Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[LeMansAid]

Governments and companies will exploit where possible, regardless of whether or not the exploitation comes before or after the fact, or "fact".

If global warming can be affected by humankind's actions, I'm very confident that the so called action we are currently taking against it is stupid and futile anyway. Looking at my part of the world: Australia had a huge surge in votes for the Greens in 2010, but they did nothing of use with the power. They pushed for a carbon tax that was destined to evolve into an emissions trading scheme, which are both idiotic and ineffective ideas. Something as simple as implementing a "food miles" scheme would have been much more effective, for one thing. I can go to the markets, see some shelled prawns that are labelled "product of Australia". Only, what isn't readily shared is the fact that those prawns were caught here, frozen, shipped to China, cooked and shelled, frozen again, then shipped back to Oz. How much unnecessary carbon does that produce? Repeat that, over, and over, and over, throughout the world.....

If the action was to result in a better and cleaner Earth, I would endorse it regardless of whether or not humans are actually able to significantly effect global temperatures. But most of the schemes seem to involve running around in circles, while rich people get richer because of them.

Humans are bad and there are to many. We must kill off the population.

Sounds like something Hitler would dream up!

Have never seen Hitler in such a good light then. Most, if not all other species are useful to the Earth. Humans are not, and quite the opposite really. We have the less nefarious advancements in medicine that are prolonging lives, but the incessant breeding is just flat out disgusting. Especially disturbing when factoring in religious stupidity (against contraception), and archaic patriarchal views (do whatever you want with a woman, and walk away). And it often seems to be worst in the countries that can least afford to have all of those spawn.

 

[Imari]

Yes, I believe this "hogwash". When >95% of peer-reviewed papers on climate change back the hypothesis that humans are the driving force behind it, I find it hard to disagree.

I think my problem with it is the level of certainty that gets attached to it. Most of the scientific papers on climate change I've taken the trouble to read have been pretty upfront about the major assumptions that they have to make in their models.

Then journalists, the media, and the general public who haven't taken the time to understand the statistical concepts get a hold of the information. "This is what we think is happening, but the error bars on this are huge so we're really not that sure" doesn't make a good headline.

From what I can see, current accuracy in climate science is well below what I would consider necessary to make global policy decisions. By all means, take sensible steps to protect the environment, like the food miles thing outlined by LeMans above. But those sorts of movements have been around since long before climate change.

Climate change/global warming are just buzz words to get people to stop thinking. There is useful research being done, but as far as I can tell the current answer to almost any climate change question is "we can tell you what has happened in the past, and have an educated guess at what might happen in the future".

You wouldn't build a commercial airliner on an educated guess.

 

[BobK]

Governments and companies will exploit where possible, regardless of whether or not the exploitation comes before or after the fact, or "fact".

...

If the action was to result in a better and cleaner Earth, I would endorse it regardless of whether or not humans are actually able to significantly effect global temperatures. But most of the schemes seem to involve running around in circles, while rich people get richer because of them.

It would be hard to disagree with any of that.

Most, if not all other species are useful to the Earth. Humans are not, and quite the opposite really.

This is precisely the mindset that OwensRacing was referring to, the "the best thing we humans could do for the planet is kill ourselves" gang.

What, exactly, do you define "useful to the planet" as? And how do cockroaches, for example, fit in as useful to the planet?

I think my problem with it is the level of certainty that gets attached to it. Most of the scientific papers on climate change I've taken the trouble to read have been pretty upfront about the major assumptions that they have to make in their models.

Then journalists, the media, and the general public who haven't taken the time to understand the statistical concepts get a hold of the information. "This is what we think is happening, but the error bars on this are huge so we're really not that sure" doesn't make a good headline.

From what I can see, current accuracy in climate science is well below what I would consider necessary to make global policy decisions. By all means, take sensible steps to protect the environment, like the food miles thing outlined by LeMans above. But those sorts of movements have been around since long before climate change.

Climate change/global warming are just buzz words to get people to stop thinking. There is useful research being done, but as far as I can tell the current answer to almost any climate change question is "we can tell you what has happened in the past, and have an educated guess at what might happen in the future".

