Author Topic: Poll: Ban incadescent lights bulbs (Read 15880 times)

Ron Wenrich · « **on:** April 22, 2007, 07:04:44 PM »

Poll expires: May 7, 2007

Just in time for Earth Day. Australia and California are considering banning the incandescent light bulb. Good idea or not?

Dan_Shade · « **Reply #1 on:** April 22, 2007, 07:19:41 PM »

bad idea, some of us use light bulbs for more than light, light bulbs keep things from freezing all across north america.

I was madder than a wet hen when I found out that the "responsible" lightbulbs have mercury in them. just more rubbish from the envirowackos.

However, I think the CF bulbs are a good idea, but the masses should be aware of the other issues (disposal) related to them.

beenthere · « **Reply #2 on:** April 22, 2007, 07:36:51 PM »

My understanding is the dimmer controls on lights only work on incandescent bulbs.

Let people make that choice for themselves, don't need to make that decision for them.
The fluorescent bulb package says equivalent to 100 W incandescent bulb, and the level of light is more like a 50 W bulb.

If saving electricity is a goal, then cut out the multitude of lights shining in our parking lots and sales lots in every town and city. If security is the name of the game, put in good motion detectors. Then the lights will come on as people walk through. Let it be dark at night, unless light is needed. My 2 cents.

Same with farms and now the new country homes with all-night "security" lights. Shut 'em off, but put in motion detectors.....IMO.

Then if the light comes on, there may be a reason to check the area out.

Dave Shepard · « **Reply #3 on:** April 22, 2007, 08:01:42 PM »

I don't think they should be outright banned, but I do think we should try to use them only where they have a distinct advantage over CFs. I think we really need to do something about energy management. I agree with beenthere about all the sevurity lights. I have run into many second home owners that appear absolutely terrified about what might be "out there" at night. I would be more worried about what might be "out there" back in NYC, not the possum ambling around the yard.

Dave

Jeff · « **Reply #4 on:** April 22, 2007, 08:13:48 PM »

The most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. The waste from the spent : fluorescent bulbs is just as big of an environmental hazard or probably worse. At least the incandescents materials for the most part are inert. How many fluorescent bulbs will simply get broke and put into the environment when that is all we have, then how much energy will be spent to prevent or clean up that mess. Give me a break. Don't mess with one of the devices in our lives that give us the least trouble and the most return. Makes me want to go as deep in the woods as I can until the rest of the wackos go away.

Part_Timer · « **Reply #5 on:** April 22, 2007, 09:07:29 PM »

Beenthere I have them in the back bathroom and they do not work on the dimmers.

I have some of both. I use them where I like them and don't use em where I don't want to. The last thign I need is someone else telling me what to do. They are interfearing on Katie rights when they start doiing that

DanG · « **Reply #6 on:** April 22, 2007, 09:46:35 PM »

This is just another ploy of the enviro-terror groups to get morons to send them their money. As was mentioned in another thread, it is time for someone to make a documentary expose' of the environmental groups. Did you know it is currently illegal to throw a flourescent bulb in the trash? What will we do with all the expired ones?

Sprucegum · « **Reply #7 on:** April 22, 2007, 10:25:33 PM »

I feel the darkness closing in on me already

Onthesauk · « **Reply #8 on:** April 22, 2007, 10:27:55 PM »

May be a moot question soon anyway. My understanding is that they are very near to a white LED light bulb. Uses far less power then even the flourescent bulbs.

I'm up to about 40 percent flourescent on the property now but I"ve got a lot of dimmer switches in the house where I can't use them. They work well for a lot of applications, (I even use them with motion sensors out back.)

Brucer · « **Reply #9 on:** April 22, 2007, 10:36:25 PM »

Well, speaking as a sustaining member of the Green Party of BC, I gotta say ... "No way!"

Too DanG many politicians and well-intentioned people jump on the bandwagon without checking out the whole picture. What's the energy consumption of a Compact Flourescent bulb over it's lifetime (including manufacture and disposal)? What's the comparative damage to the environment -- making and disposing of them? What about the 15% of the population (including me) that get serious eye fatigue in a flourescent environment?

"Up north" here, in the winter the "inefficent" incandescent bulbs just add a bit of heat to the house and take some of the load off the electric furnace. In the summer I don't use the lights much 'cause I've got lots of windows.

And as many folks have already pointed out, dimmers don't work with flourescent bulbs. Gee, why do I have dimmer switches on my lights anyway? Could it be to adjust the light levels to what I need and no more?

