

Ireland becomes the first country in the world to ban the incandescent lightbulb - rms
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gormley-lights-the-way-with-ban-on-bulbs-1240074.html

======
tomjen
I have said it before, I will say it again: You can have my lightbulbs when I
can have your cars, trucks, ships and airplanes.

------
BrandonM
Of course, this ignores the mercury that is present in fluorescent bulbs, as
well as the use cases for incandescent bulbs e.g. as heat lamps and in areas
where lights are frequently turned on for short periods before being turned
immediately off again (like in a stairwell). I agree with another comment that
taxing is a better solution than outright banning, but I'm just not sure where
I stand at all, because banning something that is clearly better in some
scenarios just seems stupid.

As for the mercury issue, fluorescent light bulbs are much more difficult to
dispose of safely. I was reading an article by the Sierra Club (an
environmental group) which was arguing that if fluorescent light bulbs use 1/3
the energy of incandescents, and all of that energy is produced by burning
coal, then the amount of mercury in the bulbs is approximately equal to the
amount of coal saved over 5 years (I'm estimating here, but this was the
general idea). Not exactly the most flattering numbers if you ask me.

~~~
BrandonM
I just hunted down the link to the article I was talking about:

<http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200707/mrgreen_mailbag.asp>

Note the required cleanup procedures. I think they really need to advertise
these types of things a little better. My roommate broke one earlier this year
and cleaned it up the same way someone would clean up an incandescent.

------
Tichy
If the energy saving light bulbs are so much better, why don't people use them
voluntarily? Something doesn't add up?

~~~
pg
They cost more. Also, fluorescent light is unpleasantly cold, and some
fluorescent bulbs take a few moments to start up when the power is turned on.

I disagree with these regulations. The kind of lighting you use in your house
greatly effects what it feels like. It's a very personal thing for the
government to interfere with-- like banning certain styles of clothing because
they're wasteful. Why not just tax incandescent bulbs till they cost more than
fluorescents?

~~~
davidw
On the right track, but it might be even better to do a carbon tax rather than
a tax targeting one product that is wasteful: it's CO2 that is associated with
negative externalities, so the most direct approach is to internalize those
externalities by levying a tax on carbon, rather than attacking wasteful users
of electricity piecemeal through taxes or bans.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club>

~~~
BitGeek
Why do so many people talk about "negative externalities" when they don't even
understand basic economics? Its like some liberal ideological center picked up
a phrase, told people some vague idea of what it meant, and then got people to
advocate it as a justification for ideas whose economic underpinnings having
nothing to do with what they think they do.

The bottom line is, your attempt to internalize externalities is proof that
you don't know what you're talking about because externalities by definition
cannot be internalized.

All this liberal economics is just like that last wave of liberal economics
that resulted in 100 million deaths over the period from 1900-2000, only it
isn't united under a common term like "socialism" or "communism" but it
amounts to the same-- totalitarianism sold as being "good for you".

~~~
davidw
I understand the economics just fine, thanks, and one of the big proponents of
the carbon tax is republican economist Greg Mankiw (see Pigou Club link).

If I were to respond in kind, I would say that libertarianism seems to be a
willful ignorance of the very concept of a market externality, as understood
by mainstream economics. Certainly, reasonable people can agree to disagree on
what specific things constitute externalities in which cases, how bad they
are, and what measures, if any, should be taken to correct them - and indeed
if those corrective measures are worse than the problem they cure.

However, denying the very existence of factors that are not taken into
consideration by a free market seems to be letting your beliefs get the better
of reason. And comparing any government intervention with communism is a bit
beyond the pale, really.

~~~
BitGeek
No, you don't understand economics, and you concede this point when you use
the phrase "mainstream economics"... this is a common tactic of socialists to
try and cover the fact that they are substituting political ideology for
economics.

Economics is a science. ITs not uncommon for those who will not make a
scientific argument to instead knock down strawmen, as you just have.

Of course, you threw out enough buzzwords that those who don't look too close
will believe you made a counter argument.

~~~
davidw
What you might consider doing, if you don't agree with the economics, is point
out the errors in my logic rather than continue to attack my understanding of
economics (which is an awfully broad conclusion to reach from a few comments
in any case, I might add). And included in that, for the sake of discussing
the economics, is that CO2 emissions are in some way harmful, even if you
don't happen to believe that.

------
BitGeek
The ironic thing is, the entity that causes the most pollution (in every
country) is that countries government... and the entity causing the most
energy waste is generally the government as well.

It never ceases to amaze me how people are so willing to put guns and violence
behind their political ideologies. This is probably because they don't realize
that is what they are doing-- but every law is backed up by a guy holding a
gun and pointing it at someone who breaks it.

ARe you willing to go to someone's house, and take his incandescent light
bulbs and shoot him if he resists? You think that's Moral?

Cause that's what this law does, and it is no more moral if you advocate
someone else doing it even if you are unwilling to do it yourself.

------
pchristensen
If anyone wants to learn more about how energy use can be cut drastically in a
profitable way, listen to these presentations at Stanford by Amory Lovins of
the Rocky Mountain Insitute. He is basically the foremost expert in the world
on this kind of stuff. Best few hours I've spent in the last while:

<http://sic.conversationsnetwork.org/series/si-energy.html>

------
theoneill
<http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/world_first_aus.php>

~~~
rms
Australia passed a law first but Ireland is putting it into practice much
faster. They're not for sale in Ireland by 2009 and gone in Australia by 2012.

------
BitGeek
Typical, government will stick a gun in people's face just to make them be
"politically correct". Nevermind the consequences (or the chicks who will no
longer hatch because the heat source that powers the incubators is no longer
around... or the farmer who goes out of business because he can't afford to
buy thousands of new incubators... etc.)

Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

~~~
jsmcgd
I'm sure where incandescent bulbs are necessary allowances will be made.

~~~
BitGeek
Yeah, cause bureaucracies are so caring. I notice that I've been modded
down... I guess anyone not goosestepping along will not be tolerated.

