Editor's Blog4 mins ago
All thanks to the EU
24 Answers
http://www.dailymail....rs-174-cent-year.html
The EU legislation in 2009 made it illegal to make pearl bulbs in the UK or import them from abroad, although the clear bulbs are not banned because energy saving bulbs fail to reproduce the dazzling light they emit.
/// But under a voluntary agreement which came into effect this month, chains including Sainsbury’s, Tesco, B&Q and Asda have agreed to stop selling traditional bulbs altogether. ///
Do you miss the bright light of the old style bulb, or do you think the small amount of energy saving and the increase cost of the new type bulb, is well worth the sacrifice?
The EU legislation in 2009 made it illegal to make pearl bulbs in the UK or import them from abroad, although the clear bulbs are not banned because energy saving bulbs fail to reproduce the dazzling light they emit.
/// But under a voluntary agreement which came into effect this month, chains including Sainsbury’s, Tesco, B&Q and Asda have agreed to stop selling traditional bulbs altogether. ///
Do you miss the bright light of the old style bulb, or do you think the small amount of energy saving and the increase cost of the new type bulb, is well worth the sacrifice?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
" Yes, the EU are conning you into saving money in both the long term costs of buying bulbs and running them, how dare they."
Surely it should be your choice, though? If you actually want to effectively pay more for the old bulbs through lower energy savings (if, say, you find the old ones easier to read with), isn't that your choice to make?
Surely it should be your choice, though? If you actually want to effectively pay more for the old bulbs through lower energy savings (if, say, you find the old ones easier to read with), isn't that your choice to make?
Personally I find the light from newer energy saving bulbs no different to the old style of bulb and the warm up times on the new ones is down to a few seconds, not the 30plus seconds of the early ones.
Being "forced" to do something that saves you money is not a con no matter which way you look at it. Arguing that you should have the right to choose is a different matter totally. Sometimes legislation is required to make people do the right thing, when the requirement for seatbelts to be worn was first introduced there was also outcry that people should be free to choose but you won't find many people saying that law hasn't saved lives. Now we get the same "we should be free to choose" arguments about the bulbs when it's plainly obvious that they will save money for the individual and the environment for everyone.
Being "forced" to do something that saves you money is not a con no matter which way you look at it. Arguing that you should have the right to choose is a different matter totally. Sometimes legislation is required to make people do the right thing, when the requirement for seatbelts to be worn was first introduced there was also outcry that people should be free to choose but you won't find many people saying that law hasn't saved lives. Now we get the same "we should be free to choose" arguments about the bulbs when it's plainly obvious that they will save money for the individual and the environment for everyone.
@Chuck:
Just because one outcry for consumer freedom turned out bogus, it doesn't mean they all are. With regard to the quality of light they provide - that's a matter of opinion or taste, surely? Other posters have already commented that they have eyesight problems and preferred the old ones. If they want to incur cost to themselves with lower energy savings, then that's a freedom which is being taken away from them. I don't know about you, but I take that very seriously.
The environmental argument is a very different one, with a whole other set of ethical issues regarding whether it's right to force people to be environmentally friendly. Speaking personally, I'd like to hear more on that before I make up my mind, so I'll leave it for others. But what I do think is that it's bogus to think you can morally justify this decision on the grounds that it saves more money for the individual, because if individuals are happy to incur the cost for whatever reason, it is unethical to force them to save money they want to (effectively) spend.
Just because one outcry for consumer freedom turned out bogus, it doesn't mean they all are. With regard to the quality of light they provide - that's a matter of opinion or taste, surely? Other posters have already commented that they have eyesight problems and preferred the old ones. If they want to incur cost to themselves with lower energy savings, then that's a freedom which is being taken away from them. I don't know about you, but I take that very seriously.
The environmental argument is a very different one, with a whole other set of ethical issues regarding whether it's right to force people to be environmentally friendly. Speaking personally, I'd like to hear more on that before I make up my mind, so I'll leave it for others. But what I do think is that it's bogus to think you can morally justify this decision on the grounds that it saves more money for the individual, because if individuals are happy to incur the cost for whatever reason, it is unethical to force them to save money they want to (effectively) spend.
OK then, let’s try this for an “environmental” argument.
I believe ChuckFicken’s savings in terms of KwHs consumed a little inflated, if for no other reason no seasonality has been factored in. However, no matter. I reckon in a week in the winter I might consume at most 200 watts of lighting (using conventional bulbs) per hour for about twelve hours a day. My consumption is thus about 17Kw per week (incidentally, my supplier charges be just 10p per Kwh, not over 13p quoted by CF). Assuming I make the 80% savings quoted by using unsuitable, hazardous light bulbs that make some people ill this means I will save about 13Kw of juice in a week.
Now, yesterday I was in a branch of a major department store. They had three sets of double doors, all wide open. Each opening was “protected” from the elements by the use of a “curtain” fan heater. I have looked at these things in the past and I know that they each consume between 18 and 25Kw of electricity per hour. So this place was using around 60Kw each hour essentially to heat up the street. Assuming the store is open a (conservative) sixty hours each week, they are consuming 3600Kw a week. No “EU directives” exist to stop this ridiculous waste of energy but I am forced into using unsuitable light bulbs to make energy savings that are cancelled out almost 300 times over by a single store.
The light bulb directive is a prime example of the EU using its might to force consumers into activities under the guise that they are somehow saving the planet. They would do better to issue an edict forcing stores to keep their doors shut in winter. Far less inconvenient, far more effective.
But that’s not really what the EU is about, is it?
I believe ChuckFicken’s savings in terms of KwHs consumed a little inflated, if for no other reason no seasonality has been factored in. However, no matter. I reckon in a week in the winter I might consume at most 200 watts of lighting (using conventional bulbs) per hour for about twelve hours a day. My consumption is thus about 17Kw per week (incidentally, my supplier charges be just 10p per Kwh, not over 13p quoted by CF). Assuming I make the 80% savings quoted by using unsuitable, hazardous light bulbs that make some people ill this means I will save about 13Kw of juice in a week.
Now, yesterday I was in a branch of a major department store. They had three sets of double doors, all wide open. Each opening was “protected” from the elements by the use of a “curtain” fan heater. I have looked at these things in the past and I know that they each consume between 18 and 25Kw of electricity per hour. So this place was using around 60Kw each hour essentially to heat up the street. Assuming the store is open a (conservative) sixty hours each week, they are consuming 3600Kw a week. No “EU directives” exist to stop this ridiculous waste of energy but I am forced into using unsuitable light bulbs to make energy savings that are cancelled out almost 300 times over by a single store.
The light bulb directive is a prime example of the EU using its might to force consumers into activities under the guise that they are somehow saving the planet. They would do better to issue an edict forcing stores to keep their doors shut in winter. Far less inconvenient, far more effective.
But that’s not really what the EU is about, is it?
