Letters to the Editor
-
All Hail the CFL Miracle!
@Rowyna - forced compliance
I feel like I'm being sucked into a conspiracy hole. Except - there are times when I feel like I'm going willingly.
I agree - the CFL ban smacks of "doing something". A carbon tax would raise electricity costs across the board - and for the politicians objecting, yes, this would have an effect on the whole economy. The implied idea seems to be that we need solutions to greenhouse gas emissions that DON'T affect the economy. Or - one suspects - solutions that don't affect industry. I'm not at all convinced that such solutions are even possible.
Time to cue the "government in league with big business" conspiracy theme music!
I sympathize with your plight regarding flickering. According to the earlier comments, though, the solution would seem to be for you to replace your CFLs a number of times until industry finally makes the ones you want. We're all pleased that you can afford this!
Meanwhile, I notice that nobody has mentioned the plight of children with an EasyBake oven, or what those with lava lamps are supposed to do.
The cost factors are mostly correct, although I'm nervous that *any* adjustment to match the cost factors to different conditions always seems to favour the incandescents. Vibration, dampness, dimmers, temperature extremes, rapid cycling -- each of these reduces the advantage of the CFL. We need to operate in the real world here, not just a world of dry, room temperature, upright sockets, with plain old switches.
I'm not saying CFLs are bad - we use them in over half the fixtures inside the house. But it seems clear that they have significant problems in some circumstances, and that if we are to allow people to adjust to those situations, then an outright ban is unwise.
This seemed to be Tyler's original point, but we appear to be getting close to the situation where you're not allowed to denigrate the CFL in any way.