by Mike Masnick
Wed, Dec 26th 2007 10:29am
Earlier this month, we pointed out that Ireland had joined Australia in setting a date for banning incandescent lightbulbs. There had been talk about the US following suit, and now it (almost) has, approving legislation that would phase out inefficient bulbs by 2012, such as the incandescents that most people still use. Once again, though, we have to point out how counterproductive a move like this seems. Already, more and more people were moving to more efficient bulbs naturally, as they realized how much money they actually saved with them. For those who complained about the type of light given off by the fluorescents, that just gave more incentives for the makers of CFLs to make the light better match incandescent bulbs. The competition also gave more incentives to make CFLs cheaper and even more efficient, as well as coming up with ways to make the (already seriously overhyped) worries about mercury, less of an issue. However, if politicians take away the competition from incandescents, it suddenly gives the makers of CFLs a lot less incentive to come up with these kinds of innovations and breakthroughs.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- With Republicans Backing Away From TPP, Does It Still Have Any Chance?
- No Matter Who Our Next President Is, They Won't Understand Technology
- Clinton Friend, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, Now Pretends Hillary Never Supported TPP
- Clinton Friend Admits What Everyone Knows Is True: Clinton Still Supports TPP & Will Back It
- Putin's Internet Trolls Are Stoking The Vitriolic Fire By Posing As Trump Supporters