Time for a little critical thinking, says I.

Don_Papenburg · « **Reply #10 on:** April 22, 2007, 11:06:17 PM »

The cost of manufacture is a moot point as you have paid that when you bought the bulb. Disposal , well that is what our county roads are for from the looks of things.
Iuse more of them latly ,but I make sure to get Daylight bulbs 6000K and over or they stay in the store. They work great in the trouble light . Hold up better than rough service bulbs don't turn the reflector into a meat burner. Actualy I prefer them over most of the 2 tube floresant shop lights that I have purchased in the last few years.
I am with others on the useless waste of lighting of parking lots streets business and farm yards. motion detectors motion detectors and more motion detectors .
Forget the law , let the free(controlled) market decide.

Fla._Deadheader · « **Reply #11 on:** April 23, 2007, 08:06:52 AM »

You use the same amount of electricity WITH a dimmer , as you do without. It is simply a rheostat. They get very worm inside the box.

Led's are already on the market. Most large trucks use them on the rear, and traffic signals are switching to LED's.

OneWithWood · « **Reply #12 on:** April 23, 2007, 12:12:04 PM »

I have issues with flourescents, though I use them where warranted. My issues are mostly noise and disposal.

Corley5 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 23, 2007, 12:38:25 PM »

I'm not in favor of banning them

I have replaced them all with the curly flourescents in the house. I did it to save some on the electric bill. I've seen no real difference

submarinesailor · « **Reply #14 on:** April 23, 2007, 01:20:06 PM »

As a Certified Energy Manager, should I step into this lively discussion?

Several of you jumped on the mercury thing; please take a close look at the DOE web site about CFL’s: DOE CFL Web Site. And before you make the statement “that it’s a government web site", the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) also strongly recommends them. This is a non-partisan group that certifies people around the world in energy management.

As for the poll, I voted "Yes"– But I KNOW there should be some exceptions:
-   Dan had a very good point about freeze protection. BUT, there are much more energy efficient ways of freeze protection. Heat tape and magnetic heaters are just a couple. Oh, BTW, I’m not an envirowacko – I hate them envirowackos as much if not more than most of you. I just like saving money.
-   Beenthere, we now have dimmable CFL’s. You just have to find them. CFL’s do have a reduced output; at the initial startup and at the tale-end of their life. Let them warm up and they have the same output (lumens) as incandescents.
-   Dan Papenburg is right about selecting the ones with a temperature of over 6000K. They are so much better than the lower (<6000K) ones.
-   FDH is right on both counts – same amount of power on dimmer systems and LED’s are great. But at this time, CFL’s are the best thing going, energy efficient wise, until LED become cost effective.

I don’t and didn’t mean to step on anyone’s toes on this. But based on all my energy training and experience. I believe CFL’s are the way to go – until LED’s are ready.

Bruce

wesdor · « **Reply #15 on:** April 23, 2007, 04:00:55 PM »

We built a new home 2 years ago and most of the bulbs are CFL. Having said that, I am rarely in favor of making choices for other people (banning in this case). As others have said, disposal is a real concern. On the positive side, we seem to use much less electricity each month and that is good for the pocketbook.

The real point to me is that people should be able to make up their own minds. Hopefully they will gather enough information to make the decision that is best for them.

mike_van · « **Reply #16 on:** April 23, 2007, 05:25:21 PM »

Up at the barn when it's zero F, the 100 w bulb comes on, the two tube shop light won't for about a half hour.

Larry · « **Reply #17 on:** April 23, 2007, 08:40:21 PM »

100% florescent interior lighting with a combination of tubes and CFL’s. My electric bill say’s smart choice, and my tired old eyes say thank you. With quality[/i] new T8 fixtures using electronic ballasts say goodby to hum, flicker, and problems with cold starts. Use proper tubes and the color rendition is excellent.

My head must of been in the sand about disposal of CFL’s...checked out the site Bruce posted and there does seem to be a problem...minute compared to other things to fret bout. Lets start a thread about using oil as blade lube.

Guess my opinion is let the market place sort things out...doubt that will ever happen...government will step up and make the choice for us. There already in the market place, as witness the migration from T12 to T8 low wattage bulbs.

PineNut · « **Reply #18 on:** April 23, 2007, 09:22:07 PM »

My vote is NO. I agree that they can be more energy efficient. However for an incandescent light, I turn it on when I need it and then off when I don’t. But the florescent lights typically get turned on early in the day and turned off at bedtime. They don’t put out sufficient light until they warm up and many times by then, I don’t need it any more.