You wouldn't build a commercial airliner on an educated guess.

This. Very much this. Particularly the point about how "We think this is what might be happening, but the error margin is pretty wide..." gets transformed by the media and various demagogues into "SCIENTISTS SAY..."

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes, I believe this "hogwash". When >95% of peer-reviewed papers on climate change back the hypothesis that humans are the driving force behind it, I find it hard to disagree.

I'm probably going into whataboutery here, but for all of this talk about "corrupt" climatologists publishing papers on climate change because their jobs depend on it, no-one mentions the oil giants spending billions on lobbying and funding climate change skeptics' research.

Which climate prediction model predicted that in the last decade that humans would account for 1/40th to 1/20th of a degree rise in temperature? Do you believe a climate prediction model can be as accurate as 1/400th to 1/200th of a degree per year? With such a tiny margin for error, how does one deduce what effects are from man and which are environmental?

There's no doubt this issue is highly politicized but when you hear stuff like, "Oh ignore that .05 degree rise in the last 10 years, global warming just took a holiday" it makes you wonder. What do these supposed experts say about the statistically insignificant rise the last 10 years I wonder? How do they explain that away?

I found this little tidbit, which in just a paragraph explains why this global warming myth thing won't go away until the next ice age hits.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...ng-yet-still-the-scaremongers-blunder-on.html

But if the scientific case for their belief has disintegrated, the problem this leaves us with is the reason why I subtitled that book four years ago: “Is the obsession with climate change turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history?” The political leaders of the Western world, from President Obama to our own in the EU, are still as firmly locked into the alarmist paradigm as ever, quite impervious to all the evidence. As the EU’s “climate commissioner”, Connie Hedegaard, recently put it: “Let’s say that scientists several decades from now said, 'We were wrong, it’s not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do to combat climate change?”

 

[LeMansAid]

This is precisely the mindset that OwensRacing was referring to, the "the best thing we humans could do for the planet is kill ourselves" gang.

What, exactly, do you define "useful to the planet" as? And how do cockroaches, for example, fit in as useful to the planet?

A quick internet search yeilded much, including this:
http://zeenews.india.com/news/eco-news/cockroach-essential-to-earth-s-delicate-ecosystem_783720.html

Is there something wrong with having that mindset? I think that plenty of people could use a taste of the perspective and humility it could bring to them. What I wrote had more to do with future population controls though, rather than some killing people in the name of nature headline.

I do wonder if the obsession with preserving life, could sometimes be more appropriately deemed, preserving (a mere) existence. In 2012, the birth rate in India was 20.6 per 1000 people, while in Germany it was 8.33. Disgusting and stupid on India's part, and if under threat from say disease, other countries would go in and try to keep all of those people alive. At a certain point, surely we are upsetting the harmony that would otherwise naturally occur. It's like we're forcing against the force that is trying to save us.

Middle Eastern and African countries dominate the absolute top of the list though, going well above 40 births per 1000 people. So, as refugees continue to spill out of those countries in to our consumption crazy, "life" sustaining countries, we have such great things to look forward to. So, I suppose it's: sit around chomping on burgers, slurping on sugar drinks, watching our low energy usage tv which was designed with planned obsolescence in mind, sending money off to "save the children". Until those children can come and join us and do the same. Just don't go to the optometrist, because being anything but near sighted is not going to be a pretty view.

Left is not stupid, it's just that too many stupid people are part of the left.

Photovoltaic panels for example need to run effectively for around 25 years just to break even on the carbon created by their manufacture. Financially smart, environmentally stupid. As someone with plenty of views that would be generally recognised as left, I am often frustrated by the lefties that merely "bought the package" as I call it, and tow the various lines without truly considering the realities.

Personally, I'm all for schemes that are more universally positive. Schemes that would be logically effective on climate change, if it is possible for that to happen, but also have definite positive effects on other areas of concern. I won't hold my breath though, even though that would slightly reduce the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

 

[Sam48]

It's like we're forcing against the force that is trying to save us.

By letting it kill us?

