View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
techno900 wrote: | . . . . that is essentially what they are saying about light bulbs, we no longer have a choice, we must buy expensive energy efficient bulbs. . . . . . |
I remember when VCRs first came out. The basic machine cost over $2000. Then, in a few years, it was down to $1500. A few years later, down to $1000 ... and all the time, adding features and capabilities.
Later, a VCR was $500, then $200, then $100. Today, you might find a VCR at Walmart for about $50 with full features, not available 30 years ago --- and that's in today's dollars, whereas the original $2k VCR was in 1977 dollars. So the difference is even more striking.
My point?
The first new generation light bulbs will cost a bit more. But as manufacturers streamline efficiencies, costs will come down.
Today, the new halogen 100-watt-equivalent bulb will cost about $2 compared to about $1 for the original bulb.
That $1 difference will kill you? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9300
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Larry bought some prime Malibu real estate over the last 3 years. He's building 2 restaurants near our home. There is no quicker way to loose your wealth than owning a restaurant.
The bottom line on leaving the smallest carbon footprint is that if you spend the least amount of money, you pollute the least. (generally speaking) There was a book on this subject a few years back. Hence, I like the 50c light bulb, unless of course the $5 one saves me money in the long run. Why do we need a govt mandate? A simple reminder in the store would be sufficient for most people with a 75 IQ. So far I haven't found a nice light bulb to replace the old ones. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey SB...This is just a minimum standard a light bulb needs to meet. The govt. does that for a lot of things. Hamburger, for example, needs to meet a standard. If it weren't about a "green" thing, no one would care! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevenbard wrote: | A simple reminder in the store would be sufficient for most people with a 75 IQ. So far I haven't found a nice light bulb to replace the old ones. |
- Most people with a 75 IQ argue for the old bulbs because they're incapable of seeing the situation beyond their wallets (or thinking beyond the Karl Rove generated GOP talking points).
- Have you tried the exact replacement look-alike 72 watt bulbs that replicate the old 100 watt bulbs? (I didn't think so.) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17748 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder how Bard and Techno think that people can breathe in the Los Angeles Area now with about 3 times as many people and 4 times as many cars? When regulation of air quality started in the 1960's, it was often too smoggy to exercise outdoors--for days. Sensitive people--those who were older and children--had serious health problems. Regulations were established that required cars to be cleaner. Manufacturers and fuel companies said it couldn't be done, would wreck the economy, yada yada yada. Now you can breathe safely most days.
Certainly requiring cars to be cleaner restricted the personal liberty of those who build hot rods. But it also increased the freedom of a much larger group of people that were restricted to the indoors or died early because of air pollution.
Somehow there is a level of cognitive dissonance when people who drive to parks to windsurf complain about the government. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mac wrote: | Somehow there is a level of cognitive dissonance when people who drive to parks to windsurf complain about the government. |
You of course mean publicly funded parks.......
(Oh, the socialism, the socialism of it all.....) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4161
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
swchandler said:
Quote: | Techno said "My only issue is crying wolf and pushing too fast for changes when a slower more responsible pace may meet our needs."
Maybe Apple was pushing things to fast with the concept and the introduction of a point and click driven personal home computer. The pace of change is so damn demanding and upsetting. Pretty soon owning a computer will no longer be an option in life. It will be a mandatory requirement to live in the modern world. I guess the same can be said about cellphones (so far, I've never owned one). Sometimes, there's no going back to simpler times. |
Exactly - free enterprise, make a better light bulb and if it's really a good thing people will buy it without a government mandate.
I am not opposed to government mandates when logic and freedoms aren't overly stepped on. I grew up in LA in the 50's and 60's and know how bad the polution was, so I recognize when mandates do make sense. Just keep it all in balance. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9300
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I lived through the horrible 1960's in Los Angeles. The smog killed people. I'm very happy the govt took this and many other issues on. Now they've gone to far. 1990-2005 were the roaring days of America's wealth and innovation. We could afford to go back to those days without killing the environment.
However what do you mean public parks? We don't need as many rangers. What do you think would happen? More trash. The California coastline survived for millions of years without pubic employees. What do you think would happen with less rangers or cops? Total chaos? I think not.
Just think about Hookipa. For decades windsurfers and surfers worked it out fine. Nobody drowned or got hurt. Once they put in the lifeguard tower, all hell broke out. No kiting now, no windsurfing with more than 10 surfers in the water, arresting Josh Stone. WTF? Take the tower away, and Hookipa would be the same old place it had been for decades. A great place to play...besides the fact the lifeguards play cards and fish all day anyway. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|