Yes, you can get dimmable florescent lights but who wants to go to an electrical supply place and pay extra bucks to get them.

A similar example is low flow water faucets. When it flows fast enough, I turn the water on and collect what I need and then turn it off. But with low flow, I turn it on, place a container to catch the water and go do something else. Later I come back, turn the water off and pour out the excess. I may come back in a few minutes or on one occasion, it was the next morning (water running for 6 to 8 hours to collect one quart). So low flow or high efficient light bulbs is not always the best answer.

It is time politicians quit telling us how to live our lives.

Woodcarver · « **Reply #19 on:** April 23, 2007, 11:49:09 PM »

I voted no. We use CFL's, but the lamp by my reading chair has a three-way incandescent and our closet lights are incandescents.

Legal disposal here requires that you take them to the local landfill and pay a fee for their disposal. About a 20 mile round trip for us. I suspect most people are simply throwing them in the garbage.

DanG · « **Reply #20 on:** April 24, 2007, 12:05:38 AM »

Woodcarver, it'd be cheaper to box up your old wore out CFLs and mail them to your Congressman.

Woodcarver · « **Reply #21 on:** April 24, 2007, 12:20:42 AM »

Sounds like a good idea to me, Dang.

Paschale · « **Reply #22 on:** April 24, 2007, 01:02:37 AM »

I voted no. I find the light from florescent bulbs to be depressing. If there was a florescent bulb that had light identical to an incandescent bulb, I would consider it. I do have several in my shop, and they're quite bright, but I mix every other one with an incandescent bulb to make the light better. They even fire up fairly quickly in the cold weather, which has been surprising to me.

So far, I've always been able to tell when a bulb was florescent, even through a lightshade. I like clean, warm light, and florescent seems to be sterile, cold and feels incredibly antiseptic to me. Until they have lights identical to incandescent, they better keep their hands off of my bulbs.

Tom · « **Reply #23 on:** April 24, 2007, 11:23:32 AM »

Ben Franklin would be rolling in his grave.

Jeff · « **Reply #24 on:** April 24, 2007, 11:25:43 AM »

Maybe, but more likely Tom Edison.

Tom · « **Reply #25 on:** April 24, 2007, 11:27:03 AM »

Oh Yeah, I knew it was one of them inventer types that we used to have.

Jim_Wahl · « **Reply #26 on:** April 24, 2007, 12:09:46 PM »

I voted no, I mean know!
There is mounting evidence that the whole global warming (being caused by human activity) scam is the biggest hoax
in the history of science. I don't know how it will all pan out in the future, but right now I see the proponents of this scam
are the ones who want bigger government, higher taxes, and more oppressive laws against every ideal this country
was founded on. And, they are the least likely to be effected by whatever changes that will be forced on the rest of us.
It is estimated that compliance with the Kyoto Accord would cost the US $400 billion a year, and that is just for starters.
That estimate was for when it was first proposed and could be even more than that now.

There ought to be a law against lawmaking in Hollywood.

Jim_Wahl · « **Reply #27 on:** April 24, 2007, 12:15:10 PM »

Of course, the above is no excuse for being wasteful, though, either.

OneWithWood · « **Reply #28 on:** April 24, 2007, 01:58:23 PM »

I would much rather have spent the $400 billion on the Kyoto protocol and thus kick starting a real economic drive for cleaner energy and less dependence on petroleum based fuels than what we have been spending similar amounts on for the last five years with absolutely no return on the investment. $:-\$
It's all relative

Tom · « **Reply #29 on:** April 24, 2007, 02:07:37 PM »

Not me.

I want my relatives to be smarter than that.

leweee · « **Reply #30 on:** April 24, 2007, 02:34:51 PM »

and give up these symbols.

CFL's not recomended for outdoor use.
CFL's may be a fire hazard when they fail.

not a "bright" idea.
impending ban causes hording of incandesants,just what manufactuers want.
what next "light bulb cops".

Reminds me of the saying "The Lights are on , but no ones home"

treebucker · « **Reply #31 on:** April 25, 2007, 01:33:49 PM »

I put some CFs into a ceiling fan here. They came with a lifetime warranty. About 6 months later one failed. I lost the paperwork to return it. Since they can't be legally disposed of I guess I'll just have to fine a contry road somewhere and...

DanG · « **Reply #32 on:** April 25, 2007, 03:14:14 PM »

Treebucker, see reply #20, above.

