Im not against climate change (yes im not convinced about global warming) but there is a much bigger picture such that other technology is superior and we need too move forward. but your missing the point I'm making that no country should leave itself open to dictatorship. Signing over any form of power to another country/continent (that none of your people vote for either). How would you like it if I came into your house and said how you spend your budget? That you have to buy from x company cause they're "greener" even tho their products cost 10times as much or force you to change every pipe in your house cause they're not "efficient enough" even tho your pipes are perfectly fine.
The problem is that while there is some consensus on how the science works, there is far less on how we should respond. Far too much of the response is of the "We must do something, this is something, therefore...." approach. Add on top of that a lot of politics with everyone claiming they can create green jobs out of thin air (and government funds). The high oil price will naturally cause the development of efficient technologies that will improve the environment. If you want to take action on CO2 then you need an equal carbon tax on all forms of energy use. However what politicians want is to stand outside a new factory cutting a ribbon and announce headline grabbing measures about electric cars. When the technology is ready it will naturally take over. If you want to get a head start invest in research and let things happen. What we get is money handed to bodies to produce dodgy projection to try and persuade every to panic rather than think and grants to politically favoured companies and particular technologies. The grant on domestic solar panels was so high at one point that companies would install them for free and take a cut of the subsidised payoff. That isn't energy efficiency, that's a hand out. And as for jobs we get some for the installer and lots more in China were they make the thing. Hell, when we let out the cottage I had to get an energy performance certificate for it. When they were done I said, so which of these recommendations could I actually do on this listed property. "None". But I had a piece of paper and they has a cheque and the government can claim to be "doing something". .
I am already under the power and the whim of people i did not vote for. 1) The ones that have their hands up the ass of the people i voted for (corporations, special interests, banks, foreign powers). 2) EU, need i say more? 3) USA, pretty much says jump and everyone goes how high? and now 4) The IMF, thanks to the puppets i voted for power. As for costs, after the CFC ban lots of products became more expensive and lots of big companies went bankrupt, this does not mean that people unbanned CFCs because of the cost. Unless you throw insane amounts of money against it and create laws that outlaw it. There is more money to be made by screwing up our planet than there is to make it a good place to live. If the EU did not ban incandescent light bulbs then we would be still using them for the next 30 years.
We were using Halogens while inancadescent where still freely available and I use LED in some cases now despite halogens beign unrestricted. I susepct Incandescent would have died a death a lot faster than theat. For a lot of us having a bulb that isn't so hot is a major advantage.
Quite frankly most people, regardless of that legislation, switched to CFL bulbs anyway. It's just a function of cost and quality. As CFL prices started coming down and they were given away for free they have widely been seen as longer lasting, less energy use and cooler bulbs. As electricity prices have risen people have become more concious of their energy use anyway.
This is true for energy production, the low hanging fruits for energy production are all fossil fuel based with the renewable options having issues with long term degradation and cost per effective watt. Energy consumption however costs me money and it's in my interest to figure out how to reduce those costs. This calculation is done by figuring how how long into the future I care about. If I only care about the next quarter, incandescents are the way to go. If I'm looking at a time line on the order of 5+ years then CFL becomes cheaper. In a population, you will always have a distribution of people who have different measurements on how long into their economic futures they are willing to prepare for. Some people at my age are starting college funds for their kids, I myself only care about the next 2 years for instance. As time passes, energy production however becomes more expensive because it's really just harvesting a finite resource. Those cost curves will be adjusted and the break even point for your investment is advanced from being 5 years into the future to something that you care more about.
Around here if it is not governmental or a new building then everyone buys incandescent, they are cheaper. When the EU ban came into effect everyone went ballistic and lots of people started stockpiling incandescents. It depends greatly on the country and the ability to buy new tech.
I do find it entertaining the idea that someone thought it was cheaper to buy a decade worth of light bulbs because he didn't want to be forced to buy a more expensive but longer lasting variety. But hey, I had a math teacher who didn't understand tax brackets form a piecewise continues function so she asked for a paycut.
Humans are like that. There is also the case of people that purchased CFLs and had them die on them one year later, i know several of these people and they refuse to buy anything that is not incandescent.
