I think it would be a good idea to change the type of light bulbs people use. Do I think it should be a force change? No. People should be able to make their own decisions on what type of bulbs to use or have the manufacturers of the bulbs change the types they make.

I would love see the data to show exactly what a power plant's fuel consumption difference would be if a high percentage of incandescent bulbs are changed to florescent units. I hear all the kilowatt numbers being thrown around...but how much coal or cubic feet of natural gas will be saved if 80% of all bulbs are changed. Remember that a power unit is going to turn at a fixed speed to generate AC power for consumption regardless of usage, it is the load on that power unit that will determine fuel consumption.

Anybody have some data on FUEL usage differences at specific loads?

Also, I can see how the politicians love this feel-good move to conserve energy, but if you think that this isn't being driven by bulb manufacturers (can you say wind-fall profits)...think again!

Good Luck,

Dave

I gave the energy saving bulbs a go and guess what? One caught fire in my basement! Luckily, I was present to turn off the lights, remove and safely dispose of. With that said, I'll stick with the incandescent bulb.

After working over 40 years spending many of those years in management, I have observed that managers, supervisors, professionals, whenever they feel that they are overwhelmed with a project or probably just not qualified, will start concentrating on getting the easy tasks done rather than tackle the more difficult, higher-priority tasks. The result is that the project doesn't get completed on time and the manager/supervisor invariably gets fired. I relate this observation to banning incandescent bulbs. We're hearing, O-My-G, we only have 10 years to stop global warming, then it's too late, we're doomed! We need to stop global warming now! It is the biggest problem facing mankind, etc. So we decide to ban light bulbs because it is easy. We are going to have laws(??), regulations(??), enforcement(???) related to banning lightbulbs. Sorry, saying it is a small step towards reducing global warming doesn't cut it. You are not going to get people on board by banning lighbulbs. Wouldn't it be cheaper and more helpful for the states, if they are really really serious, to just give the lightbulbs away for free or a nominal cheapy price, so the states don't have to waste their time in creating and enforcing regulations spending more taxpayer money in the process. Shouldn't we just concentrate on the biggies? Banning light bulbs is a joke. What happens if incandescent lightbulbs are banned and 10 years from now, we still have global warming? Will we just give up because it is too late? This is the kind of stuff that makes me say, forget it, I don't care anymore, the heck with global warming. I just won't buy any property on the coast.

The best way to save on energy used by light bulbs is to NOT USE THEM. The best way I know to not use them is to control them with motion detectors and, additionally, use ambient light sensors so that the bulbs do not light when there is already enough light in the room. This often cuts their use to a small fraction of what it was.

These controls work very well with incandescent bulbs, but, as far as I know, the lifetime of fluorescent bulbs that are turned on and off repeadedly is severely shortened.

Maybe what we need from governments is good information, not control. With the help of products from engineers, we can do the controlling ourselves.

Great. And 20 years from now, all the eco's will be scurrying to ban CFL's because of all the mercury they leech into the groundwater around landfills after people throw 20 billion of them out.

Anyways, the bigger mfg's are saying they can make incandescents nearly as efficient as CFL's in the near future. I'll just wait for those.

Great idea, so when the world cools down so much that crops fail, can we have real lights back again?

I have a couple of the "green" lights. I don't really like them. The light seems odd and transperant if that makes any sense. The only reason I have not taken them back to the store is I lost the receipt. They better last as long as they say since each one was the price of 12 regular bulbs.

Oh and by the way, my electric usage did not go down at all. You know why? It's because lights are not the major source of energy usage in a home. Another great idea with hollow results.

We, the people, should make a rule that governments cannot enact legislation based solely upon the polictical correctness of the action.

I've changed all the bulbs in my house to CF's, mainly because they're cheaper to operate. They shouldn't ban incandescents though, maybe just charge more for them to discourage their use.

This hit and miss, band aid approach to getting people to reduce energy usage is well intentioned but highly inefficient. A carbon tax on all GG emissions is the way to go. Tax it upstream or downstream, it doesn't matter. The tax would encourage folks to make that initial investment in a more energy efficient lifestyle. Once made, the added efficiency would help offset the taxes. These taxes would then be used as seed money for renewable energy projects such as wind, solar, and (dare I say..) nuclear plants

Incandescent bulbs should be gradually phased out of existence. It's an archaic technology that is inefficient. It's time to move on to the 21st century, people.

Great, a carbon tax...

Just what we need, another tax on things that we already pay taxes upon. Question though... Once GW is determined to be either non-existent or a good thing for the world, let's just say in 10 years or so, will all of the seed money given to renewable energy producers be refunded to those of us who will pay them? Remember folks, corporations don't pay taxes, they pass them along to the rest of us. Any new taxes would ultimately serve solely to limit our ability to purchase "green" lights. Since the tax and disbursements would probably be overseen by the government, you can guarantee that there will be immense waste and mis-management. Note this has NOTHING to do with either major party, it is the system that they BOTH created that is the problem.

Darren:

You appear not to believe in global warming. Considering this, it makes complete sense that you would be against a carbon tax. I, however, agree with the largest group of organized scientists on the planet who say that global warming does exist, is caused by human activity, and that the most catastophic consequences might be averted if we take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Given those facts, I believe that it is our moral obligation as citizens of Planet Earth to act to reduce carbon emissions.

