If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Republicans will buy greener light bulbs as long as you don't tell them they are good for the environment   (motherjones.com) divider line 65
    More: Stupid, environments, Wharton School of Business, Energy Star, global warming controversy, Drudge Report  
•       •       •

2120 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2013 at 8:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-30 08:47:17 AM
9 votes:
I think the moral here is that the right has just become a party of trolls.  Liberal folks may sometimes fit the stereotype that they are susceptible to "green" marketing and "organic" bullshiat, even when it ultimately does little to nothing to help the environment (and in some cases is worse).  But at least the intentions are to actually do something good - reduce their environmental impact and reduce the use of pesticides.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are in this reactionary psychology where they'd just as soon throw a newspaper in the garbage rather than recycle it (all things being equal), if for no other reason than recycling is "liberal bullshiat."   What is their underlying goal?  It's just childish spite.

So I'm kind of tired of the false equivalence of "liberals and conservatives are equally stupid."   That doesn't really work when one side is literally taking positions and doing things for no admirable or principled reason, and is simply doing it to troll the other side.  If you look at Washington, this is the big problem with the GOP - it is simply obstructionist and has no real goals other than to make the democrats look bad and oppose things (like background checks, efficiency standards) for no reason other than because it's something democrats like.
2013-04-30 08:49:00 AM
5 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: While an "energy efficient" bulb costs four or five dollars, dims after two years and burns out in three even though it is "guaranteed" for five.


Is there a reason you wouldn't take the manufacturer up on their guarantee then?  Because if what you say is accurate, you could get free bulbs in perpetuity.

But hey, why do that when you could keep buying and replacing incandescents, right?
2013-04-30 08:31:59 AM
4 votes:
Alright, I'm starting a company called As God Intended and telling them all my green energy products were biblically inspired, they'll eat it right up.

Remember when God said "let there be light?"  He was telling us to harness the Sun's energy with solar panels.  These Return to Eden light bulbs, that will save you money by using less energy? Just inspired by a simpler time.

/who needs Energy Star certification when we have Jesus Christ Super Star certification?
2013-04-30 09:36:59 AM
3 votes:
I'm a pretty libbing Lib and all but...
I work in the lighting industry, as a designer not an engineer, and I have always felt that the compact fluorescent revolution was a little squirrly. The self evident future of general consumer illumination is LEDs. That future is, by and large, already happening. We could have sensibly transitioned from incandescence to LED based products, but for some reason we inserted this other 10 year or so period of marketing CLF's as the "Green" option. CFL's are much more efficient then incandescence of course, LEDs much more so, and don't involve all that tasty mercury winding up in land fills.
Professional and hobbyist markets will always be served, Film, video. photography, various medical applications, etc, who have need of incandescent sources will be able to get them, but the overwhelming majority of light used by everybody else should have converted to LEDs years ago. Why this is a political issue, I don't understand.

/waits for engineer type to point out the horrors inherent in LED manufacture
/ducks
2013-04-30 08:48:52 AM
3 votes:
Is paying money to damage the environment really all that surprising from the same people that vote for a party that will hurt them economically because they will also hurt minorities at the same time?
2013-04-30 07:39:26 AM
3 votes:

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: DRTFA. But it must be true.

When I drive through rich republican suburbs and see trash in the streets,dead grass from urine and playgrounds in ruins.

Then when I go a through poor urban area the people are picking up litter  and sweeping the sidewalks and the playgrounds are immaculate also flower boxes on each window sill.


You should try reading. Perhaps then you wouldn't come off sounding like a special needs who downed a fifth of Beam.
2013-04-30 01:35:50 PM
2 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: THX 1138: Slaves2Darkness: Have you? or are you just repeating information that you read or heard about, assuming that it is the gospel truth.

You're the one who claimed "the cost over the life of the bulb is an order of magnitude cheaper" for incandescents without any citation whatsoever.

Based on my observation, which I have cited repeatedly I have to replace CFL bulbs every 2-3 years, that significantly increases the costs of CFLs. I have not tried LEDs yet, maybe they don't lie about how long they last, but based on experience I doubt it.


anecdotal evidence is a kind of evidence.
2013-04-30 12:10:44 PM
2 votes:
This is one of my favorite projects for a client, in a before/after photo. Above it the "Before" photo with halogen lamps, the below is the "After" photo with LED lamps. There are the same number of lamps in the two photos, exposure & F-stops are identical (and no post processing) between the two shots.
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
This was done two years ago for a high-end art client in Maui. There are 120 lamps, which were kept on 24/7 (so passers-by could see artwork through the windows when the place was closed & for security). Maui has an electrical rate of $0.36 a kWh.

Here's the math on how it breaks down:
Halogen: 120 lamps x 100 watts per lamp x 24 hours x 365 days + 5-tons of constant air conditioning = ~$50,000 a year in electricity. Seeing as this is Hana, which the nearest home improvement store is 3 hours away, meant that when it came time to replace the halogen bulbs (which die every 2,000 hours), they'd need to keep about 600 lamps on hand to replace for each year of operation.

I convinced them to spend $16,000 on new, high-end (~94 CRI) LED lighting:
LED: 120 lamps x 16 watts per lamp x 24 hours x 365 days - no air conditioning costs = $6,000 a year.

