Amazon.com Widgets

Ban on incandescent light bulbs: Should less energy-efficient incandescent light bulbs be banned?

  • It's a win-win-win.

    CFLs and LEDs may cost more up front, but they more than pay themselves back in energy savings over the course of their long lifetimes. People will save money, and this is not debatable. It's a win for the economy.

    At 75% and 85% more efficient (respectively), CFLs and LEDs require much less electricity, and therefore less fossil fuel consumption. Less coal and natural gas burned, less carbon dioxide emissions. It's a win for the environment.

    Besides greenhouse gases, less emissions also includes air pollutants like sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, mercury, and ozone constituents. This helps clean up the air, which will benefit the respiratory health of everyone. It's a win for society.

  • Consumers Should Choose

    Incandescent light bulbs should not be banned. Although they are less energy efficient than newer light bulbs available on the market today, they also cost considerably less than more efficient bulbs. Consumers should be given the choice whether honey want to use less expensive bulbs. The alleged energy savings with new bulbs is speculative at best.

  • Energy-effcient light bulbs aren't all they are supposed to be.

    It would be a bad idea to ban the "less energy-efficient" light bulbs because the supposed energy saving bulbs are not perfect. They have been proven to actually cause more waste and problems to the environment than traditional bulbs. There also may be other problems with these bulbs and so they need to be improved before a ban could be considered.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.