 

[LeMansAid]

When animal numbers are out of control authorities sometimes cull them for the animals' own good. ie. To save them from starving to death. The principal is the same, though I'm not talking about actual killing, and obviously the moral dilemma is a far more prickly subject. What if maintaining existence for some, completely and utterly sacrifices quality of life for most? And what if it further damns future generations to the same fate?

(Insert emoticon that suggests disdain for the rampant over-use of emoticons)

 

[FoolKiller]

When animal numbers are out of control authorities sometimes cull them for the animals' own good. ie. To save them from starving to death. The principal is the same, though I'm not talking about actual killing, and obviously the moral dilemma is a far more prickly subject. What if maintaining existence for some, completely and utterly sacrifices quality of life for most? And what if it further damns future generations to the same fate?

(Insert emoticon that suggests disdain for the rampant over-use of emoticons)

As much as I like the idea of social Darwinism, you seem to miss that developed countries have shrinking population growth rates. Let the poorer countries become developed.

You pick one year from India. India is a good choice, but not as a third-world, overpopulated country. It is a good example of a developing, becoming capitalized country. And what is their growth rate trend?

It's dropping. It has decreased by 20% since 2000.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=in&v=25

No need to let them die off when you can let them develop. And with development comes more efficient energy use (albeit more energy but better technology), and more scientific minds to add to the scientific community to find ways to use better, cleaner energy that is affordable.

 

[LeMansAid]

Capitalism and technology in conjunction have not done great things for our environment so far, as far I can see though. Like I pointed out, what we get is a "green" tv that is designed to time specifically fail, and require replacement. Ultimately requiring more landfill and producing more manufacturing pollution. A greater hit than the extra power a more robust tv would have required.

What you point to is a very scary thing indeed. Developing countries with ridiculous populations (India, Brazil) becoming able to also become ridiculously high level consumers like "us". The indictments are not just on the "filthy breeding poor folk", they are also on the people of countries like yours and mine that consume with great abandon. Multiplying the breeding with the consuming will surely have a devastating effect. Even if they become a little less "breedy".

 

[BobK]

Okay, since you ducked the question the first time, let's try again:

What, exactly, do you define "useful to the planet" as?

 

[FoolKiller]

Capitalism and technology in conjunction have not done great things for our environment so far, as far I can see though.

Walking has done very little for sports, but David Beckham and Michael Jordan had to learn how to do it before they became superstars.

Capitalism leads to technology. Technology advances over time. You cannot look at a system and say it failed to give you exactly what you need now so it must be a failure. Capitalism has done little for the environment? That must be why we all still burn wood and coal.

Physics made a nuclear bomb before they made a power plant. Imagine if scientists had written off nuclear science. Without capitalism and the things that go with it there wouldn't be hybrid technology, hydrogen fuel vehicles, or any of the early technologies that may lead to help.

I know, you hear capitalism and picture giant, dirty factories run by Evil Conservative Industries. Odd thing, images from 19th century cities were dingy, soot-covered affairs. Those same cities don't look like that now.

Things are far cleaner on a local level and the "dirty" stuff today is at such a level that there are debates about the margin of error on if men had a 50% effect on current climate change trends. That sounds like an improvement over 100 years to me.

Step back from your "greedy capitalist....bad" mentality and look at how things have changed in the developed world. We went from lakes catching on fire to people swimming in it. We know how to turn natural processes into energy. We have energy forms that are cleaner than before, even the ones that still involve burning transformed fossils.

It is improvement over time, like everything in life.

Like I pointed out, what we get is a "green" tv that is designed to time specifically fail, and require replacement. Ultimately requiring more landfill and producing more manufacturing pollution. A greater hit than the extra power a more robust tv would have required.

Sorry, I've yet to run across the self-destruct TV models. I have a 15+ year old TV I've had since college in my bedroom. My mom still has the TV that was in her bedroom when my dad divorced her, 22 years ago. Of all my friends, I know of one widescreen, flat panel, HDTV that has failed, and it was mine, from a bad part that affects less than 10% of the make of that TV.

So, I have no clue what you are rambling on about.

