Why not just subsidize LED bulbs to make them cheaper? Banning Americans’ rights to buy things as innocuous as certain kinds of light bulbs is petty government overreach.
Why not just subsidize LED bulbs to make them cheaper? Banning Americans’ rights to buy things as innocuous as certain kinds of light bulbs is petty government overreach.
Starcade absolutely rules. Protip: don’t watch the first season; the host didn’t give a toss about video games and it’s pretty hard to watch. In seasons 2+, he was replaced by the utterly fantastic Mr. Jeff Edwards, who is proof that no one is ever too old to be enthusiastic and knowledgeable about an exciting new technology. He’s seriously the best game show host I’ve ever seen, and he makes the episodes feel really wholesome and fun, even when contestants are mismatched in terms of age or ability. The whole series is available online, but please don’t slam their servers; it’s a one-person passion project from somebody who used to work on the show.
Your explanation makes sense, but I disagree that banning a product from sale is a good approach to phasing out the use of inefficient technologies. The curmudgeons are a small minority and probably can’t be convinced to change over anyway. The bigger demographic to convert are, as you mentioned, penny-wise, dollar-foolish folks who don’t understand that an LED bulb will save far more money over time than the price differential between it and the incandescent bulb. Subsidies to lower the cost of the LED bulbs to match the prices of incandescent ones would be effective, as would education campaigns about cost savings. Neither of these options would restrict citizens’ rights the way the proposed ban would, nor would they feed culture war blowback.