Light Bulbs -- truth in advertising?

[winnie]

What is not needed are any taxes on top of the costs already incurred. If society wants to tighten up the requirements, they can do that straight up and amend the appropriate statutes, not by taxing "carbon."

I believe there is sufficient information to state as fact that humans are putting more carbon dioxide into the air than the biosphere is absorbing.

I believe that there is sufficient information that this imbalance is a problem that we (society) needs to something to change this.

But as a philosophical belief, I strongly agree that 'carbon taxes' are a horrid approach to fixing the carbon dioxide imbalance.

Either the carbon tax will be too low, and it won't actually change the CO2 balance, or it will be high enough to possibly make a difference but governments will become dependent on this source of income. Governments love 'sin' taxes.

Because I believe that atmospheric CO2 balance is a problem, I believe that government intervention is necessary. But I believe that the intervention should be crafted to create markets that actually solve the problem.

While humans are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, it is well known that the biosphere _exchanges_ far more CO2. In round numbers, every year the biosphere naturally emits 99 units of CO2 and absorbs 100 units, while humans emit about 5 units. (Very rough round numbers from memory; I don't even remember the units). If we could dial up the background absorption of CO2 by about 5%, that would do as much as reducing human CO2 production by 100%.

My suggestion: mandate that for every kg of CO2 equivalent produced, the producer is required to create or purchase a quantity of new CO2 absorption. No money to the government, no artificial constraint on how the CO2 gets absorbed. Requirements for the reliability and permanence of absorption, requirements for how carefully accounting must be done, requirements to account for CO2 in other countries for imports, etc., but the minimum requirements to get the job (CO2 balance) done. Steadily ramp up the CO2 sink requirement until we get to equilibrium.

Then let the markets figure out the best way to reach the goal. This might be by reducing CO2 emission, or by increasing CO2 absorption. We _might_ even get to a state where we ae emitting even more CO2, but the additional emissions would be balanced.

Eliminate biofuels mandates; in this scheme true reduced carbon biofuels would get a boost, but biofuels that are actually _worse_ carbon emitters need to go.

As much as possible eliminate the maze of incentives and indirect mandates, and instead have minimum mandates focused on the actual problem.

-Jon

 

[drcampbell]

... or it will be high enough to possibly make a difference but governments will become dependent on this source of income. ...

That's why James Hansen (former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) and others have been advocating for a carbon fee & dividend program. (since at least 2008) It doesn't create a slush fund and it remains tightly-focused on the actual problem.

สล็อต เว็บตรง อันดับ1 ไม่มีขั้นต่ำ ฝากถอนทรูวอเลท

สล็อต เว็บตรง ไม่ผ่านเอเย่นต์ ไม่มี ขั้นต่ำ เว็บแท้ 100% รองรับระบบ True Wallet แตกง่ายไม่ล็อคยูส เริ่มต้นเบท 1 บาท ทดลองเล่นฟรี

ossfoundation.us

 

[drcampbell]

Black lung disease is compensated by a program run by the DOL and financed by an excise tax on coal. Producer pays. Try again. ...

Monetizing death and paying a bounty to the next-of-kin isn't even remotely close to protecting us from black-lung disease.

 

[petersonra]

Monetizing death and paying a bounty to the next-of-kin isn't even remotely close to protecting us from black-lung disease.

We monetize death all the time. We decide what someone's life is worth. Some people are lucky and there's a black lung fund that pays a decent amount out. Others of us get the $200 social security death benefit.

 

[wwhitney]

We monetize death all the time. We decide what someone's life is worth. Some people are lucky and there's a black lung fund that pays a decent amount out. Others of us get the $200 social security death benefit.

Sure, but that doesn't make it OK, just less bad. It would be much better to spend that money to avoid the death, for example.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[romex jockey]

we may not make waves, but we sure ride 'em in this trade.....

~RJ~

 

[kwired]

I believe there is sufficient information to state as fact that humans are putting more carbon dioxide into the air than the biosphere is absorbing.

I believe that there is sufficient information that this imbalance is a problem that we (society) needs to something to change this.

But as a philosophical belief, I strongly agree that 'carbon taxes' are a horrid approach to fixing the carbon dioxide imbalance.

Either the carbon tax will be too low, and it won't actually change the CO2 balance, or it will be high enough to possibly make a difference but governments will become dependent on this source of income. Governments love 'sin' taxes.

Because I believe that atmospheric CO2 balance is a problem, I believe that government intervention is necessary. But I believe that the intervention should be crafted to create markets that actually solve the problem.

