idea, innovative and probably the need of the hour. But if other sources of energy other than electricity is used they should allow it.
2007-02-07 17:58:31 · answer #9 · answered by vijubhai 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I actually sell these at my job. People rave about savings. This is what Government is supposed to be doing...Making laws for the benefit of its citizens, not taking away our rights.
2007-02-06 14:58:05 · answer #10 · answered by nostromobb 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