Over the course of 5 years, they'll save from having to buy 3,000 halogen bulbs and will save $220,000 in electricity cost. Plus they have the added benefit of brighter lights to showcase their product, less damage to the art work from heat, and less wear and tear on their A/C system. As part of my installation, they gave me a complementary stay at the adjoining beach resort for the week.

Sometimes I love my job.
2013-04-30 11:48:23 AM
2 votes:
This is the first LED bulb I installed at work:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net

It's the original CREE LR6, 6-inch can light retrofit. I installed this lamp in August of 2008. It so far has only lost 10% of its original lumens (I check it annually with a footcandle meter). Since this is an employee entrance, the light has run continuously, 24/7. That works out to be nearly 44,000 hours of operation to date.

This 12-watt light has the same lumen output of that of a 60-watt incandescent lamp, and nearly identical CRI and color temperature. At the time, it cost a very steep $65 (today, similar CREE models cost $19)

Had I kept using a 60-watt incandescent bulb, I would have had to replace it at least 11 times now, and I would have spent $264 in electricity (@ $0.10 kWh) over the past 5 years of operation

But instead, I spent $65 on the LED lamp and $53 in electricity. And now when I need to replace it, I can buy a similar LED lamp for $19.

You have to be an idiot to buy incandescent bulbs - both 5 years ago and even more so today. Or you simply like throwing money away.
2013-04-30 11:07:21 AM
2 votes:

Ctrl-Alt-Del: my alt's alt's alt: I never liked CFLs because of the mercury content. If you break one, you are supposed to leave the room/building and call hazmat to cut out the carpet/flooring in the area of the break and decontaminate the area.

Please, just stop with this stupid argument already. I don't know whether you're trolling (if so,  congratulations, you got me! Well done, I suppose) or actually believe this, but either way you look like an idiot saying it


It's the same person that will proudly proclaim that when they were young and didn't have all that unnecessary regulation they would play with mercury in their hands. You know, the good old days.

www.learnnc.org
2013-04-30 11:04:58 AM
2 votes:
Are these the same morons who bought Hummers just to "piss off the greens" only to whine like petulant children when gas prices spiked?
2013-04-30 10:50:10 AM
2 votes:

my alt's alt's alt: I never liked CFLs because of the mercury content. If you break one, you are supposed to leave the room/building and call hazmat to cut out the carpet/flooring in the area of the break and decontaminate the area. You are not supposed to throw them in the trash when they stop working due to the deplorably high mercury content. I'm sure most Americans are thoroughly educated on the subject and follow this protocol just fine on their own.

/LED ftw


There is less mercury in a cfl than in a oral thermometer. You do not need a hazmat team to deal with a broken bulb. Bogus talking point that comes up in every o e of these threads remains bogus. To clean up a cfl you basically just need to air out the rooom, sweep carefully and don't use a vacuum, and then out the debris in a sealed bag and dispose of properly.

http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl (remove the space fark will probably put in there)
2013-04-30 10:48:15 AM
2 votes:

my alt's alt's alt: I never liked CFLs because of the mercury content. If you break one, you are supposed to leave the room/building and call hazmat to cut out the carpet/flooring in the area of the break and decontaminate the area.


Please, just stop with this stupid argument already. I don't know whether you're trolling (if so,  congratulations, you got me! Well done, I suppose) or actually believe this, but either way you look like an idiot saying it
2013-04-30 10:34:42 AM
2 votes:
It's sometimes hard to tell who is trolling, who is astroturfing and who genuinely believes what they're saying.
2013-04-30 09:32:32 AM
2 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: cman: I also once believed that global warming did not exist

I was very partisan at that point. I felt that buying those types of green products gave the left a bit of an edge. This is the mindset that is plaguing America.

And you're surprised to be ridiculed for believing these things?  I have to hand it to you, despite having been wrong about basically everything for as long as I've ever seen you here, you still manage to react with sincere shock when someone points it out.  I don't know what it takes to achieve that, but you've got loads of it.


Dude, seriously - who pissed in your Corn Flakes this morning? I mean, I disagree with most of cmans politics, but here the guy comes out and admits that he used to think that way, and that he used to be  a  global warming denialist, but instead of saying something like "Good for you for changing your mind based on facts and rationality" you just keep riding his ass?

Take a pill, man. And consider the idea that you might owe him a wee bit of an apology here
2013-04-30 09:23:26 AM
2 votes:

Saiga410: If I read the article right the study was based off of package information.


No, according to the article the packaging in each sample contained the same "hard data" about energy use. The only difference was the three words "Protect the environment" and that's what changed the conservatives' choices.

There's no way to spin this as "they're being rational". Conservatives have been brainwashed by large corporations into thinking that environmentalism is bad.
2013-04-30 09:23:09 AM
2 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: cman: So no one can ever make any bad decisions in life and see the error in their ways and repent?

Eventually dropping a belief that any five-year-old could immediately see is ridiculous on its face doesn't shield you from all future criticism.  "I was very partisan" isn't an explanation.  What the Hell made you think that your lightbulb purchases gave "the left a bit of an edge".  What the fark does that even mean?


I was a young stupid man who believed everything that I was handfed without any independent thought.

I never said I was free from criticism. I criticize myself constantly. I know I am a dumbass. This I readily admit. However, douchebag dickery ridicule really pisses me off. There is a difference betwixt "You were wrong" and "wow you were such a farking moron why dont you hang yourself".

Just sayin...
2013-04-30 08:59:24 AM
2 votes:
Because the GOP is in the pocket of Big Oil, which denies green energy to try to keep people hooked onto fossil fuels for as long as possible.  This is why we can't get any alternative fuel car to be successful.  Car companies talk about hydrogen cell cars for a decade but I wonder if it's just talk to try to make themselves look good in front of environmentalists.

And so this culture of supporting Big Oil filters down to other technologies.  Because, as a conservative, you're suppose to "hate" non-oil, non-gas technologies, you're suppose to hate anything labeled "green" or "energy efficient."  This paranoia then spreads to stupid things like lightbulbs.

This hatred grows even stronger due to the liberal insistence that global warming is a man made problem and Big Oil's insistence that it is not (regardless of what one Koch-funded research claims.)  Big Oil will lose their profits if people switch to alternative energy sources so they do whatever they can to downplay or even outright deny that global warming is a real thing.  And so again, this increases the hate against anything labeled "green" or "energy efficient," thus creating an irrational hatred of lightbulbs.
2013-04-30 08:54:39 AM
2 votes:
A study out today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them

Why save yourself money when other people will also benefit from it?
2013-04-30 08:50:45 AM
2 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: Honestly I understand why you would not recycle, use inefficient light bulbs, and pollute. The "energy efficient" light bulbs are expensive, an incandescent bulb are cheap. While an "energy efficient" bulb costs four or five dollars, dims after two years and burns out in three even though it is "guaranteed" for five.

Those "energy efficient" bulbs are a rip off and no where need as effective as advertised.


I've been using many of the same energy efficient bulbs for almost 10 years. They've been moved between houses too. Your electric bill goes down. If you buy great value or big lots cfls don't expect them to last.
2013-04-30 08:42:52 AM
2 votes:

Rapmaster2000: [o.onionstatic.com image 850x595]


What the fark was that?  Is that really what passes for conservative political cartooning?  This... this is a parody, right?  Please?
2013-04-30 08:34:27 AM
2 votes:
I worked with a guy who purposefully threw recyclables in the trash and made sure to flaunt his use of styrofoam containers in front of an environmentalist co-worker. He did this to "piss off Al Gore"

/yes, he thought Sarah Palin would be a good president
2013-04-30 06:17:02 PM
1 votes:

Fiatlux: We could have sensibly transitioned from incandescence to LED based products, but for some reason we inserted this other 10 year or so period of marketing CLF's as the "Green" option. CFL's are much more efficient then incandescence of course, LEDs much more so, and don't involve all that tasty mercury winding up in land fills.


Question for you... how long have people been using these:
www.countynewscenter.com
In their homes, their shops, their businesses?
Did you know that they were invented in 1896, and that billions of them have already ended up in landfills?
Did you know that every single one of them also contains mercury, and always has?
Where was the b*tching for 116 year about that? Why only compact flourescents, and why now?
As a "designer" you should know better. As an alleged "liberal" you should be ashamed for not knowing better.
2013-04-30 04:14:54 PM
1 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: I haven't tried LEDs yet, but the CFLs never last more then 2-3 years, some a lot less. So, while your calculations might be right based on the rated hours, I seriously doubt they are right when actually used.


Um, wat?

Dude, math isn't that hard, you know. My calculations ARE right, and you can easily check them in about 30 seconds with a calculator. Ten bucks per year per bulb for the life of the bulb.  This has nothing to do with rated hours, or "actual use" whatever the hell that is. It's a simple fact.

In fact, none of my discussion had to do with "rated hours" The bulbs have a ten year warranty, so my numbers are correct for at least ten years, regardless of actual bulb performance.

Slaves2Darkness: Based on my observation, which I have cited repeatedly I have to replace CFL bulbs every 2-3 years, that significantly increases the costs of CFLs. I have not tried LEDs yet, maybe they don't lie about how long they last, but based on experience I doubt it.


So your experience with a completely different technology, sold by a completely different company that manufactures its products in a completely different country has led you to the conclusion that this technology just can't possibly be as good as they say?  And all that despite the fact that you haven't even tried it? Color me unimpressed.

My personal experience with LED lights matches up with  the other stories in this thread, as well as the claims of companies who sell them. I've owned dozens (likely more than a hundred)  of LED flashlights over the past ten years, and a handful of LED light bulbs for the past two years, and I have never had a single bulb burn out. Not one - not the led, not the controller circuit for the led, nothing. I'm closing on a new house in the near future, and with a few specific exceptions, every single bulb in the house is going to be LED
2013-04-30 02:46:35 PM
1 votes:

heap: Deucednuisance: Jesus Christ, where does this bullshiate come from?

what gets me (as you've mentioned) is it's only the CFLs that people have this fear of - as if their 4 foot fluorescents in the garage or the metal halide security light didn't contain up to 100 times as much mercury.

i swear to zombie jesus that spite is the only source of inertia in way too many people's lives.