What you point to is a very scary thing indeed. Developing countries with ridiculous populations (India, Brazil) becoming able to also become ridiculously high level consumers like "us".

Yes, because reducing growth rates adds to the problem. You seem to be kind of ignoring that developed countries have less children. You also ignore that they have massively high infant mortality rates in undeveloped countries, which can play into their growth rate. You act like we are going to wind up with a 20% growth rate nation of a billion Americans. You ignore that some countries have shrinking populations. Even America is reducing their growth rate, to the point where we fear our social systems won't be sustainable in the future.

And you act like developed nations are all waste. I have two recycling cans. We didn't start recycling out of the goodness of our hearts, but because we got paid to do it (capitalism).

But hey, pick your poison: developed nations become cleaner and growing at a slower pace while also not having half their children die from horrible diseases, or a systematic, disconnected form of genocide. Sure, letting them die and preventing them from growing and improving (because the ideals of capitalism occur naturally, you must force them down) will achieve the result you seem to think will work best more quickly (or as China shows, it won't work at all), but you could reach your achievement by saving lives.

Of course, accepting the morally acceptable option means getting over your prejudices of capitalism, as you use a computer designed by one of the largest companies in the world to access an Internet whose backbone and access is provided by companies to talk freely to people all over the world. Wait, wouldn't you have had to burn tons of fossil fuels to have this same conversation 50 years ago? But what has capitalism done?

The indictments are not just on the "filthy breeding poor folk", they are also on the people of countries like yours and mine that consume with great abandon. Multiplying the breeding with the consuming will surely have a devastating effect. Even if they become a little less "breedy".

Is the issue at hand population growth or consumption? If you want to discuss consumption, fine, but consumption will kill us off far quicker than climate change.

 

[Johnnypenso]

...wall of text on the virtues of capitalism...

Well said..👍👍

 

[LeMansAid]

Sorry, I've yet to run across the self-destruct TV models......

So, I have no clue what you are rambling on about.

The "rambling" slight lowers the tone of the discussion a little. I'm not sure that it was deserved.

When I was looking at reviews for microwaves not long ago, I could barely find a model that didn't have a quite defined history of failing at the 14 to 18 month stage (12 months suspiciously being the warranty period). Then there's the weighing up of the decision on whether or not to replace the ol' gas guzzler with a new "clean" car, that produces plenty of pollution in it's manufacture. Sometimes the "dirty" choice is actually the cleaner one. Cutting down trees to build vs using concrete can present another deceptive environmental equation.

I'm not anti-capitalism, and I'm not sure why you jumped to that conclusion. I do however hold fears about the tech/capitalism duo outsmarting us so much that we end up doing the opposite of what we think we're doing.

In general, you may well be right, and I hope you are. Maybe I'm mixing in too much annoyance and bewilderment about the reproductive tendencies of some demographics.

Okay, since you ducked the question the first time, let's try again:

What, exactly, do you define "useful to the planet" as?

The planet doesn't need us for anything (not useful), except maybe to remedy things that we've already ruined. But I'm not about to go out and break someone's leg, just so that they can think me useful when I take them to hospital. I'm under the impression that most likely all other living things play their role in the ecological balancing act that takes place on Earth (useful), correct me if that's misguided. Do you think we are useful to the planet? Wouldn't it be healthier without us?

 

[Keef]

Do you think we are useful to the planet? Wouldn't it be healthier without us?

Are you suggesting that not everything which can occur in the universe is natural? Or that the planet has feelings for which we should be concerned? To ask whether or not we're useful to the planet suggests you think the planet is a sentient being with real needs.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Do you think we are useful to the planet? Wouldn't it be healthier without us?

I know I wouldn't be healthier if the planet was without me...so I'll vote for keeping the humans

 

[Imari]

Do you think we are useful to the planet? Wouldn't it be healthier without us?

Sorta seems to me like that logic can be extended to removing all life and energy from the planet so that it's a big rock, like the moon. Then there would be nothing to disturb the planet from it's "natural" state, namely being a big rock.

The planet is not a stasis. Life is not a stasis. The goal is to live life without removing the opportunity for others to live their lives as well, be that other humans or other species.

