House GOP Set To Repeal Incandescent Bulb Ban...

[iamwhatiseem]

Texas has already passed a resolution that will scoff at the ban and allow citizens of that state to choose whatever bulb they want.

This ban is as toxic as they come...what's next?

 

[Mad Scientist]

The new ones won't fit in my light fixtures.

Doesn't matter, the State knows better than you about these things. Besides, it will help the economy if you have to buy new lamps.

 

[Trajan]

at work, we have a huge staircase, 6 floors open skeletal structure , there are lights every oh, 25 feet all the way up on the bottom of the stairwells...they are the huge cfl type, 150 watt full spectrum jobs....30 bucks a pop.

there are approx. 35 of them according to the bdlg fac. guy. he replaces them every 6 months. Thats a no shitter, he doesn't know why, they never get turned off, so there are no on off discharge aspects, hes tries a few different vendors.....

I work at a "green rated bdlg" all the stars etc etc. built just 5 years ago.

Guess what? He has approval to go to incandescent.

Oh and the 'piss cylinder' non flush toilets were torn out and replaced last year, at a cost of, get ready................... 600K.

 

[Big Black Dog]

The light bulb issue seems in itself a pretty silly issue. The real issue is this. Control. It's my business what kind of a light bulb I use in my house. Same thing with french fries. I could give a shit less what they are fried in as long as they taste good. Talk of taxing soda pop just because it isn't "healthy". The government is taking control of our lives and this is what bothers me more than a stupid light bulb. It's time to draw a line in the sand. The market should dictate what is bought and sold in the US - not the government.

 

[Ravi]

These fuckheads voted it into law and now they are changing their tune to kowtow to the idiotic Teabaggers.

Republicans are such hypocrites.

Lightbulbs are something that should be furthest from their minds. Oh, wait, they are partisan hypocrites.

 

[boedicca]

Get rid of the ban and let the markets decide. If people want CFLs, they can buy them; and ditto for incandescents.

 

[Toro]

Yes, get rid of the ban.

 

[Flopper]

In some parts of the world, plastic bags, Hummers, and energy inefficient light bulbs are things of an uncivilized past.

No wonder Europe likes to make fun of us. :/

Europe? All of them?
Or do you mean Greece (bankrupt)? Or Spain (bankrupt)? Or Portugal (bankrupt)? Or Italy (bankrupt)? Or Iceland (bankrupt)?
Why should we give a shit what Europeans think of us?

