How do you feel about regular light bulbs being banned?

The Javanese village I used to live in had a lot of very poor people. Thinking long term money is something you can't afford to do when you earn $20 to $40 per month.
Most still buy the newer bulbs.

 

The big lighting company Phillips has done so much advertising and lobbying in Indonesia, so that may not be so surprising.

In Indonesia, I suppose CFLs would in one way make more sense because it can be so hot and humid, and many people do not have air conditioners. But in another way, they might be worse. Indonesia is close to the equator, and people already probably get a high dose of UV radiation just being outside. I would imagine that even more UV from indoor lighting would not be a good thing. No one stays outside in direct sunlight all day; they would get sunburned. Our prehistoric ancestors sat, rested, and worked in the shade throughout much of the day. In places without trees they wore some type of covering over their heads and long robes.

So the government has to force them to make the right choice, for their own good? Should the government force me to buy my toilet paper only in value packs to save me money?


I have heard preferences for lighting differ between different cultures. The people in Northern Europe tend to prefer warm incandescent light that is reminiscent of fire, while people near the equator tend to prefer bright white lighting. People in Japan prefer much more bluish light. I wonder whether evolution could be a factor here. But of course, there are different personal preferences within every population.

I just absolutely need incandescent light. It does not really have anything to do with the color, I think. I really like natural sunlight too. It is just that incandescent light is so soft and easy on my eyes. I think it may be because it has such a continuous spectrum, even if it is so shifted towards the red side of the spectrum. I like the blue color of the "cool white" LEDs, but for some reason the light just seem a little too "harsh" to actually live/study/work under. I like sunligt and I like incandescent, but I find LEDs a little too "off", whether their color temperature is 2700K or 4900K. So it's not about the color. But that is just my opinion. I've talked with other people online who say they have always preferred fluorescent lighting over incandescent, something I just cannot understand, but that is just their preference, I guess. In any case, I think it is important to recognise that subtle differences in the quality of lighting are very important to some people, and not just brush it off and think all light is just the same. To regulate the type of light people can use in their own homes, well, that just seems intrusive and callous to the desires/needs of certain people.

Is there not some other way to reduce energy consumption without taking away options for the small number of people who feel really strongly about the issue? LED lighting is really not that wide spread right now, so we really cannot know how all the consumers will respond. Perhaps some won't be able to stand it. So why has the government already mandated it for the future? In the USA, Canada, and the European Union.

I think Phillips, GE, and Osram have been the reason for this world-wide phase out. They stand to make enormous profits when peoples only option becomes high-priced LED lighting. You can make whatever environmental and economic arguments you like, but I am sure there would not have been such relatively coordinated action among so many different governments in the world if it had not been for the lobbying from these three big lighting companies. With the price of an LED bulb (that actually puts out enough light for a room) being well over a 100 times that of the old incandescent bulbs, you really have to wonder what the real motives behind this phase out are.

 

No one needs to force them.
They're bright enough to know the CFs are far superior.
Old old fashioned, inefficient lamps are easily available but only the very poor bother buying them and only then, because they can't afford the better ones.

 

So why is it that most people do not buy homes with flourescent tube lights in the ceillings? Fluorescent tube lights have been around several decades before CFLs.

There are many people that hate the flourescent lighting in their kitchen, so they rip it out and replace it with incandescent lighting. When my mother was looking for a new house, one of the things she specifically wanted was a kitchen without overhead fluorescent lighting.

 

I'd just use LED strips.
Go into the standard fitting and work.
Easy.

 

Just my personal preferences, but if I was remodelling my kitchen I would have about 40% of the light come from (3000K bright white) LEDs and 60% come from halogens.
While I do not really like the light from LEDs themselves, in combination with halogen they can help push the spectrum more toards the bluer side. The halogens also have plenty of the deep red frequency light that the LEDs are lacking, so even adding just a little halogen light can significantly improve the color rendering. Incandescent/halogen light also has more cyan (green-blue) frequency light than blue, that can can really help even out the depression in cyan frequency light between the yellow-green and blue in LEDs.

 

That is your opinion

http://www.richsoil.com/CFL-fluorescent-light-bulbs.jsp

 

It's easy.....it's the Mayor's electric bill, not the government's so the government doesn't have to worry about what the Mayor uses to illuminate his palace.

 

I think this is a great step, and should be followed by other nations. Incandescent light-bulbs unnecessarily waste energy and finite resources; it would be stupid, in most cases, to use them over the more efficient alternative. It's government intervention on a large scale like this which is needed to prepare our world for a sustainable future.

 

What about the arguments that the new "energy efficient" bulbs may not reduce CO2 emissions nearly as much as is claimed? (especially in cold climates)

And what about the fact that some people are not satisfied with the quality of light from the new energy efficient bulbs?
Interior designers and artists are already complaining that CFLs make their colors look off, or that LEDs make rooms look less vibrant and greyish.

Is a forced phase out of "inefficent" products really the best and fairest way to help the environment? Wouldn't the fairest way be to just tax the electricity? Someone with the old incandescent bulbs, who is careful to turn them off when they are not using them, is still using less energy than someone else who has switched to CFLs but leaves them all on in his house when he is not using them. Are you telling me that even if I do everything else to help the environment, I can still not be allowed to enjoy having an incandescent light bulb on?

 

Wow, yet another poll I do not vote in, because there is no "other", and none of the choices are even close.

Personally, I think this ban may someday come around to bite us in the bottom.

Yes, the flourscent bulbs use less electricity. But they also operate with the use of mercury.

Flourescent lights work because of Mercury. In fact, most of them fail because all of the mercury in the lamp has been used up, and instead of being a gas or amalgum is now imbedded in the glass or plastic walls of the tube.

So the end result, we are going to be throwing away more and more mercury into out landfills in the future.

 

The very idea of banning something that was on it's way out is absurd. It would be like banning horse drawn carriages. Stupid as hell. And you need incandescents for some locations anyway.