Removing any species is not the answer. There's a reason we've gone from the trophy-hunting excesses of the Victorian ages to a world of Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature and lots of people looking after endangered species.

Frankly, for all the bad things humans do, and there's a lot, I think the planet is safer from actual planet-killer events for having us around. Humans can respond to an outbreak of massive volcanic eruptions that threaten to plunge the world into an ice age. Monkeys can't artificially sequester carbon. We can hire Bruce Willis to get rid of any massive meteorites incoming. Eventually we'll have space travel, and we and any species on Earth we deem to take with us (probably all of them, knowing scientists are loath to throw anything away) will be immune to the destruction of any single planet.

Humans serve a purpose. You're just not thinking big enough.

 

[FoolKiller]

The "rambling" slight lowers the tone of the discussion a little. I'm not sure that it was deserved.

You used a conspiracy theory about multiple international companies colluding to commit fraud on the entire world. Sorry if I notched the seriousness down by expressing my thought on the validity of your unbacked claim.

When I was looking at reviews for microwaves not long ago, I could barely find a model that didn't have a quite defined history of failing at the 14 to 18 month stage (12 months suspiciously being the warranty period).

First, my mother is the administrative assistant of the VP of information technology at GE Appliances. For two years she was the assistant to the CEO. She started working there over 30 years ago. My brother was in IT desktop support for ten years. I worked two internships there. I know for a fact you are on to nothing. I have witnessed executives yelling at production managers about fixing their reliability ratings. They are actually slowly bringing outsourced factory jobs back because the reliability ratings dropped at the same rate they sent factory jobs to Mexico. A low reliability rating hurts sales. It is not the desire of capitalism.

Capitalists are not eye-patch wearing villains puffing on a cigar and thinking about the best way to screw you over.

And second, maybe you are looking at crap microwaves. Mine is secondhand from my brother, as is my stove and dishwasher. They were used for 8 years before I got them. My work break room has a working microwave that still has a rotary dial. Those haven't been common in the US for over 20 years.

Then there's the weighing up of the decision on whether or not to replace the ol' gas guzzler with a new "clean" car, that produces plenty of pollution in it's manufacture.

Yet the "clean" car is known as an economy car, not an environmental term. Aside from a small percentage of tree huggers, most people who buy the "clean" car are worried about gas cost, not pollution. Our regulations push far more "clean" results than market forces.

Sometimes the "dirty" choice is actually the cleaner one. Cutting down trees to build vs using concrete can present another deceptive environmental equation.

People do that? I thought that was about cost, structural integrity, and local geographical or climate necessities.

I'm not anti-capitalism, and I'm not sure why you jumped to that conclusion.

The vision of evil, conniving industries that you paint? You have now brought up multiple industry-wide conspiracy theories to screw customers. Other of your comments lead me to believe that you can't separate corporatist from capitalist. Hint: very few true capitalists are leading the big corporations.

I do however hold fears about the tech/capitalism duo outsmarting us so much that we end up doing the opposite of what we think we're doing.

But then it's the removal of humanity from a Earth. Win/win, right?

Maybe I'm mixing in too much annoyance and bewilderment about the reproductive tendencies of some demographics.

Just the facts. You jump to conclusions with no factual backing.

The planet doesn't need us for anything (not useful), except maybe to remedy things that we've already ruined.

The planet just needs gravity and electromagnetism.

I'm under the impression that most likely all other living things play their role in the ecological balancing act that takes place on Earth (useful), correct me if that's misguided.

Pandas? Many species have killed themselves through self-behavior for millions of year. Pandas are a good example. But look, our science has us helping them not kill themselves off. We've learned much about reproduction and have given pandas something we have learned is a very effective aphrodisiac: porn.

Do you think we are useful to the planet? Wouldn't it be healthier without us?

Define the planet. Millions of planets are lifeless hunks of rocks without us. Nature? Stuff has been dying and rising for millions of years. We are the result of nature. If not us then intelligence would arise elsewhere.

And if we are bad, why does nature work to achieve intelligence that will inevitably become more and more advanced at using the stuff around us as tools?

