Nanny wins

Written By: - Date published: 8:22 am, October 25th, 2009 - 21 comments
Categories: Environment, humour, scoundrels - Tags:

nanny danceRemember when the world was going to end because Nanny State was going to make us get compact fluorescent bulbs? It all seems so long ago. Those ignorant, reactionary days of 2008. Now, we’re crazy for the wee blighters.

According to the Building Research Association of New Zealand: “84 percent of homes had at least one compact fluorescent light (CFL)”

I bet the same reactionaries who were refusing to give up incandescents would have been isaying they would never give up gas for electric a hundred years ago. I can’t wait till they’re all swearing they’ll never go over to LEDs and vowing we’ll have to take their CFLs from their cold, dead hands.

21 comments on “Nanny wins ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tsmithfield 1
    25 October 2009 at 8:28 am

    This is not a win for nanny state. This just shows that if something makes sense, then people will do it. People get there backs up when something is forced on them and will tend to resist the idea. Something Labour might like to bear in mind if they ever get back into power.

    • RedLogix 1.1
      25 October 2009 at 10:55 am

      People get there backs up when something is forced on them and will tend to resist the idea.

      Like not using cell-phones when driving?

  2. infused 2
    25 October 2009 at 8:29 am

    Yeah, they are good in some places, not for an entire house. They suck balls. I can’t wait for LED’s to drop a bit in price and my house will have em.

    CFLs are like Vista. Skip it, move on to the next.

  3. DeeDub 3
    25 October 2009 at 9:02 am

    Funny how wingnuts got so loud about being ‘forced’ to use certain lightbulbs but they are making barely a wimper about having police able to search their property without a warrant or even a reason and their right to silence challenged?

    Guess they only care about stuff that really matters?

    Captcha: magnitude.

    • Rhinocrates 3.1
      25 October 2009 at 10:44 am

      Wingnuts can imagine light bulbs in their own homes. Surveillance, loss of the right to silence and so forth all apply to other people – “crims” and “troublemakers” in their minds, not upright folk like themselves who of course will never, ever, not ever, noooo, definitely not be subject to these things. They’ve never heard of Pastor Niemöller (“First they came for…”) and his point about mentally separating oneself from others and yet ironically they will fling about hyperbolic rhetoric about a police state and the Gestapo if it suits them. The only thing that astonishes me is their combination of extreme narcissism and utter lack of self-awareness.

  4. outofbed 4
    25 October 2009 at 10:03 am

    What about being” forced ” to have double glazing if you build in the South Island or minimum standards for insulation?
    Can’t see the difference to that and light-bulbs Just a standard for energy effiency

  5. ben 5
    25 October 2009 at 10:32 am

    My house has two enviro bulbs. Both at the front door so I can leave them on all night without worrying about the bill. So count me among the 84%.

    My house has 30-40 incandescent bulbs. They provide the light I live in.

    The difference between Labour’s incandescent bulb legislation is not 84% going up to 100%. It is the difference between 2 bulbs out of 40, and 40 bulbs out of 40.

    So, as usual, your analysis is wrong and nonsensical.

    • RedLogix 5.1
      25 October 2009 at 10:53 am

      My house has 30-40 incandescent bulbs. They provide the light I live in.

      The really funny part is that you are probably one of those folk who like to label Greenies as ‘Luddites’.

    • George D 5.2
      25 October 2009 at 2:04 pm

      The 84% figure probably includes a lot of luddites like you, Ben. People who put CFLs in their laundries.

      I do agree, 84% with at least one is not a great figure. It’s bloody appalling, if you ask me. It should be 99% with at least 1, and 95% with at least 5. It would be, if New Zealand’s reactionary streak had not won, against the rest of the population who actually care about their energy bills and the environment.

  6. roger nome 6
    25 October 2009 at 12:24 pm

    Damn nanny state, forcing us to drive on the left hand side of the road, for the common good. Hey right wing nuts, why don’t you all start driving on the right hand side of the road in protest – please, can you all do that?

  7. Oliver 7
    25 October 2009 at 4:46 pm

    You still don’t get it. I oppose the banning of incandescent light bulbs and have bought some eco-bulbs. I still have some incandescent due to the nature of the fittings and it’d be a pain in the arse not worth the saving to get ecobulbs for these fittings.

  8. Nick C 8
    25 October 2009 at 4:51 pm

    This debate isnt about ‘what is the best bulb to use’. It is about ‘what is the best mechanism for deciding which bulb to use’, individual choice or government regulation?

    The fact that we have a status quo where individuals have choice (which is what National advocate) and those individuals choose to use fluorescent lightbulbs in most circumstances is and arguement for the former, not the later.

    • Galeandra 8.1
      25 October 2009 at 9:07 pm

      Come the day, individuals won’t HAVE a choice….. all 9 billion of them (I won’t be about in 2050 ) will be told what to do…. there are few individual ‘rights’ which can withstand the pressure of such a serious threat to the corporate whole as GW appears to be.
      With luck, current governments will MAKE the retards amongst us do what we ought. And yes, sometimes they ‘ll get it wrong and jump at shadows of problems rather than the substantive issues…. but in the meantime, be a good chap, try to keep informed and do your best to minimise your impact on the lives of others, even when there are few price signals allowed by current pollies to help you to decide.

  9. Zetetic 9
    25 October 2009 at 11:15 pm

    The point of course, was that we were told by the Right that these CFLs were dangerous and useless. But everyone’s using them.

    Soon we won’t have a choice, with the EU, China, and Australia phasing out incandescents by law. There’ll be nothing else on the market

  10. Clint Heine 10
    26 October 2009 at 7:11 am

    So… forcing people to have them would have been a waste of time if people are voluntarily buying them. 🙂

  11. Halogenica 11
    28 October 2009 at 2:33 am

    Infantile deduction. That so many have at least one bulb is probably due to wanting to check them out after the constant nagging from all those idealists who unknowingly help promote a useless product to fill the pockets of lamp manufacturers. Or having been given one in a freebie-campaign funded by taxpayers and utility customers.

    That many don’t get more than that initial one is most likely due to that looong list of quality issues (described in detail on my site). And calling a mercury containing lamp ‘green’ or ‘eco’ is a joke.

    LEDs at least don’t contain mercury, but what use is a dim, cool and depressingly gloomy light – except possibly at a Halloween party?

    Halogen Energy Savers also do not contain mercury, and have the same top quality light as standard incandescents. Why not promote those instead? Why always those problematic CFLs?

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.