As Deucednuisance points out, a standard CFL has about 3.5 mg of mercury. Compare that to an older furnace thermostat, which contains 3-5 *grams* of mercury (which for those of you metrically challenged, is 3,000-5,000mg):

0.tqn.com

Yet you never hear of people being afraid of bumping their home's thermostat and making the whole state a hazmat site!!!!
2013-04-30 02:25:02 PM
1 votes:

my alt's alt's alt: I never liked CFLs because of the mercury content. If you break one, you are supposed to leave the room/building and call hazmat to cut out the carpet/flooring in the area of the break and decontaminate the area. You are not supposed to throw them in the trash when they stop working due to the deplorably high mercury content.


Jesus Christ, where does this bullshiate come from?

Learn to read, read to learn:  http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl-detailed-instructions

Compare and Contrast:

The average mercury content in aCFL is 3.5 milligrams (mg) - roughly the amount it would take to cover the tip of a ballpoint pen. Although there is currently no substance that can serve as an alternative to mercury to produce light in fluorescent lamps, some manufacturers have reduced the amount of mercury used inCFLs to as little as 1mg per bulb.

us.daylightcompany.com
Stop being so goddam concerned, and stop lying, and stop spreading lies.
2013-04-30 02:15:50 PM
1 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: I'd give LED a try if I could find one for less then $15 dollars a bulb.


Multiple people in this very thread have shown you that these do exist and are plentiful.

Slaves2Darkness: As for the CFL's the new rules on disposal are another strike against them as we are no longer supposed to throw them away, because of the mercury inside them.


It is such a chore to return them to the same place that you bought them and will buy their replacements, isn't it?

Slaves2Darkness: Also if you break one you are supposed bring in a clean up expert that will charge you anywhere from $5-25 thousand dollars.


And this is simply not true.  If you believe it, you are engaging in arrogant ignorance.  That or lying.

Tell us, how do you dispose of fluorescent tubes, which contain far more mercury than a CFL?
2013-04-30 01:41:36 PM
1 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: Those "energy efficient" bulbs are a rip off and no where need as effective as advertised.


Appropos of nothing, the CFL bulb in my basement stairwell has been functioning flawlessly for almost twenty years.  I've taken it with me through three different homes and it has always been employed in high-use areas.  It currently gets turned on and off many times a day.

And, I guess you haven't been to a Home Depot recently:

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Cree-6-Watt-40W-A19-Warm-White-2700K-LED- Li ght-Bulb-1-Pack-BA19-04527OMF-12DE26-1U100/203991778?N=bm79#.UYABVaLFX -Y

But this is the sort of arrogant ignorance we should expect from someone with your handle, right, Slaves2Darkness?

How apt.
2013-04-30 01:33:25 PM
1 votes:

MrSteve007: This is one of my favorite projects for a client, in a before/after photo. Above it the "Before" photo with halogen lamps, the below is the "After" photo with LED lamps. There are the same number of lamps in the two photos, exposure & F-stops are identical (and no post processing) between the two shots.
[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x286]
This was done two years ago for a high-end art client in Maui. There are 120 lamps, which were kept on 24/7 (so passers-by could see artwork through the windows when the place was closed & for security). Maui has an electrical rate of $0.36 a kWh.

Here's the math on how it breaks down:
Halogen: 120 lamps x 100 watts per lamp x 24 hours x 365 days + 5-tons of constant air conditioning = ~$50,000 a year in electricity. Seeing as this is Hana, which the nearest home improvement store is 3 hours away, meant that when it came time to replace the halogen bulbs (which die every 2,000 hours), they'd need to keep about 600 lamps on hand to replace for each year of operation.

I convinced them to spend $16,000 on new, high-end (~94 CRI) LED lighting:
LED: 120 lamps x 16 watts per lamp x 24 hours x 365 days - no air conditioning costs = $6,000 a year.

Over the course of 5 years, they'll save from having to buy 3,000 halogen bulbs and will save $220,000 in electricity cost. Plus they have the added benefit of brighter lights to showcase their product, less damage to the art work from heat, and less wear and tear on their A/C system. As part of my installation, they gave me a complementary stay at the adjoining beach resort for the week.

Sometimes I love my job.


I have nothing to add. I just want to say i enjoyed your insight.
2013-04-30 01:05:24 PM
1 votes:

TheBigJerk: Yeah, duh.  I call it the anti-green movement.  Because the Right hates "hippies"  that farking much.


The environmental movement has suffered from two problems over the years.

1. It came into the mainstream consciousness in the late-60's & early-70's and was embraced by a fair portion of the anti-establshment. This caused the establishment to respond with the tried-and-true, "If they're for it, I'm agin' it." That mentality survives to this day, particularly among the RW, who generally tend to view anything anti-establishment or outside of the "norm" (like education and scientific research - "Ain't no scientists or college graduates in my family, and we've been doing just fine mining coal for generations") as bad, illogical and worthy of disdain.