The notion of the Government banning something as innocuous as the incandescent light bulb is absurd to the point of being disgusting. I'm all for conserving energy, and the new bulbs do save some, but I'm not convinced that the savings is all that great, overall. How much energy is consumed in the manufacture and disposal of the bulbs? I just bought bulbs at the grocery store the other day...3 bulbs for 49¢. That tells me that very little cost, energy or otherwise, went into the production and delivery of this product. That apparently isn't the case with CFLs.

There are many ways we can reduce energy consumption and reduce pollution at the same time, with NO inconvenience or expense to the public. Just to name a few:

1. Keep Daylight Savings Time year-round.

2. Change public school hours to match the work hours of the typical working parent, ie: 9-5. This would make it practical/possible for most folks to drop their kids off and pick them up without making a special trip, and reduce the number and size of school busses.

3. Utilize some of the heat(energy) that is constantly wasted in all sorts of industrial endeavors. Take the power plants themselves; They spend millions of dollars and expend bunches of energy just cooling the hot water that the plant generates.

How dumb is that?

How many bd/ft of lumber do you suppose that amount of heat could dry in a day? Ever seen a dry kiln at a power plant? Ever seen one of'em use this waste energy for ANYTHING?

You don't have to be big to recover wasted energy, either. Is your home air conditioned? Did you know you can pipe the hot side of your freon line into your water heater and have free hot water? It's cheap and easy to do, and works with most any electric water heater.

Anybody else got ideas?

Fla._Deadheader · « **Reply #33 on:** April 25, 2007, 03:50:05 PM »

Cut the plug off the Microwave.

treebucker · « **Reply #34 on:** April 25, 2007, 06:53:13 PM »

Quote from: DanG on April 25, 2007, 03:14:14 PM

Treebucker, see reply #20, above.

Sorry, I guess I missed that one. I was referring to Reply #19 by Woodcarver.

I didn't include the rest of your quote from Reply #32 but you and I must think alike.

I sure agree with everything you said and have gripped about every one of them before. Maybe the power plants think it will cost them something to give it away?

Larry · « **Reply #35 on:** April 25, 2007, 07:03:02 PM »

Quote from: DanG on April 25, 2007, 03:14:14 PM

Ever seen one of'em use this waste energy for ANYTHING?

Why yes...in Arkansas they heat up the cooling ponds and we can stock those fast growing Florida strain bass...and catch em all year round.

Furby · « **Reply #36 on:** April 25, 2007, 07:49:51 PM »

DanG, I don't think I know anyone that has kids and works from 9 to 5.

The nuke plants near here use the extra energy at low demand times to pump water into the pumped storage pond.
That water is then used to produce on demand electric at peak times.

Max sawdust · « **Reply #37 on:** April 25, 2007, 09:23:25 PM »

I am a "greeny" burn wood and all.
I do not like the color and high freq. flicker of fluorescent lights. I think if everyone had to live under them we would all be stressed out like a bunch of office people

AND it should be a choice, when they cost less than incandescent then well maybe I would consider it.
Why not have a smaller house and shut the lights out when you are done using them...

Many many other ways to save a energy.
Max
I voted a big NO

DanG · « **Reply #38 on:** April 25, 2007, 10:20:49 PM »

Quote from: Furby on April 25, 2007, 07:49:51 PM

DanG, I don't think I know anyone that has kids and works from 9 to 5.

The nuke plants near here use the extra energy at low demand times to pump water into the pumped storage pond.
That water is then used to produce on demand electric at peak times.

Furbster, you need to get out more. There are many millions of working parents who work 9-5, or thereabouts, in offices all over the world. Many of them work "flex" hours, such as 10-6, 7-3. In Tallahassee, there are about 150,000 of them working for the State, alone. A lot of the school kids have to catch the bus at 6:30, or even earlier, then they are out of school by 2:30, too early for their parents to pick them up as they pass by the school. The ninnies that run our so-called "public education system" dictate the schedules to suit their own convenience, while totally ignoring the fact that they are public servants. What's wrong with having flex hours at school? We're in a crunch for classroom space, as it is. If they would use them for 10 hours a day instead of 7, they could run almost 30% more students through the facilities they already have, and since they heat/cool/light most of them 24/7, they would save a significant amount of energy.

It is commendable that the nuke plants do their pumping during the slack times, but what are they doing with all that wasted energy in the hot water/steam that is left over? Right now, they're spending millions, and exhausting incredible amounts of energy to exhaust incredible amounts of energy into the atmosphere. That don't make no sense to me.

