[Coach85]

Tricks Tricks:

Except a lot of that was legislated. The incandescent is banned.

Anything less than 90% efficient furnaces are banned.

In the case of the light bulbs, toilets and the furnaces, each of those already had a strong consumer market when the products were banned. People weren't forced to adopt these changes, they did so overwhelmingly and willingly.

People had overwhelmingly embraced all 3, especially the bulbs. The early adopters pushed the popularity and the cost down all without being forced to do so.

[N_Fiddledog]

Speaking for myself, I wasn't crazy about the idea of having those twisty halogen things forced on me. The impression I got was they were quirky, over-priced, ineffective and could even be dangerous.

Then they came out with LED's though and that softened the blow.

As I heard it, it was the big corporates that first forced that law on us. They thought the Chinese would undercut them out of the market with the old bulbs.

As to furnaces, if you were quick and bought up the last of those efficient, less bothersome old models you could by-pass the law. I know that's what I did. Saved myself a lot of money too. Go ahead tell me about rebates. Wanna bet there's an argument against that.

[Tricks]

Coach85 Coach85:

Tricks Tricks:

Except a lot of that was legislated. The incandescent is banned.

Anything less than 90% efficient furnaces are banned.

In the case of the light bulbs, toilets and the furnaces, each of those already had a strong consumer market when the products were banned. People weren't forced to adopt these changes, they did so overwhelmingly and willingly.

People had overwhelmingly embraced all 3, especially the bulbs. The early adopters pushed the popularity and the cost down all without being forced to do so.

Possibly local to BC, but incandescent is still in substantial use across the province. And that's from this year, 6 years after the ban.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4129760/inca ... bulbs-b-c/

To use stats from the US, cause canada is impossible to find. Up to the point of where canada banned them, the U.S. had about 14 million bulbs purchased. (https://thinkprogress.org/5-charts-that ... cb6c1f472/) They have, approximately, 126 million homes in the USA. The average number of bulbs in a house is 45. 126 million * 45 is 5.67 billion. 14 million is .2 %. Even if we were 10 times better than they are at adoption, which would be a stretch, that's still only 2%.

You also saw a spike in sales right before it, as people didn't want to switch, and made the rush to stock up before the ban.

In 2008, 2 years before the furnace ban, the adoption rate was 43% for High efficiency furnaces. That's 13 years after they were adopted into the Energy Star Program, and 25 years after they were introduced.

https://www.achrnews.com/articles/11138 ... g-furnaces

So there was adoption, but it's not as considerable as you're making it out to be.

[Coach85]

Tricks Tricks:

In 2008, 2 years before the furnace ban, the adoption rate was 43% for High efficiency furnaces. That's 13 years after they were adopted into the Energy Star Program, and 25 years after they were introduced.

https://www.achrnews.com/articles/11138 ... g-furnaces

So there was adoption, but it's not as considerable as you're making it out to be.

43% is a huge number!

43% of people opted for the more expensive option without any carbon tax. Without being forced to and without any ban. That's fantastic and shows that we continue to make progress.

[Tricks]

Coach85 Coach85:

Tricks Tricks:

In 2008, 2 years before the furnace ban, the adoption rate was 43% for High efficiency furnaces. That's 13 years after they were adopted into the Energy Star Program, and 25 years after they were introduced.

https://www.achrnews.com/articles/11138 ... g-furnaces

So there was adoption, but it's not as considerable as you're making it out to be.

43% is a huge number!

43% of people opted for the more expensive option without any carbon tax. Without being forced to and without any ban. That's fantastic and shows that we continue to make progress.

Yeah, that one was quite a bit higher than I expected, but I don't think you can attribute it solely to them wanting to do anything for the environment. Remember, I sold these. I was regularly told to sell something 98% efficient vs 95 because it would save them money in the long run, even if the upfront cost was 1500-2000 more. Obviously that's a load of shit. However, jumping to the low 90s from 80, that would save them money in the long run. All a sales person had to do was convince people of that, and offer financing. I definitely agree part of that are people wanting to produce less carbon, but if it were even half I'd be surprised. The rest were just sold something more expensive for commission.

[CharlesAnthony]

Tricks Tricks:

The rest were just sold something more expensive for commission.

Now you know what motivates all of the glow-bull-climate-war-mongering-changeling shills. They are middle-men cashing in on the scam. Pet rocks and mood rings do not work anymore.

Do you really trust the lab coats?? Do you really believe they give a shit about you??