Asia
[edit]India
While not a complete ban, the plan is to replace 400 million incandescent light bulbs with CFLs by 2012. The energy savings and resultant carbon emissions savings is expected to be around 55 million tonnes per year [8]
The states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in India have banned the use of incandescent bulbs in government departments, public sector undertakings, various boards, cooperative institutions, local bodies, and institutions running on government aid.[9][10]
[edit]Philippines
In February 2008, president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo called for a ban of incandescent light bulbs by 2010 in favor of more energy-efficient fluorescent globes to help cut greenhouse gas emissions and household costs during her closing remarks at the Philippine Energy Summit. Once put in effect, the country will be the first in Asia to do so.[11]
[edit]Malaysia
The Government will stop all production, import and sales of incandescent light bulbs by or before January 2014, as part of efforts to save power and to help cut greenhouse gas emissions.[7]
[edit]Europe
[edit]European Union
The initial Europe wide ban only applies to general-purpose, non-directional incandescent bulbs, so does not affect any bulbs with reflective surfaces (e.g. spotlights and halogen down lighters) or special purpose bulbs including those used in ovens, fridges, traffic lights, infrared lamps etc. The sale of the most inefficient bulbs will be phased out. The first types to go are non-clear (frosted) bulbs, which would be off the market by September 2009. Also from September 2009 clear bulbs over 100W must be made of more efficient types. This limit will be moved down to lower wattages, and the efficiency levels raised by the end of 2012.[12] Also, the EU has given the target of 2016 to phase out halogen bulbs, and any bulb available for purchase after the 2016 date must have at least a 'B' energy rating.[13] The Finnish parliament discussed banning sales of incandescent light bulbs by the beginning of 2011.[14]
[edit]Ireland
The Irish government was the first European Union (EU) member state to stop the sale of incandescent light bulbs.[15] It was later announced that all member states of the EU agreed to a progressive phase-out of incandescent light bulbs by 2012.[16]
[edit]Switzerland
Switzerland banned the sale of all light bulbs of the Energy Efficiency Class F and G, which affects a few types of incandescent light bulbs. Most normal light bulbs are of Energy Efficiency Class E, and the Swiss regulation has exceptions for various kinds of special-purpose and decorative bulbs.[17][18]
[edit]United Kingdom
The UK government announced in 2007 that incandescent bulbs would be phased out by 2011.[19]
[edit]North America
[edit]Canada
The provincial government of Nova Scotia stated in February 2007 that it would like to move towards preventing the sale of incandescent light bulbs in the province.[20]
In April 2007, Ontario's Minister of Energy Dwight Duncan announced the provincial government's intention to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs by 2012.[21]
Later in April, the federal government announced that it would ban the sale of inefficient incandescent light bulbs nation-wide by 2012 as part of a plan to cut down on emissions of greenhouse gases. The plan is expected to save the average homeowner $50 a year on the electricity bill. [22]
In January 2011, the province of British Columbia banned retailers from ordering 75- or 100-watt incandescent bulbs.[23]
The nation's Energy Efficiency Regulations are published on the Natural Resources Canada website.[24]
[edit]Cuba
Cuba exchanged all incandescent light bulbs for CFLs, and banned the sale and import of them in 2005.[1]
[edit]United States
[edit]Individual state efforts
California will phase out the use of incandescent bulbs by 2018 as part of bill by California State Assembly member Jared Huffman (D-Santa Rosa) that was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 12, 2007. The bill aims to establish a minimum standard of twenty-five lumens per watt by 2013 and sixty lumens per watt by 2018.[25][26]
Connecticut legislation was proposed by state Representative Mary M. Mushinsky (D-Wallingford).[27][28]
New Jersey Assemblyman Larry Chatzidakis introduced a bill on February 8, 2007 that calls for the state to eliminate incandescent bulbs in government buildings over the next three years. Chatzidakis said, "The light bulb was invented a long time ago and a lot of things have changed since then. I obviously respect the memory of Thomas Edison, but what we're looking at here is using less energy."[29]
[edit]Federal legislation
In December 2007, many of these state efforts became moot when the federal government enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires all general-purpose light bulbs that produce 310–2600 lumens of light[30] be 30% more energy efficient (similar to current halogen lamps) than current incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014. The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.
Light bulbs outside of this range are exempt from the restrictions. Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights, including appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, and plant lights.
By 2020, a second tier of restrictions would become effective, which requires all general-purpose bulbs to produce at least 45 lumens per watt (similar to current CFLs). Exemptions from the Act include reflector flood, 3-way, candelabra, colored, and other specialty bulbs.[31]
[edit]Oceania
[edit]Australia
In February 2007, Australia enacted a law that will, in effect, by legislating efficiency standards, disallow most sales of incandescent light bulbs by 2010.[32] The Australian Federal Government announced minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) for lighting products. The new minimum standard efficiency level is 15 lumens per watt (lm/W). From November 2008, no non-compliant lighting (including some incandescent globes) were imported into Australia, and from November 2009, the retail sale of non-compliant lighting was banned.[33] According to the current proposal,[34] all regular light bulbs and some other kinds of light bulbs sold from October 2009 have to meet the new minimum energy performance standards. Incandescent light bulbs that meet the new standards, for example high-efficiency halogen bulbs, continue to be available.[35]
It is estimated that greenhouse gas emissions will be cut by 800,000 tonnes (Australia's current emission total is 564.7 million tonnes), a saving of approximately 0.14%.[36]
There have been some initiatives to encourage people to switch to compact fluorescent lamps ahead of the phase out.[37]
[edit]New Zealand
In February 2007, then Climate Change Minister David Parker announced a similar proposal to the one in Australia,[38] except that importation for personal use would have been allowed.[39] However, this proposal was scrapped by the new government in December 2008.[40]
[edit]South America
[edit]Argentina
In Argentina, selling and importing incandescent light bulbs has been forbidden since 31 December 2010.[41]
[edit]Venezuela
As part of its electricity conservation program, Venezuela has a light bulb exchange program, which aims to replace millions of incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents.[42]
[edit]
Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daveman]

I'm sorry to hear about your daughter's friend and the accident. Thank heavens she's ok injury-wise. Just out of curiosity . . . was your daughter's friend who was killed wearing a seat belt?

