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.
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.
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.
If you actually read past the headline, you’ll see they aren’t outright banned.
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.
Go around them how? It’s not like people can grow incandescent light bulbs in their back yard.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator