• Blamemeta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • Radioaktvt@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • Rom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • BettyWhiteInHD@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Import them from a country that doesn’t have such laws and sell at inflated prices because now there’s a black market for them.

        I doubt that’s what’s gonna be happening here, but hypothetically that’s a way to go around them.

        • Rom@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.