Vitaliy wrote:

> Bob, since issue has come up in another thread, I would like to point out 
> that "subsidized" in this case simply means that government took your money, 
> gave it to the electric company (a government-protected monopoly), and let 
> it decide what kind of CFLs you should use. TANSTAAFL.

I notice you have an interest in this "government is bad" idea. I have
seen lots of American historical motion pictures called "Westerns" and
it looks like the United States before "big government" wasn't such a
nice place even for gunslingers with lots of talent. Life seemed pretty
risky. And they didn't have modern forms of lighting like CFLs either.

There are plenty of places where government doesn't "take your money":
US Virgin Islands, Monaco, Dubai etc but I notice you don't choose to
live there. Why not, could it be there are other factors that are more
important? I don't mind "big government" "taking my money". I am doing
just fine thank you. Big government in California is responsible for the
clean air we now have. I remember Los Angeles air forty years ago. Every
time I am stuck in traffic in another state the smell of exhaust
surprises me until I remember they don't have such "big government"
regulations preventing them from having gross polluters on the road.

So perhaps I think giving incentives for people to use less energy has
multiple benefits, some may not be obvious.

But in my original email I really only mentioned the price subsidy
because I was thinking about my reasons for trying CFLs in every
possible application. At those prices it's hard not to.

Cheerful regards,

Bob
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist