Because progress and saving money on light bulbs infringes on our freedom?
Energy-efficient light bulb deadline delayed: "The federal government wants to delay by two years its deadline requiring all new light bulbs sold in Canada to be energy efficient."
The delay allows new better LED etc replacements at reasonable prices to become available.
But of course, if people voluntarily buy new lighting, that also takes away from any reason to ban the alternative old incandescents!
Therefore the lack of logic in a ban, either way: If a new product is preferred to the old one, why ban the old one? (No point, little savings) If an old product is preferred to the new one, why ban the old one? (No point, the old one is better) Think about it.
No-one was calling for “a ban on energy guzzling radio tubes” (similarities with incandescents) when they were abundant, and newer transistors (similarities with LEDs) were arriving on the market. The tubes got used less anyway – but are still appreciated for special uses.
No one is "banning" anything. There's a new efficiency standard to light bulbs. If incandescents can meet the standard, they remain. This is no different than regulating fuel efficiency for cars. The price of purchase may be higher but the duration of the bulbs is much longer.
I would disagree about it not being a "ban": Regulations that set allowable standards on products, is the same as banning any product that does not meet those standards
One can say that energy efficient incandescents like Halogens are temporarily allowed: phase-out by 2020 in US, 2016 in EU, and likely similar in Canada, and they have a whiter light and constructional differences, apart from being much more expensive for marginal savings, which is why neither consumers or governments like them (more on ceolas.net/#li0001x )
Post-ban EU sees them only available in certain shops and in a smaller range than in the simple incandescents they replace.
Certainly, a higher price might be compensated by lower running cost, but that should be an individual choice, given that there is no energy or electricity shortage (especially in Canada) to justify telling people how they can or can't use the electricity they pay for...
Besides, as referenced on the linked website, the overall energy savings are small and better achieved in other ways anyway, and if that was not so, the light bulbs could just be taxed and cross-finance expensive energy saving alternatives, both keeping choice and giving government income at the same time...
So standards for efficiency go up and we should oppose that? I could argue that it's my personal right to demand that Sony keeps producing VHS tape recorders. Raising efficient emission standards on oil refineries and cars is not controversial, so why would this be? In fact, because American regulation was so lax on fuel efficiency, they've dug themselves a gigantic hole versus their Japanese counterparts. Progress is a good thing.
The website referenced also claims that because they the incandescents release more heat, I save on heating with them. That's absurd. You might as well suggest that I shouldn't fix the leak in my faucet because it cleans my sink.
The savings? From the prices currently listed at the hardware store, I pay twice as much for the CFL bulb and it lasts 10x as long. Looks like a bargain to me.
That is good news...
ReplyDeleteDetails on why a ban in a country like Canada is particularly wrong
ceolas.net/#li11x
Smaller savings, no energy shortage, low emissions, cold conditions,
more time indoors in varied surroundings, etc...
The delay allows new better LED etc replacements at reasonable prices to become available.
ReplyDeleteBut of course, if people voluntarily buy new lighting,
that also takes away from any reason to ban the alternative old incandescents!
Therefore the lack of logic in a ban, either way:
If a new product is preferred to the old one, why ban the old one?
(No point, little savings)
If an old product is preferred to the new one, why ban the old one?
(No point, the old one is better)
Think about it.
No-one was calling for “a ban on energy guzzling radio tubes”
(similarities with incandescents) when they were abundant, and newer
transistors (similarities with LEDs) were arriving on the market.
The tubes got used less anyway – but are still appreciated for special uses.
No one is "banning" anything. There's a new efficiency standard to light bulbs. If incandescents can meet the standard, they remain. This is no different than regulating fuel efficiency for cars. The price of purchase may be higher but the duration of the bulbs is much longer.
ReplyDeleteThanks Michel,
ReplyDeleteI would disagree about it not being a "ban":
Regulations that set allowable standards on products,
is the same as banning any product that does not meet those standards
One can say that energy efficient incandescents like Halogens are temporarily allowed:
phase-out by 2020 in US, 2016 in EU, and likely similar in Canada, and they have a whiter light and constructional differences, apart from being much more expensive for
marginal savings, which is why neither consumers or governments like them
(more on ceolas.net/#li0001x )
Post-ban EU sees them only available in certain shops and in a smaller range than in the simple incandescents they replace.
Certainly,
a higher price might be compensated by lower running cost, but that should be an individual choice, given that there is no energy or electricity shortage (especially in Canada) to justify telling people how they can or can't use the electricity they pay for...
Besides, as referenced on the linked website,
the overall energy savings are small and better achieved in other ways anyway,
and if that was not so, the light bulbs could just be taxed and cross-finance expensive energy saving alternatives, both keeping choice and giving government income at the same time...
So standards for efficiency go up and we should oppose that? I could argue that it's my personal right to demand that Sony keeps producing VHS tape recorders. Raising efficient emission standards on oil refineries and cars is not controversial, so why would this be? In fact, because American regulation was so lax on fuel efficiency, they've dug themselves a gigantic hole versus their Japanese counterparts. Progress is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteThe website referenced also claims that because they the incandescents release more heat, I save on heating with them. That's absurd. You might as well suggest that I shouldn't fix the leak in my faucet because it cleans my sink.
The savings? From the prices currently listed at the hardware store, I pay twice as much for the CFL bulb and it lasts 10x as long. Looks like a bargain to me.