But don't worry, short of global nuclear war or something to harm the core of the planet nature and the hunk of rock will move on.

Climate change science is not about protecting nature, although a few teary-eyed hippies think it is, it is about not killing ourselves. Think we are bad for everything else and care more about saving nature, even at the cost of inhuman treatment of others, then just encourage consumption and procreation. We will die out and in 1,000 years, a blink to nature, we will be forgotten and few signs will remain. In a million years, you will be lucky to see anything to hint that humans were here.

 

[BobK]

The planet doesn't need us for anything (not useful), except maybe to remedy things that we've already ruined. But I'm not about to go out and break someone's leg, just so that they can think me useful when I take them to hospital. I'm under the impression that most likely all other living things play their role in the ecological balancing act that takes place on Earth (useful), correct me if that's misguided. Do you think we are useful to the planet? Wouldn't it be healthier without us?

The planet does not "need" any single species for anything, including cockroaches; there are other species doing the same thing as cockroaches with regard to the nitrogen cycle. For that matter, the earth does not need any species at all. Other planets seem to be doing just fine without any life at all, near as we can figure.

About two and a half billion years ago a species developed that produced a poisonous, corrosive substance that eventually produced the greatest extinction event in the earth's history. Even a thermonuclear war that triggered a "nuclear winter" wouldn't have the effect this event did.

And yet, this same poison is now essential to virtually all life today. So was this a good thing or a bad thing for the planet? The poisonous, corrosive substance I'm referring to is, of course, oxygen.

Furthermore, Man is a product of and a part of nature, just like every other species. Man simply alters the environment to suit himself. Many other species do the same. This is neither good nor bad, neither "useful" nor "useless"; it's simply the way nature including Man works.

Edit:

And still you avoid the question:
What, exactly, do you define "useful to the planet" as?

 

[niky]

Then there's the weighing up of the decision on whether or not to replace the ol' gas guzzler with a new "clean" car, that produces plenty of pollution in it's manufacture. Sometimes the "dirty" choice is actually the cleaner one.

I hope you've read more than the Prius vs. Hummer report. There are more holes in that one than a ton of Swiss Cheese.

Older cars produce plenty of pollution in their manufacture. They also produce plenty of pollution in their scrappage. However, while production and end-life pollution are relatively fixed, keeping them going increases the overall pollution they create.

New cars are produced using cleaner production methods, and are designed to be nearly 100% recyclable or biodegradeable. With more and more recycled materials being used in car manufacture (for such things like bumpers, wiring channels, seat foam, fabrics, etcetera), the overall impact of newer cars is getting lower.

The environmentally wise choice is not to drive at all. But we can't do that, now, can we?

Cutting down trees to build vs using concrete can present another deceptive environmental equation.

In which direction is it deceptive?

 

[Dotini]

Since the 1940's my family has maintained a nifty fishing cabin on the banks of scenic Hood Canal, a fjord carved out of the Olympic peninsula by the most recent ice age. As a boy in the 60's, I fished for the salmon and other species that proliferated there, along with vibrant sports and commercial fishing industries. Now, thanks to runoff from septic systems, fertilizers and new growths of alder replacing native trees, all that is gone and no longer exists. The oxygen in the water is depleted, and so is the sea life.

Although I have no direct knowledge of it, it is said the world ocean is becoming fouled with plastics, garbage and other obnoxious pollutants. It is said the world ocean is in danger of over fishing.

Now, I'm not a tree hugger, nor am I religious. But I do think mankind has, for somewhat understandable reasons including ignorance, not been a particularly good steward of the environment. The rise of civilization, technology, and huge numbers of humans has probably made all this inevitable.

Since ignorance is no longer an excuse, the question is now what, if anything, we are able and willing to do about it?

It would be tragic if, by our own action and/or inaction, a catastrophic loss of human, animal and plant life were to occur. Decimation by ice age or asteroid impact would be psychologically preferable!

 

[FoolKiller]

Re: Overfishing.

Eat more squid.

