January 31, 2007
-
California
California may be the first state to ban incandescent lightbulbs. They want to encourage the use of fluorescent lightbulbs instead.
The thinking is that it will reduce energy use and greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are blamed for global warming. Here is the link: Link
Is California on the cutting edge or over the edge when it comes to global warming?
Comments (128)
crzy…
I hate those things….they make stuff look weird.
FIRST!!! and no,they aren’t cutting edge,they’re just acting like it…
gina
they’re not on the cutting edge. i don’t know about over the edge, since i haven’t been there. but i mean, if you have hollywood…
But fluorescent is so depressing… oi! I guess Californians get so much sun that they won’t really care.
We have to do something but I hate to see the government ban things .I wish they could lead more by example,now that does make me laugh out loud.
I think they’re a little over edge… Banning a type of lightbulbs to ward off global wrming? Just a little freaky if you ask me.
Yes! top ten!!!
Its called a freak show. I use any kind of light bulb that will save energy cost.
I think that’s a bit too much but I think they do have the righ idea.
Anyway… fluorescent lightbulbs give me headaches…
thank God I live in France.
Cheers,
m
cutting edge. but like kpsmom3, those are really pretty ugly when it comes to a fixture where the bulb is seen. I have to say that I would probably be more likely to support a movement to those bulbs if they could be made more attractive.
The expression, “California is like a bowl of granola…” comes to mind. But they’re pretty on it. I can see the logic in using flourescents that use less electricity than incandescent, which will prevent the use of coal or fossil fuels in making that electricity, which will prevent less emmisions. Personally, I’d focus on the traffic gridlock where everyone lives a county away and drives to work. But that’s just me.
I hate that the government has to ban light bulbs just for people to care about global warming. But, they’re definitely on the cutting edge…if that’s what it takes for people to step up to the plate and care. Good going Cali!!
Way over the edge.
I think it seems extreme, but I’m happy to see an attempt to remedy at big problem.
go cali!
I think that this is actually a good idea! Compact fluorescent bulbs cost more initially, but save money in the long run because they last longer. They come in different shapes and sizes and fit in most fixtures. They have really come a long way since they were first introduced! I can’t see folks complaining about it!
No! They can’t even keep their power on all the time. What’s more, they will all look green if this is forced onto people.
Absolutely. California as a state is more evironmentally inclined than America is as a country [according to "An Inconvenient Truth"]
“Denile ain’t just a river in Egypt”
They’re going to terminate incandescent lightbulbs? Don’t worry, they’ll be back.
Ok, bad joke.
California should fix a hundred other things in their state before they worry about global warming. How about they fix their skid row situation first?
This is WAY more important that the growing immigration issue… … … … right?
I would say over the edge.
I would say over the edge.
maybe they should implement an efficient public transportation system, and force everyone to take it.
What global warming?
Since when does the government have the right to ban lightbulbs? Besides, flourcesant lightbulbs are known to trigger headaches in a decent percentage of the population (myself included). Also, they produce a humming noise and do not emit as high a quality light as incandescent bulbs.
I don’t know, but I hope Texas doesn’t make us use that crap. D:
Please tell me our governing offices have better uses of their time than worry about what kind of lightbulbs are being used.
My dad bought some florescent bulbs for our house, and none of us could stand the light and it gave all of us headaches, so he had to take them out and throw them away. They just weren’t bright enough, and they looked funky sticking out of our lighting fixtures.
over the edge.
Aren’t flourescent lights bad for the eyes?
Um…that sounds a little more then ridiculous. Why don’t they just encourage the use of energy-saving lightbulbs? What weirdos they have in ye ol Californiee.