2. The environmental movement made a severe messaging mistake by positioning ecologically-sound practices and conservation of resources as being matters related to "saving the planet." In doing so, they failed to see that people don't give two shiats about the planet's "health". In truth, the planet will get along just fine, with or without us. If a meteor strike in the Yucatan that (probably) caused a global mass extinction 65 million years ago couldn't wipe out all life on the planet, then pollution and the overharvesting of natural resources - particularly of plant species - won't wipe out all life either. But it will kill most life, including humans. In my opinion, they would have been more effective if they had made the point that "environmentally-friendly" practices are about ensuring the ability of humans to survive for more than a few more generations, not about "saving the planet".
2013-04-30 12:23:12 PM
1 votes:

Chummer45: I think the moral here is that the right has just become a party of trolls.  Liberal folks may sometimes fit the stereotype that they are susceptible to "green" marketing and "organic" bullshiat, even when it ultimately does little to nothing to help the environment (and in some cases is worse).  But at least the intentions are to actually do something good - reduce their environmental impact and reduce the use of pesticides.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are in this reactionary psychology where they'd just as soon throw a newspaper in the garbage rather than recycle it (all things being equal), if for no other reason than recycling is "liberal bullshiat."   What is their underlying goal?  It's just
  childish spite.

So I'm kind of tired of the false equivalence of "liberals and conservatives are equally stupid."   That doesn't really work when one side is literally taking positions and doing things for no admirable or principled reason, and is simply doing it to troll the other side.  If you look at Washington, this is the big problem with the GOP - it is simply obstructionist and has no real goals other than to make the democrats look bad and oppose things (like background checks, efficiency standards) for no reason other than because it's something democrats like.


FTFY.

They aren't trolling. They think their actions and beliefs are the correct ones, and when told frequently and vociferously by the people that they are delusional, wrong and fallacious in their thinking, they pull the older-than-grade-school version of jamming their fingers into their ears and screaming, "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Stomping their feet and saying, "No no no no no" to everything coming from the Dems even when it involves something that was the RW's idea in the first place, putting party before country ("my team is better than your team", "my daddy can beat up your daddy"), discarding reasoned, rational discourse in favor of rancor, enmity and venom - These are the acts of children.

They should be treated like obstreperous children as a result - No dessert, no TV, no video games, no computer, no phone. They should be grounded until after the next election cycle ends, not allowed to hang out with other children who make similarly bad choices & made to apologize for their misdeeds, face to face to those they've harmed. And if that doesn't work, send them off to military school - or the military, since they're over 18 (That will really vex 'em - They love the idea of soldiers, but not the idea of being soldiers).
2013-04-30 12:13:18 PM
1 votes:

The universe is laughing behind your back: I was there. People just get tired of being preached at, and I suspect large parts of a couple generations tuned out the environmental cause because of it.


I was there, too. I'm probably older than you because I remember when Nixon created the EPA, along with a number of other really important environmental initiatives. I don't remember any of the "preaching" you claim was so prevalent.

Certain business interests pushed back against environmental regulation, and politicians they paid for started the now-familiar bullsh*t about how we shouldn't let a bunch of dirty commie hippies preach at us with their liberal elite "science" and kill our jerbs. Of course there were morons who bought that crap, and there still are; the current manifestation of that is man-made global warming denial.

We shouldn't be blaming science for the prejudices of morons and the powerful assholes who manipulate them.
2013-04-30 12:11:37 PM
1 votes:
Conservatives would punch themselves in the nuts if they thought it would somehow win a political sports match.
2013-04-30 11:41:20 AM
1 votes:
well, their messiah, glenn beck, did chop down a tree for arbor day. this is the sort of contrarian, spite-your-face mentality we're talking about.
2013-04-30 11:36:02 AM
1 votes:

StrikitRich: Typically, Mother Jones leaves out the fact that the light bulbs shoved onto the consumer were produced in China and put US workers, i.e, the Wincester, VA GE plant, out of work during a hard recession.


Laissez faire fetishism it what puts US workers out of work, not efficient lightbulbs.
2013-04-30 11:24:02 AM
1 votes:

Lawnchair: When you bring this up, they don't seem to see the issue.


Fartbongo told them to buy CFL's that seems to be the only issue
2013-04-30 11:14:48 AM
1 votes:
The thing I love is the conservatives I know getting all concern-troll about the mercury in CFLs as the reason they can't consider switching.

Then, you go into their garages and basements and you've got a half-dozen good old T40 Shop Lights (the long fluorescent tubes).  One older T40 bulb has as much mercury as 100 or more modern CFLs.

When you bring this up, they don't seem to see the issue.
2013-04-30 11:09:48 AM
1 votes:
This is unique to modern republicans.  Nothing can't NOT be about politics to the conservative mouth-breathers.  Some times progress is non-partisan.  These guys think that by being inefficient they are "showing them" but in reality they only hurt themselves.  It's like children.  Just idiots.

New light bulb technology is cheaper in the long run and more efficient.  Period.  Get the hell over it.
2013-04-30 11:01:28 AM
1 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: Serious Black: Slaves2Darkness: THX 1138: Slaves2Darkness: While an "energy efficient" bulb costs four or five dollars, dims after two years and burns out in three even though it is "guaranteed" for five.

Is there a reason you wouldn't take the manufacturer up on their guarantee then?  Because if what you say is accurate, you could get free bulbs in perpetuity.

But hey, why do that when you could keep buying and replacing incandescents, right?

Yeah, there is I didn't keep the receipt. No receipt no replacement.
Yes I will keep buying and replacing incandescents, because the cost over the life of the bulb is an order of magnitude cheaper, despite what the propaganda says.

Really? You've studied it out and everything?

Have you? or are you just repeating information that you read or heard about, assuming that it is the gospel truth.