 

[GEORGE_GR33]

Sorry, I've yet to run across the self-destruct TV models. I have a 15+ year old TV I've had since college in my bedroom. My mom still has the TV that was in her bedroom when my dad divorced her, 22 years ago. Of all my friends, I know of one widescreen, flat panel, HDTV that has failed, and it was mine, from a bad part that affects less than 10% of the make of that TV.

So, I have no clue what you are rambling on about.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-conspiracy/

 

[FoolKiller]

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-conspiracy/

It's a documentary. Must be true.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/enigma-flying-spheres/

It's easier and more profitable to use marketing to convince us to buy the newest and greatest model every year. And it doesn't come with legal repercussions. Even green technology had to be made fashionable before we would pay extra for that. Some still required government force to make it happen. Even HDTVs required it in the US.

That isn't to say we don't live in a disposable society. It is. We design things to make it easy to part with it for the next model. Of course, there is the case of using cheaper meterials to make the goods at a cheaper price. They can make lightbulbs using materials that will last 20 years, but it would cost $30 and no one buys it. People love to point at manufacturing and say, "They can do it better," but refuse to recognize that means it's expensive and the company wouldn't succeed because we wouldn't buy it.

This isn't a conspiracy to screw consumers. It's been brought up so many times in my life that I would expect at least one antitrust suit to have been successful and put these guys in a situation to either lose money doing it or change.

It might do people some good to step back and realize the difference between evil corporate conspiracy and responding to market forces.

 

[niky]

There's also the simple fact that a bulb that lasts forever is going to be one grossly inefficient light bulb.

Sorry if I don't bemoan the loss of a light bulb that relies on heating thin filaments in a vacuum chamber as I switch on my LED reading lamp which shines just as bright, uses one-tenth the electricity, generates much less uncomfortable heat and won't shower me with red-hot glass splinters (or mercury, if CFL) if it ever breaks.

Oh, and it'll last at least ten times longer than the "conspiracy" lightbulbs. At least, meaning nobody knows how long it will last yet, since LED lifespans are quoted in terms of how long it'll take them to dim noticeably... similar to how solar panel lifespans are quoted.

Yup. There's definite proof of conspiracy there.

 

[Keef]

Until they get LEDs to glow the same golden color as a 60 or 75 watt bulb I won't be buying any.

 

[FoolKiller]

Until they get LEDs to glow the same golden color as a 60 or 75 watt bulb I won't be buying any.

As someone who buys/bought Reveal bulbs, I'm all for LEDs once the price drops below ridiculous.

 

[Imari]

Until they get LEDs to glow the same golden color as a 60 or 75 watt bulb I won't be buying any.

I'm with you on this one. I find the light from incandescent bulbs to be far more pleasant than LED.

 

[niky]

What I'm using right now is about 7w (equivalent of about 60w) for about $5.50, and 4w for about $4.40 (different tax rates and etcetera)

These are cheap bulbs. The more expensive models from the same manufacturer are rated for 40k hours and have higher lumens, but cost about $2-3 more. These are rated for 25k hours, which is about as good as the better CFLs, without the threat of burning ballast and mercury contamination.

Have a whole bunch of them. I replace CFLs as they blow... though since CFLs also have long lifespans, I don't have to replace more than one every month or every other.

These bulbs have an LED array underneath a light diffuser that recolors the light yellow and makes it less harsh than the exposed LED assemblies. It's still not as pleasing to the eye as incandescent, but with the diffuser, there's no obvious "buzzing", and it's more pleasant than a CFL. Put enough together in a cluster and the light looks almost natural. I'm wondering about putting together an array of LEDs for portable photography lighting, just to see how it'll turn out.

Definitely worth doing if you have a supply that isn't godawful expensive.

 

[Dotini]

Where I live, the new gen bulbs cannot be disposed of like ordinary incandescent, they must be taken to a hazardous materials disposal center.

 

[Imari]

Where I live, the new gen bulbs cannot be disposed of like ordinary incandescent, they must be taken to a hazardous materials disposal center.

The LED ones or the compact fluorescent ones? As far as I'm aware, there's nothing hazardous in an LED bulb.