26 Nov 19
5 edits
@metal-brain saidNo, they don't. Because, even in the countryside, most people don't have baby chickens.
People often have the baby chickens in the house when it is too cold outside.
All this is beside the point because, just I said:
"...most light bulbs are NOT USED to provide heating for chickens but are instead used in peoples homes for lighting. Therefore, regardless of whether a few are used for chickens, banning the least energy efficient bulbs (and also replacing them with LEDs) will STILL reduce energy wastage".
You have still not addressed this above.
You told me you lived in the city.When? Where? Which post? I currently don't live in the city. I am a stone-throw distance away from farms. I even worked on many different farms over a period of a few decades. NOBODY I know of has ever had chickens in their house; which as I said is besides the point because most light bulbs are not used for poultry but lighting thus they waste much energy at least in summer.
26 Nov 19
@humy saidI never said most people in the country have baby chickens. What is wrong with you? Look for a quote from me if you think I said something so absurd. People who buy baby chicks do not want them to die in the cold. Would you?
No, they don't. Because, even in the countryside, most people don't have baby chickens.
All this is beside the point because, just I said:
"...most light bulbs are NOT USED to provide heating for chickens but are instead used in peoples homes for lighting. Therefore, regardless of whether a few are used for chickens, banning the least energy efficient bulbs (and also ...[text shortened]... st light bulbs are not used for poultry but lighting thus they waste much energy at least in summer.
Restaurants use light bulbs to keep food warm. It is not just poultry. Do you think there are not plenty of applications for using light bulbs to heat? I knew a guy that made a home made egg incubator with a light bulb for heat.
People should have a choice. If you ban incandescent bulbs people will buy a bunch and hoard them before they are banned. It would make little difference.
26 Nov 19
2 edits
@metal-brain said
I never said most people in the country have baby chickens. What is wrong with you? Look for a quote from me if you think I said something so absurd. People who buy baby chicks do not want them to die in the cold. Would you?
Restaurants use light bulbs to keep food warm. It is not just poultry. Do you think there are not plenty of applications for using light bulbs to ...[text shortened]... ulbs people will buy a bunch and hoard them before they are banned. It would make little difference.
Restaurants use light bulbs to keep food warm. It is not just poultry.Tell us; why cannot restaurants require specifically light bulbs to keep food warm rather than alternatives such as ovens etc? And what has this got to do with most people, that don't have live poultry and do not run restaurants, wasting energy by putting inefficient bulbs for lighting, not heating, in there homes even for summer lighting rather than use LEDs And HOW would therefore a banned on those bulbs NOT cause less energy to be wasted?
People should have a choice.People should have choices but NOT have a choice to do harm. Should people have a choice to waste energy and thus do harm by using incandescent bulbs just for lighting, like most do, and not heating? How would a ban on the sales of such bulbs NOT put a stop to that?
If you ban incandescent bulbs people will buy a bunch and hoard them before they are banned.A few silly people might but not the vast majority of people because most use more than one brain cell. They have already been in effect banned (not sure if officially but NONE of the local shops sell them any more) in my area and I saw nobody rushing to the shops to hoard them before that took effect. If they keep using the ones they hoarded, they will eventually run out as they have a limited working life and then they will be forced to use the many reasonable alternatives.
A ban would make a big difference to how many people use bulbs to waste energy.
27 Nov 19
@humy said"People should have choices but NOT have a choice to do harm."Restaurants use light bulbs to keep food warm. It is not just poultry.Tell us; why cannot restaurants require specifically light bulbs to keep food warm rather than alternatives such as ovens etc? And what has this got to do with most people, that don't have live poultry and do not run restaurants, wasting energy by putting inefficient bulbs for lighting, not h ...[text shortened]... nable alternatives.
A ban would make a big difference to how many people use bulbs to waste energy.
Then explain that to wildgrass. He has the opposite view as you.
27 Nov 19
1 edit
@metal-brain said"opposite view" on what? Has he ever said you have a right to do harm?
"People should have choices but NOT have a choice to do harm."
Then explain that to wildgrass. He has the opposite view as you.
27 Nov 19
@humy saidStop being a chicken little alarmist. The Pliocene Epoch was warm enough to melt all glaciers. The world was thriving with life. Climate change is normal.
"opposite view" on what? Has he ever said you have a right to do harm?
Sea level rise is steady and slow. Nobody will lose their beach front homes anytime soon. Democrats buy ocean front property too. Democrats sell flood insurance and democrats own banks and loan money so people can buy ocean front property.
Democrats don't believe most of their own rhetoric. They just like repeating rumors.
27 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidIn other words, at shown by you changing the subject completely instead of answering my simple question, "opposite view" to nothing. You just talking made up BS.
Stop being a chicken little alarmist. The Pliocene Epoch was warm enough to melt all glaciers. The world was thriving with life. Climate change is normal.
Sea level rise is steady and slow. Nobody will lose their beach front homes anytime soon. Democrats buy ocean front property too. Democrats sell flood insurance and democrats own banks and loan money so people can bu ...[text shortened]... t property.
Democrats don't believe most of their own rhetoric. They just like repeating rumors.
27 Nov 19
@humy saidLook up "opposite".
In other words, at shown by you changing the subject completely instead of answering my simple question, "opposite view" to nothing. You just talking made up BS.
27 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidI also support consumer choice. So no opposing view there!
He supports consumer choice unlike you.
27 Nov 19
@humy saidNot for light bulbs. Opposing view there.
I also support consumer choice. So no opposing view there!
@metal-brain saidSo you do not have a problem with banning
If you ban incandescent bulbs people will buy a bunch and hoard them before they are banned. It would make little difference.
incandescent bulbs as it would make little difference.
27 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidInfra-red bulbs would be more efficient which is what most restaurants use I believe.
Restaurants use light bulbs to keep food warm.