This will not occur within timelines suggested by the IPCC unless we completely change the way we interact with our environment and our energy choices. This has not happened. The drive for profit, poor energy decisions and a lack of awakening in the American People to the realities of GW are some of the reasons why these changes have not taken place and will not take place on their own.

I, too, am frustrated at times at incompetance in government, however government has had many successes. Strict government policies will be the only means to accomplish meaningful GG emissions reductions. This could take many forms. The form I am advocating is a carbon tax.

Off the top of my head, here's what I envision. A new agency at the Cabinet level. Lets call it the Climate Change Mitigation Agency. It could be broken up into 4 distinct bureaus:

The Fossil Fuel Bureau would levy taxes on domestic and imported oil, natural gas and coal as it is shipped into the US or mined. Taxes would be phased in over a 10 year period. The coal and oil industries would pass this onto end users in the form of higher prices for transportation fuels, electricity, heating oil, etc.. This would make alternatives to fossil fuels more affordable and the taxes would be used to support alternatives.

The Agriculture Bureau would tax greenhouse gases produced during agricultural operations for farmers and ranchers who do not use sustainable practices. This would make it more affordable to, for example, employ "no till" farming, provide GMO low methane grain to cattle, etc. Taxes would help develop less expensive sustainable technologies.

The International Trade Bureau would impose tariffs comensurate with GG emissions on imports and foreign transportation that did not meet US greenhouse gas production standards. This would encourage improvements in developing producer nations.

The Allocations Bureau would be staffed with scientists who would provide input as to the best way to spend carbon taxes to have the greatest impact. We will need to make substantial investments in developing nation's renewable energy needs as well.

Something like that.

There are a hundred things that can be said about why something like this is not going to work. Politics, political will, economics, yada yada. However, one fact is clear: Reducing our GG emissions is not going to be easy and will require sacrifice from every man, woman and child in this country. Denying the existence of AGW or the fact that it will be people through their government who eventually find a solution, whatever from it takes, is not helpful to progress.

Darren, on another thread you asked how I made the quotes be italicized.

I do it by using html tags. Put an "italics" tag () in front for quotes -- close the quote with a matching close tag ().
You can use a bold tag ...) for emphasis. There are a number of html primers on the web if you want to learn more about html.

And the absurdities and hysteria continue....

BT:

Thanks for the info. So do you copy the text and then put the parentheses in? Not real good with the HTML stuff. Frankly, I am still in awe of the whole internet thing. Think about it, you type and it shows up somewhere else far away. Incredible.

Gary:

I actually whole heartedly believe that GW is occurring. The difference is that I fail to see how the actions of humankind could be precipitating it. Yes I know, our only action may be to increase the rate of GW to unnatural levels but it really does not make sense from an energy balance perspective. Now, this may, or may not make sense. This is because in order to buy into the rate of change argument, you must fully buy into the concept that research is able to accurately disseminate rates of change present in years past. This is where I have great difficulty. It may be one thing to determine that it is warmer on average now then say a 1000 years ago, but to determine that the rate of change 1000 yrs ago was less than current rates is a bit of a stretch.

Simply put, there is no method using current technology and knowledge to know the output of the Sun 1000 yrs ago. I really feel that sun output is the major driving force behind our climate. Society simply does not use that much energy. Think about it, this is proven every single day. Sun comes up, the world is visible. Even at our very best, we can only light a small area. That light is energy and we struggle to produce what we do. And, this does not even address wind, rain, lightning etc. For all of our advancements, we really are just a spec. I know this is simplistic in a sense but it is still a real world assessment.

That said, our ability to accurately measure temps and other factors diminishes the farther you go back in time. And no, BT, I do not have any studies, whether peer reviewed or not, to back that statement up. I just know that the farther you get away from something, the more difficult it is to understand what was happening. As most of the debate is raging over actually small changes in global average temps (yes I know that small temp increases can result in big changes but the actual percentage is small) you can see how trace changes in the past affect the overall outcome.

So, the summation is that by instituting several agencies I think will cause more waste. I hate to admit it but old Al Gore is sorta proving my point. He is paying a "carbon tax" by buying credits. The problem is that it really is more of a fine. He commits the crime of producing carbon and then buys salvation by using a credit. Not sure that really evens things out. I am afraid that any tax would go the same route. I applaud the thoght you have put into the agencies but many of the ideas are already being implemented at the private level in a procedure to do things economically and efficiently. Not sure we want government messing up the works.

I really think that if AGW scientists want to prove their point, they need to adjust their models to understand small changes in time. Predict one year out a temp accurately and then maybe things will make sense. Problem is that the input is always in a state of change thereby messing up an already complex system.

Gary,

Unfortunately your governmental remedies would bring devastation to US economy, while the rest of the world would pick our pocket.

The cure is worse than the "ALLEGED" disease. Your assumption that the bulk of world scienctist agree with AGW is without merit.

Read today's NYT and you will see that scienctists throughout the world are starting to come "out of the closet" and expose the junk science that the AGW crowd has perpetrated on the masses.

Thanks for your attention.

Dave

Dave,

Are you talking about the article about Al Gore? The one that points out that there is some disagreement on some of the details of global warming predictions? The one where a notable scientist states that "Gore can see the forest through the trees"?

Thats an metaphor for: he's able to see the big picture.

Are you taking about the article that ends like this: "On balance, he did quite well" a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject," Dr. Oppenheimer said. "For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you're going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.?

That's the article in a nutshell. Were you trying to prove a point with that?