Is this a good idea?

Question

I saw a Democrat propose a ban on incandescent lights in all homes and businesses with a fine if you still go on using them instead of new ones that burns less carbon. San Fran is also banning people to smoke outdoors to save carbon monoxide.
Wonder why they don't try to ban the private yachts and private jets they all use? How many people would like to change or could afford to change all your lighting systems? Seems like they are taking global warning on so they don't have to answer some of the questions like gang killings and the war over seas.
I think I would rather see them try to solve these matters first.

Answer 1

Do you work for Fox..what a spin!

Answer 2

I don't think it is going to happen tomorrow. As I understand it, people will be encouraged to switch to the more economical flurescent bulbs as soon as possible. Walmart and others are having huge sales etc. in an effort to help make this happen.

If they seriously believe everyone is going to change out perfectly good light bulbs all at once they're crazy. I for one like the idea of the new bulbs but do not plan to change any until I run out of what I have. The transition may be slow. I have a few of the incandescent bulbs left unused and average replacing one about every 5 or 6 months. I also have lights on dimmers. Flurescent lights don't work on dimmers so those will have to remain incandescent. I hope they don't mind if 909% of my house has flurescent and the other 10% is incandescent out of necessity because of dimmers.

Answer 3

Actually San Francisco did not try to ban smoking outdoors, it was the town of Belmont which sits about 25 miles south of San Francisco.

The purpose of the smoking ban had nothing to do with global warming, but had to do with peoples health and the effects of second hand smoke.

Incandescent Lighting is a whole other issue, and reducing the use of that lighting system will not only have a positive effect on the
environment but also go along way to reduce our need for foreign oil.

In my opinion neither bill will pass.

Edit for Daisykristina:

In California most utility companies subsidize the purchase of compact florescent light bulbs so the cost is comparable to that of traditional light bulbs, so no matter how one tries to spin it the facts are the facts.

Answer 4

I agree that there are other issues that are more imporant and I think most are focused on those...

... I don't see most people in the party discussing this issue overall... kind of like banning guns... while some support the idea... it's not a focus of the party as a whole...

and they have talked quite a bit about the Iraq war... in fact much more about it... than lightbulbs

Answer 5

You know I actually do have all energy-effiecient light bulbs in my home (just white light ones) because they save me money...but if they do pass a law like that - guess what? The price of those light bulbs will go through the roof and won't save me money anymore :(

Answer 6

Good example! It gets added to my list. See - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar7RuizfJGrrz3DsgZcyDevsy6IX?qid=20070315102725AAzL9i8

These are the very people who stand in defense of our civil liberties on most counts, so it doesn't make sense. I bet they are pro-choice. Seems a misnomer.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

Answer 7

See what happens when you let them pass a seatbelt law. Give an inch and lose a mile.

Answer 8

If a liberal suggested it, the first thing you do is grap your wallet, because it is going to cost you.

Answer 9

I'd like to see them try and pass that. very doubtful.