After going after stoves and generators, Biden Admin wants to control your Lighbulbs

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, KansasTiger said:

It won't be a choice soon. Mark my words, they saw they can lock us down during COVID, and at some point climate lockdowns will be on our doorstep.

Indeed. Household lights, after all, account for only a fraction of the "energy-gobbling" facets of a typical American home. 

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I guess because I don’t know what you are thinking.  That is pretty simple.  I pointed out that saving a little on light bulbs is not going to affect the drain on the grid the EVs are going to put on the grid in years to come.  

Stop trying to figure out what others are thinking by making assumptions and then thereby inserting your own assumptions.

Just ask, “why do you say that? anything else? What did you mean by that?”

Also, you didn’t point that out at all. if you had you would have said something like “I don’t think that saving a little on light bulbs is not going to affect the drain on the grid the EVs are going to put on the grid in years to come.”  

We were supposed to read the below, and figure out that you meant the above?

 “Absolutely, so let’s demand all new cars will be EVs by 2030.   Our government at work.”

Doesn’t even really matter, just try to use less vague strawmen and be more direct with your points. Please. For my sanity. You are a relatively smart guy, you don’t need to use strawmen to get your points across. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Didba

[auburnatl1 4,914]

The issue here isn’t about dumb.  It’s about individualism vs collectivism.   Ie I’ve always had an issue with the seat belt law - it doesn’t benefit collective. Driving  drunk I can kill someone else in addition to myself - I get it, but using seat belts is my own suicidal choice. 

With incandescent light bulbs, which does impact society, is it enough of a collective benefit to take away individual choice? Fair question. It’s not about dumb, it’s about choice.

Edited August 3, 2023 by auburnatl1

[Didba 5,256]

You know what, y’all keep having really high electric bills from your A/C battling the 105-110 degree weather plus the heat given off from incandescents and I won’t.  

This is such a no brainer I thought no one would be against it but yet again, I am proven wrong

[Didba 5,256]

15 hours ago, Mikey said:

It's not about light bulbs, it's about government control of citizen's lives. Control is the goal. If the LED bulbs are that much better, people will buy them. Me, I prefer light from the incandescent bulbs and that's what I use in my house.

You do know that they make LED bulbs that give off the same color of light as incandescents, right?

[Didba 5,256]

58 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course I do, but the debate will be interesting.  You do know they have agreed to debate, right?

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/02/desantis-debate-gavin-newsom-fox-00109577

Okay good, just making sure, and no I didn’t know that, thanks for pointing that out. I don’t really watch debates. 

[Didba 5,256]

21 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

It won't be a choice soon. Mark my words, they saw they can lock us down during COVID, and at some point climate lockdowns will be on our doorstep.

This is great satire. Mad props. You almost had me there. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Didba

[icanthearyou 4,462]

When considering legal services:

Powell, Eastman, Gulliani, Wood and, Nola LLP,,, should be your choice. (some partners may be under sanction, disciplinary, suspension or,  disbarment action in some states)

Whether you need criminal defense for a seditious conspiracy charge or, you have a Qanon based conspiracy civil suit,,, we're not afraid to go full stupid for you!

[icanthearyou 4,462]

15 minutes ago, Didba said:

You know what, y’all keep having really high electric bills from your A/C battling the 105-110 degree weather plus the heat given off from incandescents and I won’t.  

This is such a no brainer I thought no one would be against it but yet again, I am proven wrong

Freedumb.

[auburnatl1 4,914]

Just now, Didba said:

This is great satire. 

The fact this thread  even exists means that there are individuals that distrust any controls - short of having the God given right to buy nukes on Amazon. It is what it is. Which is why government has to pick its regulatory battles carefully.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

13 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

The fact this thread  even exists means that there are individuals that distrust any controls - short of having the God given right to buy nukes on Amazon. It is what it is. Which is why government has to pick its regulatory battles carefully.

I wasn't always like this. Covid opened alot of people's eyes to that world. The world of control and the level of lying, censorship, and flat out threatening they did to maintain that control.

Do I really care they banned incandescent bulbs? No. It's just another step in the march for more regulation. And it never relinquished control once it's gained it.

Edited August 3, 2023 by KansasTiger

[Didba 5,256]

5 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I wasn't always like this. Covid opened alot of people's eyes to that world. The world of control and the level of lying, censorship, and flat out threatening they did to maintain that control.

Do I really care they banned incandescent bulbs? No. It's just another step in the march for more regulation. And it never relinquished control once it's gained it.

So would you remove all regulations by the government that control people/corporations?

[KansasTiger 3,248]

Just now, Didba said:

So would you remove all regulations by the government that control people/corporations?

No. That's a silly oversimplification of the entire premise.