While humans are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, it is well known that the biosphere _exchanges_ far more CO2. In round numbers, every year the biosphere naturally emits 99 units of CO2 and absorbs 100 units, while humans emit about 5 units. (Very rough round numbers from memory; I don't even remember the units). If we could dial up the background absorption of CO2 by about 5%, that would do as much as reducing human CO2 production by 100%.

My suggestion: mandate that for every kg of CO2 equivalent produced, the producer is required to create or purchase a quantity of new CO2 absorption. No money to the government, no artificial constraint on how the CO2 gets absorbed. Requirements for the reliability and permanence of absorption, requirements for how carefully accounting must be done, requirements to account for CO2 in other countries for imports, etc., but the minimum requirements to get the job (CO2 balance) done. Steadily ramp up the CO2 sink requirement until we get to equilibrium.

Then let the markets figure out the best way to reach the goal. This might be by reducing CO2 emission, or by increasing CO2 absorption. We _might_ even get to a state where we ae emitting even more CO2, but the additional emissions would be balanced.

Eliminate biofuels mandates; in this scheme true reduced carbon biofuels would get a boost, but biofuels that are actually _worse_ carbon emitters need to go.

As much as possible eliminate the maze of incentives and indirect mandates, and instead have minimum mandates focused on the actual problem.

-Jon

Won't work for your average lawmaker, they need to tax something, not that all the tax revenue will go to what it is supposedly for.

 

[electrofelon]

Won't work for your average lawmaker, they need to tax something, not that all the tax revenue will go to what it is supposedly for.

Nor is it likely a tax will ever go away. I looked into NY state's tire fee a year or so ago. The state collects something like $5 per new tire sold. It was originally intended and used to clean up some of these tire dumps. Well they cleaned them up decades ago and now the fee just goes into the general fund

 

[hillbilly1]

Won't work for your average lawmaker, they need to tax something, not that all the tax revenue will go to what it is supposedly for.

It does go to what it’s supposed to, just not what they say it’s supposed to go to. Probably close to 80% of the “green” energy jobs are just to line somebody’s pocket, just like any other government program.

 

[kwired]

It does go to what it’s supposed to, just not what they say it’s supposed to go to. Probably close to 80% of the “green” energy jobs are just to line somebody’s pocket, just like any other government program.

Kind of what I meant, there is money going places with about any legislation that isn't obvious if you only read the name of the associated legislative bill.

 

[Flicker Index]

The amusing thing is that even when incandescents were the only game in town, a 100 watt light bulb could be anywhere from 850 to 1100 lumens with similar variation in hours. I finally started calculating and buying on the lowest cost per lumen-hour.

Light bulbs vary widely. The simplest A19 100W 120v filament lamps are about 1,600 lumen. A 60W is 800 lumen. The figures are lower for 230v lamps, globe bulbs and R40, R30 are lower lower. An 800 lumen R30 reflector shape would be called 75W equivalent, because it is relative to a legacy bulb of similar wattage.

 

[kwired]

The amusing thing is that even when incandescents were the only game in town, a 100 watt light bulb could be anywhere from 850 to 1100 lumens with similar variation in hours. I finally started calculating and buying on the lowest cost per lumen-hour.

Back when they were the only game in town there were other factors involved. Some lamps were 130 volt rated - which gave them longer life particularly when operated at say 118 to 122 volts, but you were not getting same lumens as you would at 130 either. Many those went from maybe 1000 hours rated life at 130 to 5000 hours at 120.

 

[gadfly56]

Light bulbs vary widely. The simplest A19 100W 120v filament lamps are about 1,600 lumen. A 60W is 800 lumen. The figures are lower for 230v lamps, globe bulbs and R40, R30 are lower lower. An 800 lumen R30 reflector shape would be called 75W equivalent, because it is relative to a legacy bulb of similar wattage.

Really? I don't ever recall seeing a 100w incandescent rated that high.

 

[Flicker Index]

Really? I don't ever recall seeing a 100w incandescent rated that high.

1,600 lumens is about right for the most basic pear shaped bare A19 120v, 750hr rated 100W lamps that was phased out about a decade ago. You can still get 100W lamps, like 130v, 20,000 hours, rough service, whatever but those are often 800-1000 lumens per 100W. Those special application bulbs weren't part of the EISA phase out. An 800 lumen LED "60W equivalent" bulb is pretty much good to go for places where 100W rough-service bulbs are used.

To this day, 1,600 lumen rated LED lamps that have unrestricted use (use in fully enclosed outdoor fixtures, or in jelly jars) and can achieve rated life under those conditions is exceptionally rare. But the thing is, a fixture that is rated at 800 lumen as a complete fixture is pretty comparable to a cheap mushroom fixture with a 100W bulb, because you lose about half of the light in the fixture and thick opal.