If they’re so good, why do we need a law?
Bookworm on Jan 31 2007 at 9:00 am | Filed under: Climate change, Democrats, Government
Although I find the light they give too sterile and cool to be appealing, we have a bunch of the new compact fluorescent bulbs in our house, both because they are cheap to operate and they are long lasting.
Email This Post To A Friend
9 Responses to “If they’re so good, why do we need a law?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.







I love California. It’s the most reliable place in the universe.
Wouldn’t live there on a bet, of course; but, like the rest of the country, I get a lot of innocent fun out of hearing/reading what you guys will be up to next. You never disappoint.
Hey BW, will the spiral bulbs work OK in a lamp whose shade uses those two-loop wires to grasp the bulb? It’s something I asked last Friday on my blog — but nobody has offered an answer. Sounds like you may have it: “Some don
As it is, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine
What is it about California’s obsession to cultivate peoples’ inner nanny?
I’m not sure, Larry. I have old lights, though, that take only chandelier bulbs, and I’ve never found that a decent fit with the fluorescents.
Good point, Book. It would be an interesting exercise to calculate how much it would cost California taxpayers to make the switch. I am sure that someone could challenge this under the Interstate Commerce clause, however.
I think there are exceptions to that, though, Danny. or less there exists a way around it. California has had a separate standard for car emissions for years, I believe, have they not?
“Or less.” Geez… Meant to say: “Or else…”
That’s OK, JJ, my own posts here have been rather dyslexic of-late, and you know how Book hates poor spelling.