[Cardin Drake 1,828]

LED bulbs are one of the very few examples of a win-win between consumers and the environmentalists.  When they calculate the savings, they really don't do LED bulbs justice.  Right now, it's 105 plus every day in Austin, and I'm glad I don't have little 100 watt heaters all over the house that cost 200 watts each to remove the heat they generate using an air conditioner, which by it's nature is pretty inefficient.   HOWEVER, the market is taking care of it just fine, and there is no need for the government to ban incandescent bulbs. There may be specific circumstances where they make sense. I can't think of many, but perhaps a ski lodge where gas heat and stoves have been banned.  Gas stoves in general are much more efficient than electric stoves and that whole thing is just nuts.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

 

37 minutes ago, Didba said:

This is such a no brainer I thought no one would be against it but yet again, I am proven wrong

What if someone were to maintain that LEDs, when compared to incandescent bulbs, are inferior for certain functions (such as dimming or touch-panels)? What if someone were to maintain that they prefer incandescents over LEDs because the latter, for whatever reason, makes their migraines worse? Or what if someone were to maintain that the Energy Department's underlying premise for the ban lacks merit?

Is any such person, by default, a dolt for opposing the ban?

 

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Should we still have gasoline with lead in it? What about cotton seed dust? Does it hurt to mandate the wearing of seat belts?  You get the point.

There are tons of things that we could do, but we don't.  We could ultra pasteurize milk and keep it on the shelf to be refrigerated after opening and it would last months.  We don't do that because we want to keep dairy farmers in business.  

Mikey reminds me of the people who cried out "keep your government hands off my medicare!!"

[Didba 5,256]

17 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

No. That's a silly oversimplification of the entire premise.

Of course it is, which is why I asked it. 

[auburnatl1 4,914]

29 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I wasn't always like this. Covid opened alot of people's eyes to that world. The world of control and the level of lying, censorship, and flat out threatening they did to maintain that control.

Do I really care they banned incandescent bulbs? No. It's just another step in the march for more regulation. And it never relinquished control once it's gained it.

imo a lot of life is deciding if a screw up is caused by a dark conspiracy or just incompetence. I gravitate normally to the second one with the gov. Generally, talent goes to the private sector and government hires … what’s left. Which is fundamentally why I’m against big government - it might mean well but it’s normally not … very bright. Ps Covid added another factor - panic. Which always amplifies incompetence.

However, that shouldn’t dissuade gov from thinking greater good. And understanding people generally don’t worry about the societal big picture. But again, it’s the thinking part I worry about. Which  is why I think citizens have every right to question and push back.

And yes I do think there are sometimes government evil plans (over reach, corporate influence, greed, ect) - but usually, yep, it’s just dumb stuff.

Edited August 3, 2023 by auburnatl1

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Indeed. Household lights, after all, account for only a fraction of the "energy-gobbling" facets of a typical American home. 

"The average home with incandescent bulbs uses about 2,000 kWh of electricity per year. At the national average of $0.10 per kWh, these homeowners spend $215 a year on lighting. By switching to LEDs, you can save around $4,000 over 20 years (the typical lifespan of an LED)."  (google)

How many homes in the U.S. Nola?

 

[Didba 5,256]

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

What if someone were to maintain that LEDs, when compared to incandescent bulbs, are inferior for certain functions (such as dimming or touch-panels)? What if someone were to maintain that they prefer incandescents over LEDs because the latter, for whatever reason, makes their migraines worse? Or what if someone were to maintain that the Energy Department's underlying premise for the ban lacks merit?

Is any such person, by default, a dolt for opposing the ban?

 

First and third person, yes. I have lived in several homes that have dimming, touch panels, and motion sensor panels that worked perfectly fine irrespective of what kind of light bulb was in the socket  

The second person, of course not. 

[Didba 5,256]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"The average home with incandescent bulbs uses about 2,000 kWh of electricity per year. At the national average of $0.10 per kWh, these homeowners spend $215 a year on lighting. By switching to LEDs, you can save around $4,000 over 20 years (the typical lifespan of an LED)."  (google)

How many homes in the U.S. Nola?

 

I’d love to see how much the heat decreases A/C efficiency thereby driving up electricity bills even more. 

[auburnatl1 4,914]

For the sake of argument, how many people would support the government regulating your thermostat? Ie 75 in the summer, 68 in the winter.  That would dramatically lessen the load on the grid and climate  way way way more than bulbs.  Doesn’t harm much. The point being 99% of the public would probably consider that creepy and over reach…. Again, I have no issue with banning the bulbs - but nonetheless there is a balance with each regulation that needs to wrestled with.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"The average home with incandescent bulbs uses about 2,000 kWh of electricity per year. At the national average of $0.10 per kWh, these homeowners spend $215 a year on lighting. By switching to LEDs, you can save around $4,000 over 20 years (the typical lifespan of an LED)."  (google)

How many homes in the U.S. Nola?

 

I think you misunderstood my point. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

After they get our lite bulbs then they are comming for our guns.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

17 minutes ago, Didba said:

First and third person, yes. I have lived in several homes that have dimming, touch panels, and motion sensor panels that worked perfectly fine irrespective of what kind of light bulb was in the socket  

The second person, of course not. 

Interesting. Thanks for answering.