Sprucegum · « **Reply #39 on:** April 26, 2007, 01:29:37 AM »

The Canadian Gov't banned the bulbs

and they appear to be real proud of themselves for doing it

Anybody know an incandescent bootlegger?

Bill Johnson · « **Reply #40 on:** April 26, 2007, 02:37:22 PM »

Sprucegum

Doesn't it give that "warm fuzzy" feeling to know our gov't is looking after us and the environment.

We've changed most of in door bulbs to CFLs using replacing the old with the new as they burn out, haven't noticed any big change to my electric bill though (last one was $216 for March).

I don't think anyone will really dispute that anything one can do to reduce the amount of energy used is a bad thing but to have people jump on a band wagon simply so they can be seen to be doing something is foolish.

Ron Wenrich · « **Reply #41 on:** April 26, 2007, 05:32:39 PM »

DanG sounds like he's on a roll.

One area that you missed is more and more people are starting to work out of their homes. With cable and broadband, its easier to connect from home to the office computer. Add in cell phones, blackberries, and other do-dads, and there is less and less reason to go to the office. Just a couple of times a week to check in with the bosses.

I think this is a great idea. It reduces the need for office space, it utilizes space that is normally empty (most houses during the day), and there is a reduction in traffic.

As for the light bulbs, I have tried one florescent and I don't like the quality of light. I bought one of those round ones instead of a curly cue, so maybe that makes a difference.

thedeeredude · « **Reply #42 on:** April 26, 2007, 06:41:41 PM »

I vote no. I dont like the idea of the government banning anything. However, I think we should switch to more efficient bulbs and my idea of doing this is for tax credits to people who switch over to more efficient bulbs and other appliances. Tax credits will give incentive without a stiff arm ban from the g-man. just my hay penny.

Pilot · « **Reply #43 on:** April 26, 2007, 09:06:36 PM »

I would vote yes, but there are places where I don't think we have CFL's to do the job yet, but of course I could be wrong. Are there CFL's that will work in your oven? How about your refrigerator?

I don't know if people are contributing to global warming or not, but it makes sense to me to do the cheap & easy things until we know because the consequences of global warming are so serious. Since CFL's are cheap in the long run, I have been switching over as the old ones burn out.

Except in the oven & refer.

Tom · « **Reply #44 on:** April 26, 2007, 09:10:40 PM »

funny you mention that. I was wondering if movie theaters could project with Flourescents. I don't think so.

DanG · « **Reply #45 on:** April 26, 2007, 09:55:38 PM »

Do movie theaters even project anymore? I thought they were all just big TV sets, nowadays. 'Course, I ain't been to one in over 15 years, and don't have any plans to go.

ohsoloco · « **Reply #46 on:** April 26, 2007, 10:00:51 PM »

Yep, some of them still do. My aunt owns a movie theater here in town and she still gets her movies in big metal cases

Paschale · « **Reply #47 on:** April 26, 2007, 11:43:31 PM »

They still do it the old fashioned way, thankfully, because the old fashioned way still produces the best picture.

leweee · « **Reply #48 on:** April 26, 2007, 11:47:29 PM »

projector screen TV's use incandescent bulbs.

Wait till the rich folks catch on to this.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #49 on:** April 27, 2007, 06:19:46 PM »

I think they will be removed from the market here in Canada next year. I think we are adopting the idea from other commonwealth nations. We are always one step behind.

hiya · « **Reply #50 on:** April 27, 2007, 10:18:52 PM »

I see one place where energy can be saved! Some of these big houses
around here have more recessed lights in one room with 100-150 watt bulbs that only light up a small spot under the light. If they were surface mounted lights they would only need 1/4 as many.
We like flourescent light. easier to see fine work or reading. But than again I can't stand air condition, gives me a head ache.
Richard

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #51 on:** April 28, 2007, 03:24:11 AM »

What I can't figure out is why an office with big windows, letting in all kinds of sunshine to light the rooms, has to have all the lights on. At home there is never a light on in daylight and at night only to read or if I have to search for something.

Then again, I could never understand why a family living under one roof with 5 cars all have a single driver and no passengers in all five cars to go to the same place.

TW · « **Reply #52 on:** April 29, 2007, 01:55:42 PM »

I did vote for don't know.