Well, I know how much a 60 watt incandescent light bulb costs (about $1). I know how much a comparable LED light bulb costs (about $13). I  know how much electricity the LED bulb uses compared to the incandescent (about a sixth). I know what the mean time to failure for each of those bulbs is (somewhere around 1,000 for an incandescent, somewhere well north of 10,000 for an LED). That means you'll have to buy at least ten times as many incandescents to cover the lifespan of a single LED bulb. Right there, you're almost entirely making up the higher cost of the LED bulb just in materials. And when you factor in how much electricity costs per kilowatt-hour at my house (just north of 6.4 cents per kWh) and that the LED will use far less electricity than the incandescents, it's pretty clear that the only way I wouldn't save a buttload of money by switching to LED bulbs is if I basically never turned on a light bulb in my entire house.
2013-04-30 10:57:54 AM
1 votes:

Thrag: The universe is laughing behind your back: Tomahawk513: Saiga410: Tomahawk513: Saiga410: It is all about the messaging.  If you harp on and on about the green aspects of a product I zone out/stop caring, I dont care. Wax poetically about efficiency gains and a payoff period and I am like an 8 year old that found the lingerie section of the Sears Catalog.

Different strokes for different folks.

There's a difference between apathy toward environmental friendliness, and outright disgust as the article suggests.

See I do not see the disgust.  There is a small subsect that is probably spiteful but I suggest it is more to deal with crowding out the message with information that the consumer does not care about.  If I read the article right the study was based off of package information.  You only get a small window for someone to absorb the information.  If you add something of neutral recognition level to the packaging, people will look at it and shift informational awareness away from the more affective message.

FTA: "Gromet said she never expected the green message to motivate conservatives, but was surprised to find that it could in fact repel them from making a purchase even while they found other aspects, like saving cash on their power bills, attractive. The reason, she thinks, is that given the political polarization of the climate change debate, environmental activism is so frowned upon by those the right that they'll do anything to keep themselves distanced from it."

I'm guessing some of you weren't around during the Carter administration when environmentalism was a topic of endless discussion everywhere. You couldn't get through a day without hearing how environmental disaster was imminent if we didn't cut back on our energy usage. But nobody ever saw the environmental disaster come, and then Reagan was elected, and a lot of people who were coming of age then simply got sick of all the moralization. I'm pretty certain that the endless hammering on environme ...


I wasn't referring to the president specifically, except to note that this was going on *while* he was president.

The environmentalist cause was getting a lot of media play in the late '70s and early '80s, much of which was moralistic in tone (the energy crises of '73 and '79 had a lot to do with this.) I was there. People just get tired of being preached at, and I suspect large parts of a couple generations tuned out the environmental cause because of it.

I'm not one of them. My house was filled with CFLs when I built it five years ago. More than half of them are still in use. Energy savings aside, I appreciate not having to change bulbs all the time or having them generate heat on hot days. I'll probably replace them with LEDs when they die.
2013-04-30 10:44:12 AM
1 votes:

Geotpf: Yeah, but LEDs still usually cost $20 a bulb. CLFs are $2 a bulb. And five years ago they basically weren't available at all commercially, while CFLs were.


From a recent review:

Cree 60W equivalent  Warm White (2700K) LED Light Bulb
I've been writing about the electronic design industry for over 15 years and I've never seen an LED light bulb with a better combination of features than the Cree. At $13, it's dimmable, has high quality color, is long lasting, has a 10 year warranty and makes as much light as a 60-watt incandescent bulb. It's my new favorite LED light bulb.
2013-04-30 10:42:05 AM
1 votes:

The universe is laughing behind your back: Tomahawk513: Saiga410: Tomahawk513: Saiga410: It is all about the messaging.  If you harp on and on about the green aspects of a product I zone out/stop caring, I dont care. Wax poetically about efficiency gains and a payoff period and I am like an 8 year old that found the lingerie section of the Sears Catalog.

Different strokes for different folks.

There's a difference between apathy toward environmental friendliness, and outright disgust as the article suggests.

See I do not see the disgust.  There is a small subsect that is probably spiteful but I suggest it is more to deal with crowding out the message with information that the consumer does not care about.  If I read the article right the study was based off of package information.  You only get a small window for someone to absorb the information.  If you add something of neutral recognition level to the packaging, people will look at it and shift informational awareness away from the more affective message.

FTA: "Gromet said she never expected the green message to motivate conservatives, but was surprised to find that it could in fact repel them from making a purchase even while they found other aspects, like saving cash on their power bills, attractive. The reason, she thinks, is that given the political polarization of the climate change debate, environmental activism is so frowned upon by those the right that they'll do anything to keep themselves distanced from it."

I'm guessing some of you weren't around during the Carter administration when environmentalism was a topic of endless discussion everywhere. You couldn't get through a day without hearing how environmental disaster was imminent if we didn't cut back on our energy usage. But nobody ever saw the environmental disaster come, and then Reagan was elected, and a lot of people who were coming of age then simply got sick of all the moralization. I'm pretty certain that the endless hammering on environmental concerns then did real damage to the cause in the mainstream.


