Climate Change Thread

[Husar]

I am. But not to defend "consumer choice".

It's not the Soviet era. No one is going to be stealing incandescents to push on the black market.

Exactly, because they are not produced or imported anymore.
As for the legalization, what if the consumer makes a stupid choice?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2732004/
Is drug abuse to combat stress a choice a homo oeconomicus would make?
The "ultimate freedom" is anarchy, but only few people want it.

My reason to adhere to incandescents is not economic - I just don't like the twinkling kind of light ESLs emit. It feels uncomfortable and hospital-like.

ESLs? You probably mean CFLs - Compact Fluorescent Lights.
That's also a strawman or whatever because there are LEDs.

Is using incandescents as harmful for human health as heroin and causes similar addiction?
Can you kill someone when you use incandescents like you can with a gun?
Your comparisons are invalid.

Yes.
Yes.
No.

You should see how fast people run to find some incandescents on batteries when the lights go out at night.
If you inhale the exhaust fumes produced while powering an incandescent with fossil fuels for a year, you'll probably not be able to aim your gun before you drop to the floor.
You just need to think a bit further than the immediate circumstances, electric energy does not just come out of nowhere.

There are many other things which harm nature even more and they are not banned. Why aren't plastic, gasoline, nuclear power plants banned?

But that's what I just said in the part you quoted, we shouldn't stop at light bulbs, it has to be a slippery slope where we ban plastics or at least plastic waste, nuclear energy, coal and gas power plants, cars running on fossil fuels, having babies, overfishing, and so on.
Note that I did not say we should do it right now and destroy everything we built up, see the lightbulbs as a first babystep.

Make the planet great again!

My solution is apply economic factors to oust something which you consider harmful (make it more expensive) - but not outright ban it. Especially in case of incandescents whose perilous influence upon nature is waaaaaay smaller than oil extraction or exhaust gas pollution. And ESLs, btw, which contain mercury.

Exactly, that's why I switched CFLs for LEDs as soon as I could...
I haven't bought a new CFL in a long time and don't plan to do so ever again.
CFLs are just a distraction argument for people who missed or omit the existence of LEDs.

[Gilrandir]

ESLs? You probably mean CFLs - Compact Fluorescent Lights.
That's also a strawman or whatever because there are LEDs.


Exactly, that's why I switched CFLs for LEDs as soon as I could...
I haven't bought a new CFL in a long time and don't plan to do so ever again.
CFLs are just a distraction argument for people who missed or omit the existence of LEDs.

http://recyclenation.com/2015/01/how...le-light-bulbs, where:

While LED light bulbs do not contain mercury, many do contain other hazardous substances such as lead and arsenic. Despite this, most communities do not require you to recycle LEDs.

A strawman?
The problem with Westerners is that they don't (as you put it) "think a bit further than the immediate circumstances". You base your conclusions on the framework you know (and consider it universal) and then try to apply that grid onto other countries/cultures/mentalities - and are very surprised it doesn't work the way it works with them.

The most crucial things about using LEDs and CFLs (I called them ESLs - energy saving lamps, because I didn't know the proper word, so thanks for a prompt) is their recycling (the same source):

When it comes time to dispose of CFL light bulbs for whatever reason, make sure you get them to a recycling facility.

If you want to recycle LED light bulbs and ensure those dangerous substances do not enter the waste stream, you may have to hunt for a proper recycling facility.

There are no programs available to recycle incandescent light bulbs, so you will need to put them in the trash.

In Ukraine there is a great problem with garbage disposal in general to say nothing of recycling it. So what do you think will harm nature more IN UKRAINE: a thrown away incandescent or a LED (to say nothing of CFL)?

You should see how fast people run to find some incandescents on batteries when the lights go out at night.
If you inhale the exhaust fumes produced while powering an incandescent with fossil fuels for a year, you'll probably not be able to aim your gun before you drop to the floor.
You just need to think a bit further than the immediate circumstances, electric energy does not just come out of nowhere.

I may come up with similar nonsensical stories:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...irish-hospital
Does it mean we have to ban using ambulances and opt for having surgeries at home?

ANYTHING around us may cause death. Guns and drugs are more likely to do that (are more lethal, if you remember that semantic argument of ours ) than bulbs. Moreover, some other things which are (allegedly) as much harmful for people as those metioned - I mean alcohol and tobacco - are not banned. Why is that? Inhaling bulbs is more dangerous than smoking?

But that's what I just said in the part you quoted, we shouldn't stop at light bulbs, it has to be a slippery slope where we ban plastics or at least plastic waste, nuclear energy, coal and gas power plants, cars running on fossil fuels, having babies, overfishing, and so on.
Note that I did not say we should do it right now and destroy everything we built up, see the lightbulbs as a first babystep.

Make the planet great again!

Speak for your part of the planet and don't you poke your nose into mine.

And you seem to have missed my point: I was against OUTRIGHT BANS on things whose harmful influence upon the environment (or human health) is not much greater than of those you want to replace them with. If you want people to stop using them - phase them out with taxes, financial incentives to buy their safe counterparts, propaganda and other economic/ethical methods. BUT: leave people a choice. That's how democracy works, doesn't it?

[Montmorency]

That's how democracy works, doesn't it?

Well, no, it's completely tangential.

And dump-disposed LED have far less impact on soil and water than either CFL or incandescent in any form.

