Part of the benefit of the grass is that you don't need to spend the energy to replant it year after year - plant once, harvest many. Maybe it would be beneficial to rotate on a multi-year schedule, the point is that a small amount of fertilizer will result in a yield that more than compensates for it.
If the bulbs were not made unavailable (banned) then there are those that would continue to use them because of either some perceived benefit of incandescents over CFLs, an irrational aversion to change, or for no other reason than to be contrary.
So what? If they are that much better, most people will be using them anyway. A few stragglers will be insignificant.
Besides, CFLs have enough critical mass for the industry to innovate without requiring government subsidy
It may not be a cash subsidy, but everyone who currently uses incandescents will now be buying CFLs... that'll be a heck of a nice revenue increase for the CFL manufacturers. If they've got critical mass to innovate, then why aren't the innovations enough increase demand and usage?
On another note, one of the big benefits to these is their cost savings, yet every time someone complains the response is "haven't you tried XYZ variation" which, of course, is more expensive.
Also, what's the environmental impact on all the extra mercury from these lamps going to be? Will we need to start paying a tax to support proper disposal?
Less Gov't meddling! Where's Ron's supporters on this one?
Slashdot Mirror
I thought there was a ruling somewhere that you are not covered by the 5th amendment if you do not tell them your password.
Part of the benefit of the grass is that you don't need to spend the energy to replant it year after year - plant once, harvest many. Maybe it would be beneficial to rotate on a multi-year schedule, the point is that a small amount of fertilizer will result in a yield that more than compensates for it.
If the bulbs were not made unavailable (banned) then there are those that would continue to use them because of either some perceived benefit of incandescents over CFLs, an irrational aversion to change, or for no other reason than to be contrary.
So what? If they are that much better, most people will be using them anyway. A few stragglers will be insignificant.
Besides, CFLs have enough critical mass for the industry to innovate without requiring government subsidy
It may not be a cash subsidy, but everyone who currently uses incandescents will now be buying CFLs... that'll be a heck of a nice revenue increase for the CFL manufacturers. If they've got critical mass to innovate, then why aren't the innovations enough increase demand and usage?
On another note, one of the big benefits to these is their cost savings, yet every time someone complains the response is "haven't you tried XYZ variation" which, of course, is more expensive.
Also, what's the environmental impact on all the extra mercury from these lamps going to be? Will we need to start paying a tax to support proper disposal?
Less Gov't meddling! Where's Ron's supporters on this one?