Pssst! Wanna Buy a Cheap, Inefficient, Illegal Lightbulb

Thu, 2007-05-17 08:51Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Pssst! Wanna Buy a Cheap, Inefficient, Illegal Lightbulb

Hide your children: the dim bulbs at the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP) are warning that the federal ban on incandescent lightbulbs could soon give rise to a black market in inefficient lighting.

Imagine, Tim Ball and Tom Harris , decked out in bulky coats and lurking in the alleyways of Toronto and Victoria, offering addicts the opportunty to burn four to six times as much energy with a single lightbulb.

Ah well, when energy industry lobby firms run out of money to pay the NRSP principals to dissemble on climate change, at least the two spinmeisters have an exit strategy.

Previous Comments

Why is a black market for lightbulbs scary enough to warn against a ban on incandescents, but the underground market for pot isn’t important enough to merit decriminalization?
I have yet to see anyone mention what we would put in our ovens when incandescent bulbs are illegal. Too hot for fluorescents or LEDs. & what about your refrigerator & freeser? Too cold for flouro. Or outdoor lights in the winter? I guess Canadians will be installing a lot of those grotesque & expensive sodium vapor lamps. Or even more expensive Xenon HIDs in their yards.
It seems obvious that attempts at prohibition of a cheap useful product will create a black market. What is interesting is that you can write 3 cutesy paragraphs and never adderess the issue at hand. You should call your site Empty Rhetoric R Us. David Wojick

The empty rhetoric is the nonsense spouted by David Wojick and his coal burning friends who are more interested in making more and more money than preventing environmental harm to the planet. If it was only rhetoric it wouldn’t be so bad but people like D W put out lies and distortions to try and convince people that there is nothing to worry about when carbon doixide levels are for ever increasing.

Shame on you David Wojick.

Ian Forrester

Hey Ian, I don’t make any money doing this; I am trying to prevent human harm from people like you. There is indeed something to worry about – you. In the process I run a Yahoo debate group. You can sign up at http://www.climatechangedebate.org We specialize in actual factual argument, not the mindless rhetoric you folks pawn off as logic. We have skeptics and warmers (but my warmers are intelligent). Come over and try your hand. David Wojick

David, it is your type who are responsible for the problems we are encountering. In case you didn’t know it you are listed on the list of 60 AGW deniers on this site who sent a letter full of lies and distortions to the PM of this country.

Shame on you David Wojick.

Ian Forrester

Gee Ian, thanks for telling me that I signed the letter to the PM. I guess you figure I did not know that. How many shoes in a pair? Take your time. Glad to hear you are having problems. The green revolution not going so well? Kyoto collapsing? So sorry we are winning. Happily, people are not stupid. David Wojick

I wasn’t telling you that you signed the letter I was letting others know who might think that you are an honest person. You belong to that small band of nasty people who will do anything to make a little bit of money. Lies and distortions are what you trade in.

Shame on you David Wojick.

Ian Forrester

David, by factual argument do you mean stuff like this:
It seems obvious that attempts at prohibition of a cheap useful product will create a black market.?

Cause it sure looks like the sort of overly simplistic stuff I learned in Economics 101, then unlearned in Economics 201. You know, mindless rhetoric.

If there’s a cheaper, more useful, and widely available alternative to an illegal product, it seems obvious that people wouldn’t bother creating a black market.

At any rate, incandescents aren’t being banned at all. The govt program is an efficiency standard. David, do you think you need to protect us from efficiency standards?

Last I knew a 6 dollar light bulb was not cheaper than a 60 cent light bulb. But then I haven’t taken the advanced green logic course. David Wojick

The incandescent light bulb is another of those many stupid decisions taken by governments more inclined to listen to “sensible” green souls, rather than get into the task of really working in behalf of the people who voted for them. There are much more problems with public health and education or fight against hard drug spreading or terrorism, than wringing their hands about an illusionary catastrophic climate change by a mere 0.6º C increase in 150 years.

As we see the problem from the other side of the world, here in South America, people in Canada, the USA, and Europe have gone completely crazy because the media has been pushing the global warming nonsense for too long a time. The media has been doing its business, of course, because “catastrophe” is their daily food. But when catastrophe reaches the height of Apocalypse threatening to wipe out mankind, then the media uncork champagne and send fireworks up. The business is booming.

But is Apocalypse near? They have not given us the slightest piece of evidence that such is the case. Yes, they have given us many IPPC reports and prophecies, and computer models results, and polar bear swimming in the ocean blue, but fact, real fact, not one. People should remember what wise people in the 19th Century said, as Lord Thomas Macaulay, in 1830:

    “We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?”

Energy saving bulbs are sold down here, but are expensive and only high medium class and up are able to buy them. It makes sense using it, if you can afford the initial expense, and live long enough to collect benefits in future electric bills. But poor people cannot afford them so they stick to cheaper incandescent bulbs. If a government passed a stupid bill banning incandescent bulbs, the next morning it would be thrown out of the window and burned in the public square. It has happened for things not as stupid as banning light bulbs for an illusory energy saving.

I think that people in Canada should start considering that, sometimes, when it comes to stupid governmental decisions, a Bolivian way to solve problems throwing governments out of the Presidential palace’s window is a decent way to go. It would give the media lots of sales and TV viewing rates.

But in a serious mood now, banning something quite useful for advancing a political agenda without asking the public first, seems to be quite a very antidemocratic thing to do. Perhaps Canada is going the way of a future Kristallnacht?

Eduardo, When you say “banning light bulbs for an illusory energy saving”, are you unaware of the magnitude of efficiency we are talking about? From wikipedia: “For a given light output, CFLs use between one-fifth and one-quarter of the power of an equivalent incandescent lamp”. Do you dispute this information, or do you consider 75% - 90% increase in energy efficiency to be an ‘illusory saving’? Please explain.