[claudiustg]

So, now the conservative thing is to trash low-energy lights?

[Duke Nukum]

No, but it is always conservative to employ critical thinking esp. when being sold a bill of goods.

When all of a sudden liberals want to take choice away, that’s a concern.

Breaking a bulb seems like a nightmare.

[yoe]

No...the conservative thing is not to get caught up in one more hoax.

[AFPhys]

I use them where they make sense. They don’t make sense for most of the lighting locations in my home. You are free to use them where you see fit.

I believe that is what most conservatives would say about this issue.

I invite correction.

[P-40]

So, now the conservative thing is to trash low-energy lights?

Once people like Al Gore started running their traps this has been a common reaction. Low energy lighting was coming along just fine without their interference. It may go slower now though.

[Grizzled Bear]

So, now the conservative thing is to trash low-energy lights?

---

No; but the liberal thing is to spend good money in a bad venture based on feelings.

[hoosierham]

"So, now the conservative thing is to trash low-energy lights?"

No,the conservative thing is to fully evaluate claims.And the impact in energy saving is so small that efforts ought be spent elsewhere.

For example,in insulating one's home with a given ,and finite,amount of money, first deal with the biggest losses.Therefore insulating the ceiling is the most effective ,because heat rises.

Similarly,we should look at what activities or devices use the most energy,and then improve those first.Residential lighting is almost an incidental consumer of power.Heating and cooling the home ,followed by providing hot water usually account for the majority of energy use at home.Retailers ,factories,and offices use much more energy for lighting and they are now having to pay extra for dispoasl of old flourescent tubes.