U.S. Light Bulb "Ban" (not a good idea)

I just overheard this from my table: the U.S. is promoting a light bulb ban?

That is the worst idea, affecting everyone, that I've heard in decades. I said, "So what are they forcing people to go to instead?" and I was told, "Flourescent light." I said, "THAT IS TERRIBLE." They asked why, and I said, "Flourescent lighting is UGLY." I guess it's to be "Cost-effective" and there are some things that are worth the cost.

I said, "Is this for just U.S. offices or the whole country?" and they said, "The whole country" and I said, "That's like communism."

This is the absolute worst cost-effective idea I've heard in decades. Out of all the things one could do to be cost-effective, like banning the gas-guzzling Range Rovers from White House parking lots, they take beautiful lighting out of the entire country's hands and swap for UGLY.

Lighting is extremely important. Lighting makes the difference between a gentle and comforting ambiance and a glaring jail compound existence. Lighting creates a beautiful background for women's complexions, and adds a warm tone to the whole room and flourescent lighting is just one more thing that makes day-to-day life miserable.

Hearing this reminded me of that song, "They paved Paradise to put up a parking lot."

I used to buy warm soft tone lightbulbs for my whole house, and sometimes I bought pink toned ones which made a soft glow. I bought lower voltage ones to save money, but every now and then, if it was an especially gray and grim winter, I bought brighter ones.

There are so many things to save money on, and light is not one of them. Especially not to the degree that the entire country is forced to live and deal with Ugly Living as a result.

It's a BAD idea. I don't like it at all. Flourescent lighting is for jail, for large military complexes where it's necessary, garages, and that's about it.

You don't force an entire country to live with UGLY and ban BEAUTIFUL. It affects life in general, and there are some things you shouldn't skimp on. Some things are worth the extra cost and at least it's important to give people a choice of what they want to choose to live with in their own house.

There are so many other cost cutting things one could do. Like the gas guzzlers...that doesn't just save our money with the environment, it keeps us out of wars. Light bulbs, to my knowledge, are not the excuse for wars and domestic and international terrorism. No one is fighting over "light bulbs". They're fighting over oil.

I would much rather spend a few extra cents and pay for a more beautiful environment and have nice lighting for my house.

Who came up with this horrible idea?! My parents said it's been in the works for 4-5 years. It's just a horrible idea. I could even understand the idea of a company choosing this lighting, on their own, but not forcing everyone to choose it, and banning the better option, or giving others a choice at all.

I want to know what kind of vehicle the man is driving who proposed this plan. I think it should be repealed because it restricts free choice and free market and if we are going to start somewhere with making restrictions, it should be with oil and gas guzzlers. That's what's killing people and put us in a hard spot, not light bulbs. And vehicles, how does owning a Range Rover or huge SUV with 2 or more seats that are rarely used, make the difference...I mean, everyone can at least afford a little bit of soft lighting. Not everyone can afford to drive huge gas guzzlers around the Mall and White House, and the luxury comfort of sitting in such a seat, is not really worth the cost of the extra 3 or more seats that hardly ever get used at all. If there is a sacrifice to be made, I would think it would be in that direction.