The barbarians ban the lightbulb

[Judith]

The important item here is this: "At least 50 percent of the lighting wattage in kitchens will be required to be high efficacy." Read that again to yourself and you'll soon realize that I can actually have as much standard lighting as I want as longs as I install twice as much wattage of fluorescent! Yes, this law will actually cause me to install about 1000 watts of fluorescent lighting that I will never turn on so that I can install the non-fluorescent that I want! A law straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

It *IS* stupid, but at least it gives you a way around. Install some cheap fluorescent stuff behind a reasonably attractive fixture, put in separate switches, and never use the fluorescent stuff.

Damn. I really, really hate it when governments presume to tell people what they can and can't do in their own homes. I don't object when it's a safety thing that could result in a neighborhood fire; that impinges on the rights of others. But in a case like this one, or when they try to tell you how much water your toilet tank can hold, I start to get seriously pissed.

Judith

[tjohnson]

It *IS* stupid, but at least it gives you a way around. Install some cheap fluorescent stuff behind a reasonably attractive fixture, put in separate switches, and never use the fluorescent stuff.

Damn. I really, really hate it when governments presume to tell people what they can and can't do in their own homes. I don't object when it's a safety thing that could result in a neighborhood fire; that impinges on the rights of others. But in a case like this one, or when they try to tell you how much water your toilet tank can hold, I start to get seriously pissed.

Judith

Now you are complaining about water conservation too?? Do you think natural resources are limitless or what? The reason the government has to take action is because we are running out of these resources.

[sjw]

It *IS* stupid, but at least it gives you a way around. Install some cheap fluorescent stuff behind a reasonably attractive fixture, put in separate switches, and never use the fluorescent stuff.

Damn. I really, really hate it when governments presume to tell people what they can and can't do in their own homes. I don't object when it's a safety thing that could result in a neighborhood fire; that impinges on the rights of others. But in a case like this one, or when they try to tell you how much water your toilet tank can hold, I start to get seriously pissed.

Judith

Now you are complaining about water conservation too?? Do you think natural resources are limitless or what? The reason the government has to take action is because we are running out of these resources.

GS did you join the wrong forum?

Shayne

[jordanz]

Now you are complaining about water conservation too?? Do you think natural resources are limitless or what? The reason the government has to take action is because we are running out of these resources.

Jeez GS - you do realize this is an Objectivist forum, right? I deleted my previous post but I feel compelled to say something. You are making unsubstantiated statements. When you make an assertion that we are running out of resources you need to back it up with evidence. I've pointed to several sources of information that show why we are not running out of resources. I can give you hours of material.

Now you imply above that we are running out of water. You cannot be serious about this. The earth is ~75% water. There is water everywhere. Pick any resource you like. The only reason it's a "resource" is because someone values it and there is a technology to utilize it. Please read Julian Simon's work and explain why you think it's wrong.

FYI - Here's a great article by Simon

Edited April 10, 2008 by jordanz

[Brant Gaede]

Can't you just use the new ugly light bulbs, have them inspected, then screw in Edison bulbs? Or, build to code then electrically renovate the crap out?

The good news is California is going to become an island and float up to Alaska while we in Arizona get prime beachfront property.

--Brant

The important item here is this: "At least 50 percent of the lighting wattage in kitchens will be required to be high efficacy." Read that again to yourself and you'll soon realize that I can actually have as much standard lighting as I want as longs as I install twice as much wattage of fluorescent! Yes, this law will actually cause me to install about 1000 watts of fluorescent lighting that I will never turn on so that I can install the non-fluorescent that I want! A law straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

It *IS* stupid, but at least it gives you a way around. Install some cheap fluorescent stuff behind a reasonably attractive fixture, put in separate switches, and never use the fluorescent stuff.

Damn. I really, really hate it when governments presume to tell people what they can and can't do in their own homes. I don't object when it's a safety thing that could result in a neighborhood fire; that impinges on the rights of others. But in a case like this one, or when they try to tell you how much water your toilet tank can hold, I start to get seriously pissed.

Judith

[jordanz]

Can't you just use the new ugly light bulbs, have them inspected, then screw in Edison bulbs? Or, build to code then electrically renovate the crap out?

