- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Friday defended rules designed to boost light bulb efficiency as a group of Republicans led by Texas Congressman Joe Barton prepared for a House vote next week to repeal the regulations.
At stake is a 2007 energy law requiring that incandescent light bulbs be 30 percent more efficient by 2012.
danarhea said:Who is against it?
However, since the Commerce Clause gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities among the states, this law is indeed Constitutional.
The House rears it's bat**** crazy head again. Who is for more efficient light bulbs? Consumers, and yes, even the light bulb manufacturers. Who is against it? Energy companies who want to charge you for using more electricity, and who have House Republicans in their back pocket. But did we ever think they didn't?
These Republicans who want to empower the Kochs of the world cite Constitutionality of the new law. However, since the Commerce Clause gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities among the states, this law is indeed Constitutional. Not only that, but will save consumers 81 billion dollars a year, which is money that won't be going into the pockets of energy companies. No wonder Republicans hate this law.
I predict that this bill will die in the Senate, and deservedly so.
Article is here.
The consumers want to pay twice as much for a light bulb? I don't buy that. Are you excited about paying 5 times more for freon for your a/c, too?
I have a shelf full of the old bulbs. The light emitted is better. They are far cheaper (even considering electic costs) and my lamp shades don't fit the swirly bulbs.
One day if the price has come down (which will likely happen) I'll switch. Oh yeah, I can also simply throw away the old bulbs.
You know, it's odd that the government didn't have to pass a law to force people to switch from VCR's to DVD's.
I have a shelf full of the old bulbs. The light emitted is better.
They are far cheaper (even considering electic costs) and my lamp shades don't fit the swirly bulbs.
You know, it's odd that the government didn't have to pass a law to force people to switch from VCR's to DVD's.
Considering that the new bulbs last much longer than the old ones, and use much less electricity on top of it, consumers are actually saving money. the savings for consumers is estimated to be about 81 billion dollars.
A total conversion from VCRs to DVDs doesn't reduce the amount of uranium and sulfur being spit into the air I breathe.
Not quite. There's a new LED on the market which in blind (LOL) tests cannot be determined to be different from old incandescent lights.
Depends how often you use your lights. To be cheaper then LEDs over any considerable time frame, you have to barely use your incandescent bulbs. Meaning less than an hour or two a day.
The law doesn't ban incandescent. It just requires a level of efficiency. Which some incandescent bulb manufacturers are working on.
The law doesn't ban incandescent. It just requires a level of efficiency. Which some incandescent bulb manufacturers are working on.
The point being, people switched to the new technology all on their own.
And my point being that when it comes to the air I breathe sometimes the free market is not enough.
I hope so. I'll certaintly take your word for it that some test claims this. I'll see for myself at some point. Might be awhile if these bulbs are $6.00 or more.[/quiote]
They're estimated to be down to $10 within 18 months. And they are dimable. I think WIRED ran a web article on it the other day. It was in my Google news side bar.
Any single bulb uses very little electricty in a year.
True, but incandescent are exceedingly wasteful. And over time, with replacement costs, they are more expensive.
Still, if it's a good deal, people will switch on their own.
Most people don't think more then a month ahead. Furthermore, power companies are in on this too as it reduces the additional capacity they have to increase at the same making it easier to meet renewable percentages. In the long run, this is basically better for everyone except incandescent manufacturers and jewelers.
The House rears it's bat**** crazy head again. Who is for more efficient light bulbs? Consumers, and yes, even the light bulb manufacturers. Who is against it? Energy companies who want to charge you for using more electricity, and who have House Republicans in their back pocket. But did we ever think they didn't?
These Republicans who want to empower the Kochs of the world cite Constitutionality of the new law. However, since the Commerce Clause gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities among the states, this law is indeed Constitutional. Not only that, but will save consumers 81 billion dollars a year, which is money that won't be going into the pockets of energy companies. No wonder Republicans hate this law.
I predict that this bill will die in the Senate, and deservedly so.
Considering that the new bulbs last much longer than the old ones, and use much less electricity on top of it, consumers are actually saving money. the savings for consumers is estimated to be about 81 billion dollars.
If I want to pay more for a lightbulb, and pay more money for the electricity to run that lightbulb I should be able to do it. Why the **** is the government getting involved in legislation about lightbulbs? How about they legislate an upgrade to the power grid, or they legislate and discuss how to supply the country's power needs over the next 30 years instead of dictating lightbulbs. This is the stupidity of government on display - and the stupidity of those who agree with that stupidity. To Government: Let people buy what they want to buy, use what they want to use and keep your grimy hands out of people's lives.
Considering that the new bulbs last much longer than the old ones, and use much less electricity on top of it, consumers are actually saving money. the savings for consumers is estimated to be about 81 billion dollars.
Considering that the new bulbs last much longer than the old ones, and use much less electricity on top of it, consumers are actually saving money. the savings for consumers is estimated to be about 81 billion dollars.
So changing on their own isn't good enough for you?
How much is going to be spent disposing of the mercury filled pig tail bulbs? Far more than 81 million, I bet.
The exposure to the mercury in one of those bulbs for 6 hours, if broken, is less than you would get by eating a 6 ounce can of tuna.
So tell me …. why are you against giving people a choice ? If they save money .. and people want to buy them .. then fine .. “let” then buy them … why is it that we need to take the option away from people ??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?