If energy needs to be saved, there are good ways to do it.
                                                               Government product regulation is not one of them

Monday, March 5, 2012

"Change You Can Believe In"

Update March 5:
I have further revised the deception arguments and responses section.

#   #   #   #   #

Original March 1 post:

A main part of this blog, the rundown of the deception arguments used to justify light bulb regulations, and why those arguments don't hold up, is undergoing extensive change.

It seems unbelievable that easily countered assertions continue to be repeated by politicians and media.

to be against a ban, also according to "impartial" media analysing sites,
is to be a "misguided anachronistic backward looking Republican"
(or in Europe and elsewhere, simply to be misguided and backward looking ;-))

regulations are disadvantegous also for "liberal lefties", given the sackful of tax dollars
they could gain for environmental projects (including price lowering of alternative bulbs) on the 1 1/2 - 2 billion annual sales of relevant bulbs.

While taxation is unjustified, it just shows the lack of logic behind the bulb regulations,
for any reason:
(also copied below latest postings on the blog)


mathetes1963 said...

Great blog Peter! Too good not to share...

Peter T said...

Thank you for your kind words Mathetes.
Light bulb bans are of concern in that people spend half their lives under artificial lights.
I have also found it to be an interesting example of how politicians, environmental campaigners, industry and the media all come together (or not!) for the good of everyone else in society.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Who is politician against this no sense ban?

In Italy is noone
In Europe think is noone

Need someone to stand up and unite others against it
Politicians just agree to what sounds good!

Raffaela Italy

Paul said...

Or change *not* to believe in!

How many politicians or bureaucrats should it take to change a light bulb?

How many citizens should be allowed to choose?

From someones Ceolas website :-)

Peter T said...

Right, Paul!
Might put that in the summary as well actually, thanks

Anonymous said...

WOW, what outstanding horseshit this website spews. Do you have a clue? Didn't think so. I don't expect any opinion other than your own idiocy to be posted here either. Oh well... carry on in your stupidity.

Anonymous said...

they said prices would go down for new bulbs but raw material cost and end of subsidies in europe means prices have gone up!
john - london

Peter T said...

Re Anonymous #2 (john -london)

Thanks, yes good point,
worth taking up in the Deception rundown.
I also cover the price issue on the Ceolas site, including that the removal of cheap competition, the fewer overall manufacturers of complex bulbs, and the traditional manufacturer cartels, all are conducive to keep post-ban prices high, as indeed seen in Europe.

In addition, we have not just the
rising price of rare earth elements in CFLs and LEDs, but also that Chinese wages are rising, as is the fuel cost of transport, and finally the increasing CFL (and possible future LED) recycling mandates on manufacturers and/or retailers again pushes up the price.
(Incandescents of course more simply and more locally made, and not requiring recycling)

Peter T said...

Re Anonymous #1

I have no problem with criticism,
but you might like to be a little more specific (funnily enough, these sort of comments never are).

Re posting my own opinion, yes, I guess I am at fault there, which I assume goes for most blogs ;-)
Besides, I just posted yours, as I have other critical comments!

I do see the problem when the "Deception" list is viewed as a standalone page, that all the "Ceolas" links may seem excessively one-sided:
I'll put a note at the top about that.
Basically, as the "About" and other information makes clear,
Ceolas.net accompanies this blog,
deepening the arguments, but also providing plenty of external and official references, directly and indirectly - therefore one Ceolas link for each argumentative point suffices also for that purpose.

March 5, 2012 4:01 PM