The good news is California is going to become an island and float up to Alaska while we in Arizona get prime beachfront property.

I wish. The law requires them to have the new-style connector. CFL replacement bulbs are not compliant.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I haven't followed this too closely.

Did Arnie do this to the light bulb? Or was that someone else?

Dayaamm!

GS,

Running out of earth through mankind's irresponsible greed sells news and makes Big Al look good, but it just ain't happening. The scientists are yelling at each other, of haven't you noticed? There's no proof, just lots of disputed facts and figures that bounce all over the place while experts yell at each other.

What abuses do exist, the ones that are shown in all those ugly pictures, are from big business being in cahoots with government. More government is not the answer.

You want alternative energy? Let anyone who wishes to do so manufacture oil, gasoline, ethanol, water-fuel or anything else, and the vehicles that use them to run on. You want energy conservation? You will get it in spades when the bottom line of companies depends on it, with major rewards going to companies who can supply more work with less energy at cheaper cost.

Get rid of all manufacturing regulations. Every damn one of them.

"Oh nooooooo!" cries Big Oil. "We can't do that. That would not be socially responsible."

It would also open the market to some serious competitors, too. Probably blow Big Oil's game sky-high. But nobody's supposed to say that.

I have never understood why Objectivists defend Big Oil on moral terms. These companies are the whores of dictators and they stifle free enterprise.

Michael

[tjohnson]

FYI - Here's a great article by Simon

You call that a great article? It didn't do anything for me.

[tjohnson]

These companies are the whores of dictators and they stifle free enterprise.

Michael

Well, I agree with that.

[jordanz]

You call that a great article? It didn't do anything for me.

Why? Do you dispute the facts? If so, provide evidence.

[tjohnson]

OK, let me clarify my position. I agree that it was rather vague to say we are running out of resources. What I mean is we are running out of easily obtainable, ie. cheap resources. It is going to be expensive to develop alternative energy sources, like bio-diesel, for example, so why not try to make the best use of existing resources as we make the transition to new technology? I see conservation as a strategy for survival, not as some political agenda.

[jordanz]

OK, let me clarify my position. I agree that it was rather vague to say we are running out of resources. What I mean is we are running out of easily obtainable, ie. cheap resources. It is going to be expensive to develop alternative energy sources, like bio-diesel, for example, so why not try to make the best use of existing resources as we make the transition to new technology? I see conservation as a strategy for survival, not as some political agenda.

Every resource I can think of is plentiful and cheap. Which cheap resources are we running out of? Please provide evidence.

[tjohnson]

Every resource I can think of is plentiful and cheap.

You think oil is plentiful and cheap? I guess we need to discuss what you mean by these terms 'plentiful' and 'cheap' then. So what do you mean by plentiful then?

Edited April 11, 2008 by general semanticist

[jordanz]

Every resource I can think of is plentiful and cheap.

You think oil is plentiful and cheap? I guess we need to discuss what you mean by these terms 'plentiful' and 'cheap' then. So what do you mean by plentiful then?

I gave my evidence earlier in this thread for how plentiful oil is. Further, the data I showed was only the *known* technologically viable sources of oil. Technology will improve the ability to access oil in the future - assuming there's still a demand for oil. Adjusted for inflation, oil is extremely cheap compared to what it was 20 years ago. If not for government regulations and eco-religionists who prevent new refineries, gasoline would be much cheaper than the already cheap price it is today.

[tjohnson]

And what about the evidence that world wide production of oil will peak in the near future? Do you understand what that means?

[tjohnson]

The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.

In a similar sense, an oil based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10 to 15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.

See http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[jordanz]

And what about the evidence that world wide production of oil will peak in the near future? Do you understand what that means?

That is a theory, not evidence. Also, it's a bad theory in my opinion.