There are a couple of factors involved, which need to be investigated.
1 As said before by others, do they fit everywhere?
2 Fluorecent light bulbs contain a small amount of mercury, which has to be taken care of properly, somehow.
3 Are there any possibility to ban anything else that would make a bigger difference without causing too much trouble?
4 I forgot the fourth factor while translating the others. Sorry

I would be in favour of a ban on big lighted christmas decorations and big lighted adverisement signs. It is stupidity to light plenty of extra unnecsessary light bulbs at midwinter when the energy consumption is high because of necsessary light and heat.
I am in favour of saving energy because we cannot produce enough to keep everybody satisfied.

Patty · « **Reply #53 on:** April 30, 2007, 07:55:18 AM »

I remember back in the early 70's where the place we lived didn't put up Christmas decorations. It was glum and incredibly sad way to not celebrate the holiday. I vote we leave the Christmas lights on, but cancel school except during daylight hours.

DanG · « **Reply #54 on:** April 30, 2007, 02:36:49 PM »

Quote from: TW on April 29, 2007, 01:55:42 PM

3 Are there any possibility to ban anything else that would make a bigger difference without causing too much trouble?

We could ban television. We would not only save the energy the tv sets are burning up, but people would turn off the lights and go to bed earlier.

thurlow · « **Reply #55 on:** April 30, 2007, 03:03:19 PM »

While we're banning, let's get rid of them 6 gallons-per-flush toilets.

I'd 'druther flush 3 or 4 times, anyway.

. We really need an "energy" czar at every level of government.........down to your local neighborhood association............to insure compliance. Think of all the jobs we could create.

"Sir, open up; your neighbor said you have some banned lightbulbs; turn on all your lights; while you're doing that, I'm going to flush your toilets and check your water usage."

Chris Burchfield · « **Reply #56 on:** April 30, 2007, 07:46:05 PM »

Elimination of IC's, NO! I've not had the initiative to investigate prior to this post. Thanks submarinesailor for your input on the thread. I anicipate you are an engineer and or have spent time on the maintenance of subs., where a minimum of required lighting for function, health and energy savings is required for efficient operation. Yep, potentially, billions of chicks would have not hatched without the incondecent(?) bulbs. Freeze protection, improper installation of heat tape has burned down many a barn cause it was purchased in a box store where the installer didn't read the directions. How many of us actually read the installation or "disposal" instructions by the manufacturer. If we did many a fire would be eliminated relating to space heaters. All that I've seen called for 36"s of clearance from combustibles. Every year since Jan.1, 1990 I've seen death in this country relating to space heaters too close to combustibles as published in the annual National Fire Protection Association Reports. I suspect man of the florecent hit the trash for land fill without the knowledge of proper disposal. I suppose a mix would be most proper without a government/ecomainiac enforced ban.

PineNut · « **Reply #57 on:** May 01, 2007, 12:00:54 AM »

Just read an news on slashdot.org giving one woman’s experience on compact fluorescent lights. Seems she broke it with the resulting mercury contamination. Made the mistake of getting EPA people in on it with the resulting requirement to get one of these environmental cleanup specialist involved. Cost her over $2000 to get it cleaned up. Now how long is it going to take to recover that? The article said over 11 years.

Fla._Deadheader · « **Reply #58 on:** May 01, 2007, 07:42:59 AM »

That's simply stupidity. Them EPA people don't even let a fart get outta the sack before they try to contain it

PineNut · « **Reply #59 on:** May 01, 2007, 08:54:06 AM »

Fla._Deadheader, you are more right than you realize. The EU is so concerned about emissions from cows that they are trying to take steps to prevent or contain it. They were saying that cows produce a large part of the greenhouse gases.

It is ironic that the environmentalist are so concerned about mercury and then they want to use lamps containing mercury. They apparently have a one-track mind (and the train is off the track.)

joelmar10 · « **Reply #60 on:** May 04, 2007, 06:07:47 PM »

Let the marketplace decide. I trust everyday folks to make the right decision. I don't trust the agenda of the paid-for politician. Even the best politician is still a politician. And even the best bureaucrat's voice gets drowned out in the clattering noise of "group-speak". Inform us and let us make the choice for ourselves. I'll sit down now.

arojay · « **Reply #61 on:** May 06, 2007, 02:32:25 PM »

Banning sounds sexy from a political perspective. Replacing through attrition sounds boring and would get few headlines. Hauling logs out of the Chilkat Valley last fall I saw this sticker in the back window of a pick-up belonging to a guy working on the road.

"I love my country. I fear my government."

Forestry ForumSponsored by:

Author Topic: Poll: Ban incadescent lights bulbs (Read 15880 times)

Forestry Forum
Sponsored by: