CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
3
change the light bulb Keep the cheap
Debate Score:7
Arguments:5
Total Votes:7
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 change the light bulb (2)
 
 Keep the cheap (3)

Debate Creator

wacko(114) pic



Switching off on the light bulb

The average house hold runs about 12-15 light bulbs. Should we force the average Joe to pay at least $3.50 each for an item that would normally cost 25c. That's apparently whats expected now in Australia. Apparently the little lightbulb lets out too many green house gases down under, so the incandescent light bulb is no longer available and we are forced to spend the extra for the energy savers which can cost up to $14.00 each. Sounds like hogs wash to me. What does everyone else think.

change the light bulb

Side Score: 4
VS.

Keep the cheap

Side Score: 3
3 points

Might make sense both for the country (reduced energy dependence) and the individual, in addition to the environment. Apparently those bulbs can save over US $30 in electricity costs over the lamp's life time compared to an incandescent lamp and save 2,000 times its own weight in greenhouse gases [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp]. The up front cost is definitely higher, and there are some disposal issues since they contain mercury, but on the whole seems like a reasonable tradeoff that actually helps the purchaser in the long run.

Side: change the light bulb
wacko(114) Disputed
1 point

I am sure if the government really wants to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions they could do it in thousands of other ways. And as far as reducing the drain on our power plants and (most are far from overused with actual sections of some energy plants being closed due to lack of use), seeing as they get paid well for it I doubt that is the reason. If some areas need to conserve energy, I'm sure even if every household had to use energy saving lightbulbs, that the energy savings would not be reduced that significantly to solve the whole problem, but would only be a bandaid. Maybe if the country who has such a problem with energy turned of its 200,000 odd poker machines we wouldnt need to buy the dull energy saving lightbulbs or worry about the mercury, not to mention put alot of money back into the community that would normally be sucked out of the towns.

Side: keep the cheap

Sounds to me like the government just found another way to tax you ;)

Side: keep the cheap
1 point

The government should not force us to buy certain types light bulbs, it should give us the choice to buy what type of light bulbs we want.

Side: keep the cheap
collaboman(2) Disputed
1 point

The government (at least in the US) regulates things like car emissions, keeping cars that are belching noxious fumes off the streets. Some states also regulate that new cars should meet certain mileage requirements. Maybe you don't agree with these choices either, but if you do then why not regulate the efficiency of light bulbs as well? I'm not saying there should be a monopoly on them -- there should be plenty of choice and competition -- but why keep inefficient and environmentally bad light bulbs around?

Side: change the light bulb