I don’t know about cutting edge, but nowhere in America is OVER THE EDGE. We need to do more. And we should start by showing Inconveniant Truth in schools, and EVERYWHERE. If you don’t cry at the polar bear scenes you have no soul.
sometimes i think they are one the edge, other times, way over
Over the edge, in most cases but in this one for sure. Those new lights are great. I use them. However… there are instances where they do *not* perform as well. Most notably, the high-frequency flickering (that most of us don’t notice) can trigger siezures in people with certain medical disorders. Banning other types of lighting and forcing these people to choose between no lights or lights that cause siezures is… incomprehensibly cruel.
over the edge
Global Warming is a myth! The liberals just made it up just to make us feel bad bc it’s suposedly our fault! And they dont care about global warming. they just want more control! Were going in the direction of communism
Banning something like that is excessive, but they should get get points for trying.
California annoys me. But I may save that judgment until I actually go there.
Those lightbulbs are so ugly. My husband loves them, because they save money, but really. Plus they are kind of expensive, and to go through and replace every lightbulb in your house because the cheap ones are illegal might put a pretty large burden on some people. Hopefully, though, the lightbulb police wouldn’t be out trying to enforce such a law…
Those lightbulbs are so ugly. My husband loves them, because they save money, but really. Plus they are kind of expensive, and to go through and replace every lightbulb in your house because the cheap ones are illegal might put a pretty large burden on some people. Hopefully, though, the lightbulb police wouldn’t be out trying to enforce such a law…
Eh….I’m leaning more towards over the edge.
I’ve lived there and I can say they’re over the edge on most issues. If they’re that worried about global warming, they should do something about reducing the number of vehicles on their freeways.
Both, actually.
I do NOT like fluourescent lightbulbs…. and frankly, I’m with jack4078girl… clogged up traffic is horrible there. From my experience, LA is worse than any of the other big cities I’ve been in, when it comes to traffic (and I’m talking NY, Dallas, Chicago, Miami…)
You know, the more they pass laws that meddle in my personal life choices, the less I want to live in this country…
The lightbulb you have pictured doesn’t fit all light fixtures. I bought some and they are fine for most places except some ceiling fans that I have because the bulb hits the glass cover and will not stay on. If they ban incandescents…then all light fixtures will have to change to accomodate the new bulbs.
I hate those things….
maybe the people who made they already fixed this, but it looks to me like those curly lightbulbs waste energy by shining light on itself in the middle and where the tube touches itself, bulbs now let all of the light it produces to be seen through the glass… just a thought, but i would saying that banning current lightbulbs is a little extreme,
Hard for me to think about global warming when it is snowing and freezing cold!
brilliant. way to go cali. i just put those lights in my house this week and they will have paid for themselves by the end of the year. i don’t know about making it law and whatnot… but leading the way and making it an affordable, desirable choice for the average californian would be swell. i’m sure the planet appreciates the effort.
They cost a shitload.
How many light bulbs would it take to change so called global warming? LOL
in a lot of ways, they’re right on the money.
They’re definitely not OVER the edge. Don’t know that I’d say they were “cutting edge” either.
Just because they may care more about the environmen then some states doesn’t mean ANY state is doing enough!
Cutting edge? Yeah, if you’re asking who has the highest emissions that helped get us here in the first place. If they ban non-electric cars, I’ll be impressed.
I’m little hesitant about government regulating so much of life, but I am also interested to hear the results of California’s experimentation.
Good. Fluorescents work better anyways…
All I know is just about everything is “known to the State of California to cause cancer.”
Glad I don’t live there…
California’s….California.
nothing else to say lol
Those fruitcakes. I don’t like the light that they give off. Ew.
Well, California is one of the dirtiest states. Air pollution is horrible there, so I’m glad to see they’re doing something, even small, to remedy the problem. I don’t use florescent bulbs I have a lot of halogens in the house, and I hear they’re better than incandescent. And why shouldn’t we get rid of incandescents? They were invented in Edison’s lab, over ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. Comeon, how many things in this country are still operational after ONE HUNDRED YEARS?
No they are idiots. We will know that people are taking this seriously, and not just playing for votes, the day that we see nuclear power plants being built.