This is revisionist bullshiat. Carter's conservation was primarily in response to the two oil crises that happened in the 70s, not because of an impening environmental disaster. The environment was a concern but alone the lines of not being wasteful, not impending disaster. Protecting the environment was the third motivating factor in his conservation speech after the idea of having an energy policy and the economy. That speech had no mention of any impending disaster.
2013-04-30 10:40:09 AM
1 votes:
Yeah, duh.  I call it the anti-green movement.  Because the Right hates "hippies"  that farking much.
2013-04-30 10:20:47 AM
1 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: THX 1138: Slaves2Darkness: While an "energy efficient" bulb costs four or five dollars, dims after two years and burns out in three even though it is "guaranteed" for five.

Is there a reason you wouldn't take the manufacturer up on their guarantee then?  Because if what you say is accurate, you could get free bulbs in perpetuity.

But hey, why do that when you could keep buying and replacing incandescents, right?

Yeah, there is I didn't keep the receipt. No receipt no replacement.
Yes I will keep buying and replacing incandescents, because the cost over the life of the bulb is an order of magnitude cheaper, despite what the propaganda says.


Are you factoring in the 90% more power that they use?  And I don't know what planet you live on, but in my experience CFLs do tend to last three to five years of frequent use, with minimal to no dimming.
2013-04-30 10:03:31 AM
1 votes:

Fiatlux: I'm a pretty libbing Lib and all but...
I work in the lighting industry, as a designer not an engineer, and I have always felt that the compact fluorescent revolution was a little squirrly. The self evident future of general consumer illumination is LEDs. That future is, by and large, already happening. We could have sensibly transitioned from incandescence to LED based products, but for some reason we inserted this other 10 year or so period of marketing CLF's as the "Green" option. CFL's are much more efficient then incandescence of course, LEDs much more so, and don't involve all that tasty mercury winding up in land fills.
Professional and hobbyist markets will always be served, Film, video. photography, various medical applications, etc, who have need of incandescent sources will be able to get them, but the overwhelming majority of light used by everybody else should have converted to LEDs years ago. Why this is a political issue, I don't understand.

/waits for engineer type to point out the horrors inherent in LED manufacture
/ducks


The only horror is cost.  Most people won't spend $50, or even $20 for a light bulb, no matter how long its designed to last.
2013-04-30 09:58:54 AM
1 votes:
I'm not replacing all my bulbs at once, but I'm slowly overtime planning to replace all my rooms with the new Cree LED's.

The first room I did was my bedroom which used three 60watt bulbs with three of the 40watt quality Cree ones (see link), they each use 6watts of power and with three of them the room is just as bright (and temperature wise, much cooler). I went from using 180watts in that room to 18watts.

Granted, they cost me after tax about $32, but they're warranted for 10 years and they say they last 28.8 years. So it is a long term investment, but the cost savings alone should pay for itself within a few years.

I suspect as time goes on they price will come down even more too.

/yea, I know I sound like I'm selling it, but fark if I'm not a true believer now in these guys!
2013-04-30 09:48:05 AM
1 votes:

Arkanaut: Saying "conservatives are racists" is like saying "Muslims are terrorists".


No, it's not.

Racism and "small government" talking points have been joined at the hip since this country was founded.
2013-04-30 09:45:36 AM
1 votes:

Ctrl-Alt-Del: LouDobbsAwaaaay: cman: I also once believed that global warming did not exist

I was very partisan at that point. I felt that buying those types of green products gave the left a bit of an edge. This is the mindset that is plaguing America.

And you're surprised to be ridiculed for believing these things?  I have to hand it to you, despite having been wrong about basically everything for as long as I've ever seen you here, you still manage to react with sincere shock when someone points it out.  I don't know what it takes to achieve that, but you've got loads of it.

Dude, seriously - who pissed in your Corn Flakes this morning? I mean, I disagree with most of cmans politics, but here the guy comes out and admits that he used to think that way, and that he used to be  a  global warming denialist, but instead of saying something like "Good for you for changing your mind based on facts and rationality" you just keep riding his ass?

Take a pill, man. And consider the idea that you might owe him a wee bit of an apology here


He doesnt owe me any sort of apology.

I like the motherfarker. Hell, I have sponsored him for TF twice. As an expert in the field of unintentional perceptions I aint really mad at him.
2013-04-30 09:30:07 AM
1 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: Honestly I understand why you would not recycle, use inefficient light bulbs, and pollute. The "energy efficient" light bulbs are expensive, an incandescent bulb are cheap. While an "energy efficient" bulb costs four or five dollars, dims after two years and burns out in three even though it is "guaranteed" for five.

Those "energy efficient" bulbs are a rip off and no where need as effective as advertised.


I see you bought the cheap non-brand CFL bulbs they were selling in bulk at Walmart 5 years ago.

The technology has gotten much better.
The name brand bulbs work better.
New LED bulbs are also an option.
In some areas where you have power issues (lower than 100 volts when you should have 120 can cause problems, etc,etc), you may not be able to use CFL bulbs.
2013-04-30 09:24:21 AM
1 votes:

serial_crusher: You know, the ones that produce hardly any light until you've left them on for about 20 minutes?


Maybe I've just been lucky in my purchases, but have those even been manufactured in the last, like, 10 years?
2013-04-30 09:23:13 AM
1 votes:

THX 1138: This sounds eerily similar to that psych experiment where people were offered the choice of receiving $200 right now or $50 per week for 10 weeks.  And the incandescent crowd is reminiscent of the group that opts for the $200.


