Are there any reasons for any nation to not phase out incandescent light bulbs for neon and LED lights?

Question

The global warming on mars thing is a classic misdirection or a "wagging of the dog" by the right because they lost the arguement that man isn't causing global warming and there trying to change there talking point. And neon and LED bulbs can produce light just a natural looking as incandencent bulbs while being much cheaper by using less energy which would also conserve energy resources.

so if you think government banning anything is wrong and impeads your freedom then you must believe in the decriminalization of all drugs as well as not having anything be tested by the FDA or cars and trucks not being required to meet any minimum safety standerds, or not banning chemicals that cause the hole in the ozone layer, or in the restriction of chemical pollutents that cause cancer either.

People wouldn't come into your house to check your lightbulbs thats a tad bit paranoid isn't it? What I mean is phasing out the production and sale of the old style lightbulbs which would take several years. And neon and LED lights can produce the same spectrums and intensities of incadecents now.

Even if you don't believe in global warming isn't energy conservation a worthy goal in itself? Especially when considering it would help reduce dependence on foriegn oil?

Answer 1

Ever heard of a free market? It's the foundation of a capitalistic society. As cool as neon looks to the drug-addled, I prefer a cheap, reliable source of illumination. But thanks anyway.

PS- How do my light bulbs cause global warming on Mars? I'll burn whale blubber in oil lamps before I drink your kool-aid.

Edit: Evidence man is NOT the source of global warming is MISDIRECTION????? LMFAO!! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Look who's misdirecting now....

Answer 2

Neon and L E D just don't give out enough good white light for most working applications. Especially economical light for homeowners and light industrial uses.L E D technology needs to advance quite a bit before it can make a good work light for mechanics as an example. The technology for tail lights and signal lights on trucks is very good and improving.

Answer 3

Yes, because it isn't necessary. What they neglect to tell you is that Florescent bulbs use more power if they are turned off and on a lot, unlike conventional bulbs. Neon is not used for lighting a house or business.

This is just another way for the wackos to try to control your life

Answer 4

Yes. Neon is harsh and an orange/red in colour. LEDs are expensive, because many are needed to make a usable light. Unfortunately, incandescent is still the cheapest way to go.

Answer 5

It Is not necessary as Al Gore demonstrates. The cost of changing technologies and invoking a new government agency to do this doesn't make any sense, only more strain/drain on our economy and energy with no gain—only loss..

Answer 6

Yes, it violates freedom. We do not need government to tell us what light bulbs to use. Create more sources of energy and stay out of my life.

Answer 7

As long as we include LEDs. Strictly fluorescent isn't going to work. I have chandeliers that would look kind of stupid with those curly florescent. Also the florescent don't work with the dimmers.

Answer 8

So the lightbulb police can come into my house and fine me for using those evil incandescents? I don't think so.

Answer 9

only if they don't want to be responsible.
Change a lightbulb (or all of them) change the world.


(then go buy a hybrid - cars are the BIG problem )

Answer 10

Not really, given the energy savings.