Incandescent light bulbs are officially banned in the U.S. - eviltoast

Incandescent light bulbs are officially banned in the U.S.::America’s ban on incandescent light bulbs, 16 years in the making, is finally a reality. Well, mostly.

  • ᚲᛇᛚ᛫ᛞᚨᛞᛁ@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    People will complain about climate change than complain about LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT to improve it. Isnt this what people are always saying needs to happen?? That individual action isnt the way but we need legislature to fix everything? What did people think would happen if governments try to fight climate change? That our lives would in no way shape or form be affected?

    • kenbw2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The answer is everyone else has to fix climate change. Everyone but me

      • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        When you have billionares shooting off joy ride rocket ships to space putting out more pollutants than 1000 regular people do in a lifetime per trip, yeah, my recycling everything and switching to oat milk is a pretty futile effort. Individual actions are fine, but there are some things that need the force of law to make a difference.

        • kenbw2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Agreed, both are completely required.

          You’re only one person, you don’t have to take full responsibility for all of climate change. But you can take responsibility for your slice of climate change

          • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            https://ideas.ted.com/environmental-impact-carbon-emissions-of-space-tourism/

            https://gizmodo.com/jeff-bezos-space-joyride-emitted-a-lifetime-s-worth-of-1848196182

            Like many things there is a lot of back and forth depending on what numbers you throw into the calculation. Raw carbon from the rocket fuel may be low, but taking in indirect sources raises the totals dramatically. I prefer to look ilat the totality of things since things like flying private jets to the launch site wouldn’t happen if there where no launch to attend.

            • dx1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well, sure, space tourism emissions are gonna be relatively enormous compared to other forms of travel, but I was thinking of stuff like that, versus typical individual emissions, emissions by industry, etc., as % of total global emissions.

              • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The second article gives some comparison to individual emissions. Another way to look at it though, if Jeff’s space trip to generate (to pull numbers out of the air) 1000x the average annual output of an individual then controlling a single point is going to be far more practical than attempting to get 1000 others to do what is needed to offset it PLUS whatever amounts needed to have a net reduction. There’s been a commonly floated stat that 100 companies are responsible for the majority of global emissions, getting those 100 to reduce their output by half is going to be a lot simpler and have a larger impact overall than to try and coordinate the 7B+ people on the planet.

                Doing your own actions sets a good example and is good practice, but a tiny dot in the global scale of things compared to things like travel and industrial output.

                https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/22/instagram-posts/no-100-corporations-do-not-produce-70-total-greenh/

                To dispute to 100 entitites part, is above which seems viable too. On net though, to look at it in a simplified manner I’ve never launched a rocket to space, but for that to be offset would take the collective action of a sizable number of people.

                • dx1@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Well, the sum of “things like travel and industrial output” (which are affected by individual actions) is enormous. Human emissions in total are, shockingly, the sum of all emissions caused by individuals. What I’m really getting at here is that we need to see something like a Gini coefficient, distribution breakdown, etc. of emissions across the entire population (globally would be informative, within more developed countries would also be informative). You look at people driving around megayachts and taking private jets everywhere, obviously as an individual their impact is a thousand times out of whack, but I’d be surprised if that amounts to more than a drop in the bucket unless you start expanding that category as wide as to include “car owners” and such.

                  I bring it up because it seems like the kind of “I can’t do anything as an individual” line of reasoning I see so much seems to be really problematic and preventing these problems from actually being resolved.

                  • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    It’s not to say individuals can’t do anything collective action works in most any aspect of life. What the concern becomes is the fact the major populous needs to forgo so much just to make up for the activities of a few people too special to stand in line with the rest.

                    https://ips-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/High-Flyers-2023-Report.pdf

                    A recent study here puts private flight as being somewhere around 10X more emissions costly in a per-person basis globally based on and more than 1000X less efficient that train travel where it available on the same distance. That just counting personal flight which may have some buisiness existing, though many could be forgone and done by a web confrence save for the ‘drinks amd golf’ aspect to those meetings, but large pleasure boats and non-comercial space flights are pure luxury expendatures that the world could do without. Still the larger populous is told we need to cut back while such things continues on.

            • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              75 to 1000 tons of CO2?

              That’s, what, 5-62 years of an average American lifestyle?

              Honestly, that’s not so bad lol