Except they do it even when the price is the same, the only benefit they are getting on buying inefficient bulbs is "sticking it to the libs", and then they spend the rest of their lives paying for it.
2013-04-30 09:17:50 AM
1 votes:

cman: So no one can ever make any bad decisions in life and see the error in their ways and repent?


Eventually dropping a belief that any five-year-old could immediately see is ridiculous on its face doesn't shield you from all future criticism.  "I was very partisan" isn't an explanation.  What the Hell made you think that your lightbulb purchases gave "the left a bit of an edge".  What the fark does that even mean?
2013-04-30 09:13:37 AM
1 votes:
You know, there's a lot of stigma associated with CFLs just not being very good at doing their job as light bulbs.  And yeah, I've used some pretty crappy ones.  You know, the ones that produce hardly any light until you've left them on for about 20 minutes?

I could easily see the "energy efficient" label being the trigger that tips people off that those might be the bulbs we're talking about.  So, you present two comparative "fact sheets" that don't include warm-up time, but otherwise indicate the CFL is a better bulb and consumers pick it.  Now you throw in a hint towards the long warm up time and boom nobody's picking it anymore.
2013-04-30 09:13:12 AM
1 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: cman: I also once believed that global warming did not exist

I was very partisan at that point. I felt that buying those types of green products gave the left a bit of an edge. This is the mindset that is plaguing America.

And you're surprised to be ridiculed for believing these things?  I have to hand it to you, despite having been wrong about basically everything for as long as I've ever seen you here, you still manage to react with sincere shock when someone points it out.  I don't know what it takes to achieve that, but you've got loads of it.


So no one can ever make any bad decisions in life and see the error in their ways and repent?

FFS, man. Al Gore was against abortion before he was for it and yet no one gives him shiat for that.
2013-04-30 09:09:26 AM
1 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: C'mon.  You buy lightbulbs out of spite?  How pathetic does someone's life have to get before they lower themselves to that?  And other than good sense, what do you think you're spiting, exactly?


I'm surprised to find myself defend  cman,but his original post did admittedly say he  feltthe same way.  Felt,as in past tense.

I interpreted that as meaning he changed his mind after thinking objectively about it.
2013-04-30 09:01:53 AM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: It's hardly their fault that conservatives are racists.


IMO it's racists that tend to identify with conservatives, not necessarily the other way around (there are some libertarians who point at Jim Crow as evidence of "big government").  Saying "conservatives are racists" is like saying "Muslims are terrorists".
2013-04-30 08:58:45 AM
1 votes:
Republicans hate environmentalism because they hate everything. In this specific instance, they particularly hate environmentalism because healing the planet delays the apocalypse. And Republicans (all of them. Every single one.) want nothing more than for the Earth to be destroyed in fire, because they all hate their lives, yet are too cowardly to kill themselves.

tl;dr: All Republicans hate environmentalism because it delays their fiery death at the hands of their benevolent lord and savior.
2013-04-30 08:58:09 AM
1 votes:
This sounds eerily similar to that psych experiment where people were offered the choice of receiving $200 right now or $50 per week for 10 weeks.  And the incandescent crowd is reminiscent of the group that opts for the $200.
2013-04-30 08:57:56 AM
1 votes:

Katie98_KT: What if we assume that there is a rational reason for their inclination.

Given:
Most "green" products cost more than "non-green" products
conservatives believe that there is no reason to prefer green over non-green products
a rational consumer, given the information that something is a green product, would assume that it costs more for 'no good reason' and, in making a quick purchase like a light bulb, avoid the green product.


Psst.  Read the article.

Also, the idea of the rational consumer went out a while ago.  It's all behavioral economics now.  For example, cman is choosing products based on spite.  That isn't rational behavior.
2013-04-30 08:57:10 AM
1 votes:

Saiga410: It is all about the messaging.  If you harp on and on about the green aspects of a product I zone out/stop caring, I dont care. Wax poetically about efficiency gains and a payoff period and I am like an 8 year old that found the lingerie section of the Sears Catalog.

Different strokes for different folks.


There's a difference between apathy toward environmental friendliness, and outright disgust as the article suggests.
2013-04-30 08:52:03 AM
1 votes:
What if we assume that there is a rational reason for their inclination.

Given:
Most "green" products cost more than "non-green" products
conservatives believe that there is no reason to prefer green over non-green products
a rational consumer, given the information that something is a green product, would assume that it costs more for 'no good reason' and, in making a quick purchase like a light bulb, avoid the green product.
2013-04-30 08:51:39 AM
1 votes:

cman: xria: Is paying money to damage the environment really all that surprising from the same people that vote for a party that will hurt them economically because they will also hurt minorities at the same time?

Article: green tech
You: RACISM RACISM OMG RACISM


Both fall under 'malice towards all others'.
2013-04-30 08:47:00 AM
1 votes:

LazarusLong42: Rapmaster2000: [o.onionstatic.com image 850x595]

What the fark was that?  Is that really what passes for conservative political cartooning?  This... this is a parody, right?  Please?


That's the Onion's own political cartoonist.
2013-04-30 08:41:31 AM
1 votes:
Because they're a-holes?
2013-04-30 07:58:25 AM
1 votes:
So good it posted twice?
 
Displayed 65 of 65 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report