Changing your lightbulbs is the easiest thing any of us can do to make a significant difference in energy consumption. Seriously– ok, so the bulbs cost more at first, but you’ll make your money back in a few months from how much less energy they use. And I used to think that the lighting they gave off sucked, but our entire apartment is lighted by these energy-efficient lightbulbs (other than one or 2 light fixtures for which they won’t fit) and surprisingly it doesn’t feel like we’re living in a flourescent wharehouse.
Just do it, people.
funny_guydude–
the reason why everything here is marked as being known to cause cancer is b/c there’s laws thst state you have to disclose that information. Every other building in other states has the same chemicals, etc, that can cause cancer– California’s just the only place where you’re mandated to tell people about it.
Over the edge… it’s like they’re trying to over-compensate for the smog problem around LA… how about you fix the city before trying to go statewide?
Of course, the problem may not be the smog as much as the smug around there…
Being that California uses more energy on a daily basis than most states combined, I can see why they are concerned and maybe that law should be enforced…but as for places like Oklahoma where I’m from…I think we are ok. Then again, California has been known for their extremeities so I dunno. They could be jumping the gun.
Thanks for the comment…I have to agree with you…its a sad realization but very true.
Ok, I guess I feel a need to defend my current home state…
The reason why there’s more pollution here than perhaps other places is because A) everyone wants to live here (I do believe California has the highest population of any other state), and B) those pesky mountains hold all the smog in. Damn geography.
Sure, fixing smog and traffic would possibly have a bigger impact. But give me a simple, easy, realistic solution for cutting down on traffic that you can implement right now: mmm, yeah that’s what I thought.
But changing your lightbulbs to energy-efficient ones is something you can do in about 5 minutes that significantly reduces your energy usage. Can we please try to at least do some small, easy changes before trying to tackle the ones that may never come into place?
Perhaps California is “over the hedge” on some stuff (please, y’all didn’t even hear SF’s ban on supposed toxic chemicals in the toys and baby bottles we all use). But at least somebody’s trying to do something unlike our federal government that continues to allow us to burn oil like there’s no tomorrow, and thus keep depending on the crazies in charge of our oil.
And now I’ll leave this post, b/c you people are pissing me off with your ignorance.
hmm… if they’re going to do that, they should probably make it illegal to throw fluorescent lightbulbs away… the mercury vapor inside poisons the air and water, and will probably build up if everyone’s required to use them and not recycling them…
Isn’t Japan the cutting edge???
Though it’s good that CA is trying :3
well, anything is good. Go Schwarzenegger. I assume it’s him.
It’s a tiny step in the right direction. Go Cali!
My husband just called me an effin liberal wierd@ss. hehehe. He said they should ban cows while they’re at to reduce methane emissions.
California seems to be on the cutting edge. Yes, they are weird in ways, but at least they are trying.
I mean, my goodness, some Americans deny that global warming is an occuring trend (though not many scientists!), and even more Amercians are indifferent. That makes me both angry and sad.
at least they are doing something
I hate fluorescent lighting, I am glad I do not live in California.
I believe that most of the country is over the edge so I would have to say that California is so far over the edge that they cannot even see it anymore and probably haven’t been able to for a few years now.
California is a freak
Just a tad over the edge.
My room’s light fixture has 1 regular bulb, and 1 florescent…it looks pretty cool actually, not too white, but still bright and saves power
Hybrids for the win!
It doesn’t matter, because global warming is a cycle…thousands of years ago, the earth was much colder than it is now, and over time it has began to warm up…some day, it will start to become colder again. How do I know this? I studied Geology last year and if you look at the big picture, there have been cycles of warmer and colder weather…therefore, no human spraying a can of hairspray or a damn lightbulb are going to cause or prevent anything here.
on the cutting edge…
if you think this is a bad thing you are retarded.
