Ahh, so you're saying that we should do without our advances in technology then eh? Back to the stone age with us? Those hunter-gatherers sure had the life. Never mind the high infant and mother mortality rates, very short lifespans, and extremely poor quality of life. ;)
I have LED lights in some areas of my house. They're really good for flashlights however. You can replace most of the lights in a car with LEDs or Lasers, but the headlights are a different story. I don't see them finding a bright enough replacement for halogens using LEDs anytime soon. Stupid though, because the car light bulbs cause only an minimal increase in fuel consumption. The only reason to go with LED lights is their faster reaction times and the fact that you basically never need to switch them out.
I know people who actively eliminate florescent lights from their workplaces because it hurts their eyes and drys out the air around them. I seriously dislike them because of their perceptible flicker in my peripheral vision and the irritating noise caused by their ballast units. Said ballast units also go out nearly as often as incandescent bulbs. That said, I have them in my house, just not in any place I'm going to spend more than 5 minutes at a time in. (They're in the bathroom, hallway, closets, kitchen, etc.)
What these legislators fail to understand is that what is good for them is not necessarily good for everyone else and there are always situations for which they have not accounted. If they want to discourage these types of bulbs, there's things they can do without being utterly wonkish and anti-freedom. One is, they could give tax credits and discounts to people who utilize a higher percentage of cf bulbs in their house as opposed to incandescent. They could also work with manufacturers to decrease the costs, and have campaigns highlighting the benefits and decreased costs of these bulbs. On the slightly more wonkish side, they could put a sin-tax on incandescent bulbs, bringing the price in closer parity. Of course, what they did instead is the absolute most policywonkish thing they could do, they ban them outright. I guess that's following in california's long history of tightening government control over the everyday lives of their citizens and circumventing the free market at every possible turn. Ahnold is even more of a democrat-in-republicans-clothing than Bush is.
Re: I was taught to cook with a real oven. If you want to cook with toys, eat playdough.
I have LED lights in some areas of my house. They're really good for flashlights however. You can replace most of the lights in a car with LEDs or Lasers, but the headlights are a different story. I don't see them finding a bright enough replacement for halogens using LEDs anytime soon. Stupid though, because the car light bulbs cause only an minimal increase in fuel consumption. The only reason to go with LED lights is their faster reaction times and the fact that you basically never need to switch them out.
I know people who actively eliminate florescent lights from their workplaces because it hurts their eyes and drys out the air around them. I seriously dislike them because of their perceptible flicker in my peripheral vision and the irritating noise caused by their ballast units. Said ballast units also go out nearly as often as incandescent bulbs. That said, I have them in my house, just not in any place I'm going to spend more than 5 minutes at a time in. (They're in the bathroom, hallway, closets, kitchen, etc.)
What these legislators fail to understand is that what is good for them is not necessarily good for everyone else and there are always situations for which they have not accounted. If they want to discourage these types of bulbs, there's things they can do without being utterly wonkish and anti-freedom. One is, they could give tax credits and discounts to people who utilize a higher percentage of cf bulbs in their house as opposed to incandescent. They could also work with manufacturers to decrease the costs, and have campaigns highlighting the benefits and decreased costs of these bulbs. On the slightly more wonkish side, they could put a sin-tax on incandescent bulbs, bringing the price in closer parity. Of course, what they did instead is the absolute most policywonkish thing they could do, they ban them outright. I guess that's following in california's long history of tightening government control over the everyday lives of their citizens and circumventing the free market at every possible turn. Ahnold is even more of a democrat-in-republicans-clothing than Bush is.