Incandescent light bulbs illegal?

[AZ4Runner]

CNNMoney.com reported yesterday that a California lawmaker has introduced legislation in CA to ban incandescent light bulbs (as a means of energy conservation and green house gas reduction).

Read the full story here:
CNN Money story.

[NaturesPixel]

Does this really mean much.. the CA gov had planed to ban Gas cars to clean the air by 2007...lol that fell thru 2002???

[Saralonde]

All kinds of legislation gets introduced, not much is passed. Mostly it is a way to draw attention to something.

[Seltzer]

yes, I saw that the other day! California is insane. of course the article I saw also included that they had a bill to require supermarkets to recycle plastic bags.. *sigh* crazy people in California wanting to take away people's freedoms of choice.. yay

btw, the plastic bag recycling one passed and was signed into law last year by the governator.

[AZ4Runner]

With all the problems they've been having in California with power outages and then the desire for cleaner emissions and energy conservation, I wouldn't be surprised if this gets a great deal of attention.

Incandescent lighting is really bad for energy use (as well as photography). Especially when you figure 85% of the energy used to run a lightbulb is converted to heat, not light. There are more efficient lighting methods out there, alot has been accomplished since Edison's day.

Besides, the fastest way to reduce your electric bill every month is to replace your incandescents with compact flourescents.

[Seltzer]

yes, but that is your chioce to change your bulbs.. not the govt telling you to.. if i'm paying for my electricity and my lights and such I should be able to decide what I am using... remember that whole thing about this place being the "land of the free"?

[smc1377]

When the greater good outweighs personal benefits, that's when they step in. Is the choice to use incandescents really that much more beneficial than energy conserved from using fluorescents? And what rights are you really taking away from someone by saying that they have to use a fluorescent?

It's kind of like seatbelts and airbags on cars. Sure, the consumers could have chosen to buy cars with seatbelts (back in the day) or airbags if they wanted them, but it was deemed necessary to require them for the greater good.

I personally have been changing over to fluorescents as I need to. They are still too expensive right now for me to arbitrarily change ALL my lightbulbs at the same time, but as I have to replace them, I've been buying the 3-packs and replacing 3 more bulbs.

I'm not saying that this bill is a great idea and should become law, but if it did pass, it would help ALL Americans in that the market demand for these bulbs will increase and once supply catches up like it always does, the price on these things will drop significantly. Hooray for cheaper fluorescents!

I know that one law that has helped all Americans, heck even the whole world if you think about it, was the laws limiting emissions on new cars. Car manufacturers had to develop cars that could meet the strict standards in CA, which in return, we all get cars that had lower emissions. If I can have the car I want, and have it pollute less, I don't see the harm in that.

[AZ4Runner]

By no means did I post this hear for a political debate. I just thought it was interesting that they were considering outlawing the use of incandescent bulbs in California. As a photographer that hates shooting in the yellowish light of the incandescent (and as an engineer that realizes how inefficient the technology is), I thought other photogs out there would be interested in the article.

I apologize if I've offended anyone.

[NaturesPixel]

Originally Posted by AZ4Runner

By no means did I post this hear for a political debate. I just thought it was interesting that they were considering outlawing the use of incandescent bulbs in California. As a photographer that hates shooting in the yellowish light of the incandescent (and as an engineer that realizes how inefficient the technology is), I thought other photogs out there would be interested in the article.

I apologize if I've offended anyone.

im sure you didnt mate.. me I personally was just having a bit of fun...

[Saralonde]

You certainly didn't offend anyone, you just posted a news item that could affect photographers. Life is so much more interesting when we don't all think alike anyway and can have polite discourse about our opinions. I thought it led to an interesting discussion.