California is the only state with enough balls to restrict the use of certain things and require certain things. Like emissions tests for cars; you have to get one in order to get it licensed and registered. What a fabulous idea! Sure, it sticks the consumer in the butt because now he has to get a catalytic converter for his car, but if it makes the air more breathable then I’m all for it!
I like how people say that the earth goes through cycles and that car emissions and consumer waste won’t affect these cycles. My only question is… how come none of these cycles have car emissions and consumer waste factored in? The reason for everyone worrying is because there haven’t ever been these sorts of unnatural toxins released into the air before, yet you want to base your entire assumption on the earth’s natural cycles? Please, think, THEN speak. That’s all.
Candles and Kerosene Lamps work well. Just noting that there are alternatives.
i despise flourescent lighting and it has been shown to decrease the productivity of workers, so I imagine having it in your home might increase the population of depressed people….???? Regardless, CA is definately one place that needs to consider how to control any kind of pollutants and curb energy use…
At least California’s doing something.
HUZZAH for them.
A ban seems harsh, but really how to enforce. OF course stores wont sell them, but whats to stop me from just shopping in Reno and driving home? Well as is I have mostly all fluorescents in my home, and it does save a lot of energy, and then money. Also the light from fluorescents today is much better than the ones from the 1980′s.
Also, frequently the local energy company, Pacific Gas and Electric, will have offset the price of the the flourecent bulbs, and sell them really cheap at Home Depot, like a $1 for a bulb, with all the savings that adds up to, its so worth it.
There are lots of people in California, and more people always coming, we have to find more ways to conserve, clearly. And if we dont get more rain, we are going to have to save more water too.
Well, I like living in California, its not perfect, but its a nice place to be home.
Florescent isn’t great….there needs to be another way. But I am glad they are concentrating on global warming. We need to stop now. This isn’t just for enviromentalists now.
I mean stop causing global warming, of course.
“if you look at the big picture, there have been cycles of warmer and colder weather…therefore, no human spraying a can of hairspray or a damn lightbulb are going to cause or prevent anything here.”
Yes, there have been cycles, but our’s is too drastic. It isn’t supposed to be happening this quickly. And it would be worse than the ‘warm’ cycles.
How about billions of humans- trillions of lightbulbs, so much hairspray, exaust fumes from billions of cars, trillions of other items. Will that make a difference?
Cutting
cutting edge. STOP KILLING THE EARTH
those bulbs actually LOWERED my electric bill this month here at school. and when you’re in college you can use every cent you can get back!
You know, there ARE CFLs out there now that emit a more yellow light, so they’re basically on par with incandescents in terms of what they make things look like. Meanwhile, they emit 70% less carbon dioxide, and consume a lot less energy (thus reducing energy bills – especially great in a state known for high high prices thanks to companies like Enron).
They also last ten times longer than incandescent bulbs, saving you money in the long run (even though the change in your next energy bill would have already paid back the cost).
Plus, California hasn’t exactly been going about this stuff stupidly. The emissions ratings make a lot of sense (esp. if you live in smoggy LA), and their solar subsidy program is one of the best in the nation… and a really smart option considering how much sun the state gets.
Maybe we’re a little “over the edge” when it comes to how slow we are to change and conserve energy.
Over the edge. We’re coming out of a friggin ice age, people. You better hope it warms up.
This is ridiculous. If you want to conserve, fine. But it’s other people’s rights to buy inefficient bulbs if they like.
This would be like banning all cars with bad gas mileage. Or get this, forcing people to put mechanisms, let’s call them catalytic converters, on their cars in the name of saving the environment even though they’d really make fuel economy worse overall.
yeah umm i suppose it will help
i don’t know if lightbulbs are the biggest culprit, and i certainly don’t appreciate having every clogged pore on my face 100 times more noticeable, but hey… why not? it’s not like it would inconvenience us, god forbid.
and they make lightbulb shaped flourescent lights, just to tell tell people in general.