[tjohnson]

The peak of oil discovery was passed in the 1960s, and the world started using more than was found in new fields in 1981. The gap between discovery and production has widened since. Many countries, including some important producers, have already passed their peak, suggesting that the world peak of production is now imminent. Were valid data available in the public domain, it would a simple matter to determine both the date of peak and the rate of subsequent decline, but as it is, we find maze of conflicting information, ambiguous definitions and lax reporting procedures. In short, the oil companies tended to report cautiously, being subject to strict Stock Exchange rules, whereas certain OPEC countries exaggerated during the 1980s when they were competing for quota based on reported reserves. Despite the uncertainties of detail, it is now evident that the world faces the dawn of the Second Half of the Age of Oil, when this critical commodity, which plays such a fundamental part in the modern economy, heads into decline due to natural depletion. A debate rages over the precise date of peak, but rather misses the point, when what matters — and matters greatly — is the vision of the long remorseless decline that comes into sight on the other side of it. The transition to decline threatens to be a time of great international tension. Petroleum Man will be virtually extinct this Century, and Homo sapiens faces a major challenge in adapting to his loss. Peak Oil is by all means an important subject.

See http://www.peakoil.net/about-peak-oil

[tjohnson]

That is a theory, not evidence. Also, it's a bad theory in my opinion.

Oh yes, you provide evidence and I provide theories - how convenient for you. Well then I guess this discussion is over because all I can do is point you to what I consider educated, scientific opinions about this subject. You will of course point me to other sites with different opinions and so we have to agree to disagree.

[jordanz]

That is a theory, not evidence. Also, it's a bad theory in my opinion.

Oh yes, you provide evidence and I provide theories - how convenient for you. Well then I guess this discussion is over because all I can do is point you to what I consider educated, scientific opinions about this subject. You will of course point me to other sites with different opinions and so we have to agree to disagree.

Seriously - the stuff I was pointing out are facts. A theory about what might happen in the future is not a fact.

[tjohnson]

Already peaked? As of writing, there is mounting evidence that we have passed not only the all time peak in regular conventional oil in May 2005, but also the peak of all-liquids in July 2006. A study by the German Government sponsored Energy Watch Group, oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens, and the former head of exploration and production at Saudi Aramco, Sadad al-Huseini have all recently supported this view.

Decline rates

Whether or not we've passed the peak, the most significant question may be: What will be the future rate of decline of oil production? Some form of co-ordinated adaptation might be possible if the annual drop in available oil was no more severe than 1-2% a year. Whereas 10% or more would soon implode the global economy. Most models project decline rates which reach 2-4%. Nations dependent on imports are likely to find that their access will fall at a sharper rate than the global decline rate, as consumption rises or remains steady within the exporting nations.

Natural gas peak

The effects of natural gas peak are relatively localized. This is due to the enormous economic and energetic expense of liquefying and transporting natural gas as a compressed liquid. Both European and North American natural gas production have already peaked, so these regions are facing the extra severity of a dual energy crisis.

Seriously these are facts right NOW.

See http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php

Edited April 11, 2008 by general semanticist

[Brant Gaede]

The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.

In a similar sense, an oil based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10 to 15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.

See http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

This article is an example of how one can amass a combination of ignorance, facts and half truths to support an argument. When it started talking about "peak coal" I knew it wasn't very good. Basically sophistical. They were talking about "peak oil" 150 years ago--whale oil. And ever since. What is needed is "peak" government so we can get more and more freedom and energy.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

This article is an example of how one can amass a combination of ignorance, facts and half truths to support an argument. When it started talking about "peak coal" I knew it wasn't very good. Basically sophistical. They were talking about "peak oil" 150 years ago--whale oil. And ever since. What is needed is "peak" government so we can get more and more freedom and energy.

So what combination of "ignorance, facts and half truths" are you using? Are they any better?

[jordanz]

Seriously these are facts right NOW.

See http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php

Yes, some facts. Thank you. However, I read that data differently. I see oil production on an upward trend. In any event, it doesn't follow that future production will match past production. There is no way to take future demand and future technology into account.

[Brant Gaede]

This article is an example of how one can amass a combination of ignorance, facts and half truths to support an argument. When it started talking about "peak coal" I knew it wasn't very good. Basically sophistical. They were talking about "peak oil" 150 years ago--whale oil. And ever since. What is needed is "peak" government so we can get more and more freedom and energy.

So what combination of "ignorance, facts and half truths" are you using? Are they any better?

Gee, I know and you don't? That's quite a complement. I like the way your second question assumes I'll accept the premise of the first question--hang myself with your rope.

--Brant