[Gilrandir]

And dump-disposed LED have far less impact on soil and water than either CFL or incandescent in any form.

I expect one would need to sustain the claim, especially in the part that lead and arsenic of LEDs harm the environment less than ??? in incandescents.

[Montmorency]

Incandescent bulbs have a lot of glass and metal and stuff and animals cut themselves on it. Or, stepping aside from your level of reasoning: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2..._lca-pt2_0.pdf

Scroll to the charts and discussion of environmental impacts in Section 7, of filament, CFL, LED 2012, and LED 2017 lamps, across soil, water, and air, from raw materials and manufacturing to disposal and storage.

For the LED lamp in 2017, the profile is similar to that of the 2012 lamp, however the significance of
energy is diminished due to the fact that this lamp is considerably more efficacious. For this reason, the
other impacts are able to gain a slightly higher proportion of the relative impact for each of the fifteen
categories considered. In this analysis, energy in use represents an average of 78.2% of the impact,
followed by raw materials at 19.3% and manufacturing at 2.3%. The transportation and disposal of the
lamp are negligible, at less than 0.2% each.

And for comparisons between lamps: LED simply does better in every category, including hazardous and non-hazardous landfill.

[Gilrandir]

Incandescent bulbs have a lot of glass and metal and stuff and animals cut themselves on it.

Meaning that LEDs don't have any of those?

And for comparisons between lamps: LED simply does better in every category, including hazardous and non-hazardous landfill.

So, you admit it IS hazardous?

Again, a Westerner is applying a grid natural for him unconscious of its inadequacy (or limited adequacy) elswhere.

As far as I know, LEDs give a comparatively narrow ray meant to light a limited area around it. Traditionally, Ukrainian homes have the electricity network oriented towards lighting the whole room with one source of light hanging from the ceiling in the middle of this room. Wall bracket lamps and bedside lamps are used on a limited scale if at all. A room where only such lamps are lit is considered too dark and people are likely to switch on the central light if they stay there. A LED central light will leave most of the room murky. So LEDs may in fact be used only in desk lamps which will not change the overall situation greatly.
Even if the tradition is going to change (which I doubt) should I (and many others) re-design the whole electricity layout to be able to use LEDs and have my place properly lit? And what if in a couple of years they will come up with a new invention which will allow me to rely on central source of light again - should I change the layout back?

Anyway, that is not my message. What I want you to see is: banning one thing which is purportedly bad and not banning other things which are as bad (or even worse) undermines the whole institute of the freedom of choice and individual responsibility which are cornerstones of Western democracy.

[Montmorency]

So, you admit it IS hazardous?

Your potatoes and apples and grains are full of poison. Stop growing them immediately.

whole institute of the freedom of choice

No.

individual responsibility

Opposite.

cornerstones of Western democracy.

Please.

As far as I know, LEDs give a comparatively narrow ray meant to light a limited area around it. Traditionally, Ukrainian homes have the electricity network oriented towards lighting the whole room with one source of light hanging from the ceiling in the middle of this room. Wall bracket lamps and bedside lamps are used on a limited scale if at all. A room where only such lamps are lit is considered too dark and people are likely to switch on the central light if they stay there. A LED central light will leave most of the room murky. So LEDs may in fact be used only in desk lamps which will not change the overall situation greatly.

Do you live in a mansion? If so, get more than one light. If not, get a lamp with luminous properties suitable for the actual space in which it will be installed. There are many to "choose" from. Non-issue.

What I want you to see is: banning one thing which is purportedly bad and not banning other things which are as bad (or even worse)

We have established that available fluorescent and LED lighting is straightforwardly less bad than filament lighting and filament lights.


The only concern I will give you is if dictats are too fickle or rapid to cope with for the citizen. But it's not happening anytime soon. Even in OECD countries, the filament bulb is used as majority in residential buildings (though almost not at all in industrial/commercial buildings by now). Incandescents are actually proportionally less-used in non-OECD countries in "the Global South", if only because kerosene lighting is still so popular. So don't worry about it too much, your children will take care of you.

[Papewaio]

Again, a Westerner is applying a grid natural for him unconscious of its inadequacy (or limited adequacy) elswhere.

As far as I know, LEDs give a comparatively narrow ray meant to light a limited area around it. Traditionally, Ukrainian homes have the electricity network oriented towards lighting the whole room with one source of light hanging from the ceiling in the middle of this room. Wall bracket lamps and bedside lamps are used on a limited scale if at all. A room where only such lamps are lit is considered too dark and people are likely to switch on the central light if they stay there. A LED central light will leave most of the room murky. So LEDs may in fact be used only in desk lamps which will not change the overall situation greatly.
Even if the tradition is going to change (which I doubt) should I (and many others) re-design the whole electricity layout to be able to use LEDs and have my place properly lit? And what if in a couple of years they will come up with a new invention which will allow me to rely on central source of light again - should I change the layout back?

Anyway, that is not my message. What I want you to see is: banning one thing which is purportedly bad and not banning other things which are as bad (or even worse) undermines the whole institute of the freedom of choice and individual responsibility which are cornerstones of Western democracy.

Actually you can get leds that shine like an incandescent or fluorescent light and they will brighten more of the room for less power. The ones that mimic an incandescent light generally have an opaque globe around the led and the whole globe will glow.

The other omnidirectional ones look like little Xmas trees with led filaments in gold strands.