Over the edge. Global warming would’ve happened with our interferance or not.
ok the person who commented before me sort of pissed me off to an extremity so i am going to have to comment again. yeah. it’s your right to buy inefficient stuff.
have fun with your rights when the global temperature catches up with global carbon dioxide levels… aka when you’re in HELL on earth.
yeah… freedom, civil rights. i’m sure they had “the right to use incandescent lightbulbs for no apparent reason” in mind when they came up with those concepts.
idk.. well after hawaii’s underwater, california’s next anyway. it’s already inching away from the contingent part of the united states.
yeah that has nothing to do with global warming lol.
but good for them–im glad they’re taking the greenhouse effect seriously!
eh, better cautaus then hazardous. If the light bulbs are replaced by the state, like for companies or schools or hospitals when this is first put into effect, then I dont see why not.
Derek
GO CA
I already use these type of light bulbs, and have done so for a while now….Yes, the lighting is definitely different, but does it matter if it saves on the hydro bill, as they are supposed to….I’m not even from California….I don’t understand the fuss if it saves money, and power…
That’s kind of retarded. We have to do all we can, though, right? What’s an incandescent lightbulb? Lmao.
-KrIsTiN-
They’re not as on the edge as they could be.
We could learn some things from Japan.
We need to require ALL vehicles sold in the U.S. get 40 miles to the gallon or more…even though 40 is pretty crappy.
We need affordable plug-in hybrids on the market NOW.
http://www.calcars.org
Over the edge.
California rocks my socks.
This is an example of trying to put a band aid on a large festering tumor. They should be focusing on the major contributors to pollution – industry, energy production, and automobiles.
Instead we have this dipshit useless legislation which sounds like it is taking action to a moron, but actually is a true waste of my taxdollars as the land of fruits and nuts tries to enforce it, hurting businesses, small ones for the most part and making lawyers richer.
Can I be president? It makes such perfect sense.
over the edge.
As an American living in Seoul, every building and most private homes only have fluorescent lighting. It is difficult to even find incandescent light bulbs to use in your home.
Personally, I hate fluorescent lighting. When I taught in a basement classroom (with only fluorescent lighting) I came home most days with a mild headache and aching eyes.
I hate those bulbs. I bought a few and they do NOT put out enough light even if it is a 100 watt bulb.
They are over the edge and around the bend. After all California is known as the land of fruits and nuts.
As a Californian, I say over the edge. We have a cazillion cars on the roads (each with one person) and their concerned about light bulbs?
Yes. I pray I can get out of Killa Kali Krazie. I love the place, but I really haven’t enjoyed the stupidity of the government here.
thats retarded
global warming is ridiculous.
Maybe.
Well, if they do ban them, I have to change some of my lights!
Another side effect: less alpha wave production in brain. Less creativity. NOw, this may actually be GOOD for CA – my old home state…..oh well. Freedom for incandescent!
Not a bad idea. But Florescents have toxic chemicals in them and only last as long as incadescents for on and off cycles really. LED’s are much more efficient and don’t burn out. That should be the mandate. It would force the market on LEDs and drive the cost down for all of us.
waaaaaaaaaaay over the edge. global warming is junk science.
this global warming hysteria only proves that if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people become lemmings.
http://www.junkscience.com
recently 2 books have come out about the fallacy of global warming. written by physicists.
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/two-new-books-confirm-global-warming-is-natural-moderate
Probably not a bad idea, especially with how much they need energy and all.
to me i think global warming is a hoax
I love how the ever progressive state of California is forever telling it’s citizens what they can and can not do. I’ve got another term for it: MEDDLING!
Over the edge, as in so many other areas.
I think it’s too bad that they have to ban them, but I think what they’re doing is a great idea.
waaaaay over.
they should just stop producing incandescent bulbs all together
fluorescent lights give me migraines. Good thing I don’t line in Cali
I really don’t think you can go over the edge when it comes to glbal warming, that shit’s scary. Something needs to be done about it.