Some of the early CFLs were pretty poor both in terms of light output and in the amount of time it took for them to warm up to full brilliance. I think some early experiences with murkly light put a lot of people off. Certainly they aren't a great solution for everything. For instance if you have a light inside a large cupboard which you flick on for 20 secs will you look for something, it's a bit of a pain. However for bedside lamps, having bumps tank don't leave the lamp scalding hot is great.
You just said it yourself, that is why Obama should never have attempted to sign away power. Local governments are elected by the people to serve the peoples interests (Tho governments haven't quite got this concept themselves admittedly) just because your you have already signed away power doesn't mean continuing to do so solves the problem. At least thats one thing I admire about Greece, they screwed up, but at least the government is considering the option of what serves the people, even if it screws the whole of Europe ie walking away. We done the same with stockpiling too. The reason, early ones didn't work with dimmer switches, alot of people also suffered headaches from early ones after a period of time and some people hated their appearance of being twice the size of a normal bulb (personally I thought they looked cool). I don't even remember their being a variant for bedside lamps until a few years after the mandate. I also remember being skeptical that 10year life was constantly touted with only a one year replace on the spot warranty. Some shops even selling bulbs up to and over the £100 mark. (pricing error or maybe early versions of the dimmer variety I can't remember).
What if the government is unwilling or unable to make decisions to save the people that voted for them?
I'm using nearly all Halogen, which are dimmable or LED. Dimmable LED bulbs of decent output are dropping in price. Here's a 7W dimmable GU10 on ebay at £10
Yea, we're slowly moving to LED. My brothers lift got an LED bulb last Thursday. Apparently to "save money" the company that installed the lift used a bulb that was known to fry the main circuit board. The company that has taken over the installation and maintenance contract can't understand how it saved costs since a circuit board costs at least £100 for the part alone never mind the time and wages etc. of a call out. Spending the extra on a bulb would save a fortune in the long run >.> Thats just one of the blunders they've been known to make some of which actually where dangerous (wrongly wired, makeshift outside the specification parts, not installed on runners properly). It's no wonder they lost the contract. Then Replace them or leave the country. I hear civil wars are the rage atm.
Actually the entire idea that the Second Amendment is centred about is not that the citizen should be allowed to bear arm to defend themselves, but to be able to overturn the government by violent means when it no longer protects it's citizens right to freedom. In other words it is to make sure that the public is always ready for a civil war, and with the development in the last few decades I say there may be something to it.
The Second Amendment dates back to a time when our armies where regularly being defeated by even the Native Americans and a very hostile nation was right next door. This is the reason why the criteria of militia was in that statement. Some founding fathers did make statements about revolutions every generation, but those where far from universally shared. Why would you think we couldn't? Are you asking if such a war could succeed? The best available civilian weapons would put a scratch on our modern toys and our government is heavily insulated from assassination attempts actually changing policies so I'd say no.
One citizen, no, several states yes. Best example is V for Vendetta, ever seen it? It was a civil uprising effectively. Take Obama care for example, it would annoy people but they're still safe, have food, shelter etc. and apart from one issue life will continue as normal. What if on top of health care, education funding got halved to fund a war with Iran (essentially another pearl harbour waiting to happen) and several bad harvests mean the people are struggling to eat? If enough people got riled over several issues then usually "peaceful" protests would happen. What if the government turned to curfew yet the people still felt the need to protest further leading to clashes? Some governments (ie ones with strong opposition) would step down and call an election, others would try to hold power often resulting in violence. If the military is strong and dislike the war effort or even arresting their own people eventually you could get a military coup. If a split in the army happens or a stale mate civil war is more likely. Remember war has changed, wars can be won in days (Thailand have had several coups over the last decade). Most Western countries, the governments tend not to piss people off and if they do, not in vast numbers. Even when they do, in 4-7 years depending they will be out. Civil war will only occur when democracy fails and enough people are rallied to the cause. Heck the troubles in Northern Ireland was essentially a civil war which lasted from the late 60's to early 00's. Civil war isn't unheard of but is usually a result of a vacuum of power.
Another movie about the aftermath of a civil war in the US is The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. It's fairly plausible as a premise: pollution lowers birthrate, ultra-conservative militias kill the president and congress, and the northwestern part of the US secedes from the union. Great cast by the way and a wonderful discussion flick.
