Helge, with all due respect (and I mean that), here's why I feel it's not sensible to have this debate:
In your previous post, two notions (CRI and a policy choice) are qualified as nonsensical. This is a very firm position to take; it's a conclusion that effectively can result only from (1) well-established facts that preclude any other view or (2) a very firm belief that exists regardless of any basis in facts.
Since there is no compelling evidence about the influence of LED lighting on human wellbeing, (1) cannot be the case, which leaves (2): a very firm belief. Personally, I don't see much benefit in discussing people's beliefs, especially if they are presented in a way that comes across with me as a non-debatable position. In my native language, we have a football-derived saying that translates into "goin in with an outstretched leg". It's generally not conducive to a very meaningful altercation - especially on a topic that is very complex and requires attention to detail and nuance.
Furthermore, I believe that in terms of an exchange of knowledge, certain rhetoric devices are counterproductive. I'd like to highlight your mention of overall energy savings in your earlier post, as well as the mention of effects that (in your formulation) are supposedly 'well established'.
The former example (the energy savings figure) is fairly reasonable guesstimate that's indeed substantiated with credible evidence. However, it in itself does not support the position/conclusion presented earlier in your post, i.e. the sensibility of a certain policy. For instance, the worldwide final electricity consumption in households is around 6000TWh. If you save let's say 3% of that by adopting LED lighting, that's a 180TWh energy savings. As a basis for policy, that seems to make good sense, although it becomes a different story if the 180TWh advantage is offset by disadvantages (in terms of energy, resource use, human wellbeing etc.) and the net balance turns out to be negative. Since such a comparison is essentially impossible to make, the argument about an ostensibly small energy savings in the end does not amount to anything - it does not allow for a conclusion either way, and as a support for the crass positions put forth in your earlier post, it only ends up working as a rhetoric device that holds minimal merit in terms of true knowledge exchange or generation.
The latter example of certain effects being 'well stablished' function as a similar ruse - by waving in a general direction of fields of research and summarizing the overall outcomes in a handful of words, the suggestion of a foundation to your claims is given, but the consistency of that foundation remains implicit. And, I dare say, upon further investigation, it will turn out to be not as firm as suggested.
In conclusion, I feel that your former post does highlight a relevant issue that an interesting discussion could be conducted on. However, the rhetoric and logical foundations the topic is introduced on in my view make such a discussion very difficult. It would require that a wide range of implicit assumptions, but also personal beliefs/convictions need to be made explicit, and in part isolated from a more factual exchange of views. That in itself might make for an interesting exchange - provided that the parties involved are willing to engage in it on a constructive basis. However, it's also very labor-intensive, and frankly not my idea of having a nice time socializing with like-minded spirits on a forum.
So again, have at it, but know that I personally feel that as a way to put this topic on the public agenda, this start is a very unfortunate one, that I moreover feel will in the end be counterproductive.
www.sciencedirect.com
