you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 years ago (2 children)

I still don't see why they didn't just put heavy taxes on them instead of an outright ban. Outright bans just get people to go around the ban.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    If you actually read past the headline, you'll see they aren't outright banned.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago

    You’re correct. The article makes it very clear there are multiple exceptions. I guarantee not a single republican out there is only using incandescent bulbs in their homes. Obviously they’re virtue signaling for their base. Companies for a while have been making to switch to LED and they’re much cheaper than they used to be. This is where the free market really has prevailed. Most people don’t mind paying extra if it means they don’t have to change out a light bulb as often.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Go around them how? It's not like people can grow incandescent light bulbs in their back yard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    That makes sense, but at that point the price per bulb is probably going to be higher than LED bulbs, so they'd just be paying more money just to be a contrarian. The ban is fine in this case, since a better alternative is readily available, even if it is a little bit more expensive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments