Andrew Rice writing in the NYT bemoans the passing of the incandescent light bulb, saying light from them is perfect, that LED manufacturers are still furiously trying to duplicate the beauty of incandescent light, and this is the sad end of a noble era.
He has a point. For example, my wife Sue says she has trouble reading by the light of CFLs (LEDs are better, she says, but still not as good as incandescents.)
A while back audio CDs replaced vinyl and now digital is replacing audio CDs. These changes were made by the marketplace. People chose to go with the newer technology. By contrast, lawmakers have effectively outlawed incandescents by raising efficiency standards to levels that only CFLs and LEDs can reach. Such bulbs are much more expensive than incandescents. This puts an undue burden on the poor who may not be able to afford $2-3 a bulb for CFLs vs. 25 cents for incandescents. LEDs are still in the baby stage for home use and cost $30-40. Yes, the price will drop. But that doesn’t help those trying to make ends meet now.
I’m becoming increasingly uneasy with the government mandating changes like this. LEDs light bulbs are a great idea and will save huge amounts of energy. But the type of light bulb you buy should be up to you and not dictated by D.C. Washington often gets it wrong, with one size fits all solutions and way too much regulation. Plus, they’ve created a new industry to which we are now all captive now. How cozy for the manufacturers.
What do you think? Should incandescents be outlawed?