Wearing a seat belt is a smart thing to do. The government passing a law that says I have to because some people are too stupid? No. Let them be stupid, it's their choice.

Sorry, I don't think government should be mandating this or banning that because 'oh, we're saving the children and society' blarg. Some things? Yup. Most things? Nope, and that includes light bulbs. But hey, they need to save energy where ever they can so we can charge our little electric cars they want us all to be driving. Zoom zoom.

Just how much personal freedom are you giving up by snapping on a seat belt. My guess is you would still buckle up without the law but what about your 17 year old son or his best friend. When he decides he's going to show his buddies that he doesn't need to wear a seat belt and get's killed in an accident, it's the family that suffers and the other drivers that pay higher insurance rates.

The same argument that applies to the seat belts applies to motorcycle helmets, life jackets and dangerous consumer products.

Every consumer product is a "dangerous" consumer product. Just read the product warnings on the side of the label. Every one of those is there because some jackass got a lawyer to sue because he was an idiot.
It's time to put a stop to all that. If people are stupid, we can't protect them. It is the price of freedom.

Yeah, but this stuff is truly dangerous. It really needs to be banned.

 

[martybegan]

Get rid of the ban and let the markets decide. If people want CFLs, they can buy them; and ditto for incandescents.

Once a better technology comes out it will replace standard incandescents. Trying to force technological change via legislation should be a last resort, not some feel good crap you use to play to a part of your base.

 

[GWV5903]

Yes, reverse the incandescent bulb ban....

Granted the CFL's are more efficient, but leave it to the consumer to choose....

Let the market dictate....

 

[The Rabbi]

Just how much personal freedom are you giving up by snapping on a seat belt. My guess is you would still buckle up without the law but what about your 17 year old son or his best friend. When he decides he's going to show his buddies that he doesn't need to wear a seat belt and get's killed in an accident, it's the family that suffers and the other drivers that pay higher insurance rates.

The same argument that applies to the seat belts applies to motorcycle helmets, life jackets and dangerous consumer products.

Every consumer product is a "dangerous" consumer product. Just read the product warnings on the side of the label. Every one of those is there because some jackass got a lawyer to sue because he was an idiot.
It's time to put a stop to all that. If people are stupid, we can't protect them. It is the price of freedom.

Yeah, but this stuff is truly dangerous. It really needs to be banned.

Absolutely! For the children!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

While I'm cool with them reserving the ban.... we really do have slightly more important issues to be focusing on than light bulbs.

Preserving freedom is always an important issue.

 

[daveman]

Every consumer product is a "dangerous" consumer product. Just read the product warnings on the side of the label. Every one of those is there because some jackass got a lawyer to sue because he was an idiot.
It's time to put a stop to all that. If people are stupid, we can't protect them. It is the price of freedom.

Yeah, but this stuff is truly dangerous. It really needs to be banned.

Absolutely! For the children!

Please -- won't someone think of the children?

 

[Trajan]

These fuckheads voted it into law and now they are changing their tune to kowtow to the idiotic Teabaggers.

Republicans are such hypocrites.

Lightbulbs are something that should be furthest from their minds. Oh, wait, they are partisan hypocrites.

the bill passed under bush hon....time to change hats

 

[Trajan]

saw a blurb yesterday, NYC requires you, when disposing of a cfl to bring it to the dump and they have a special bin....survey says? not a chance of that happening.

 

[uscitizen]

just dislike the new ones, wrong color wrong shape, not healthy if you break them and expensive to boot.

I should have voted the other way though as to preserve my self-interests. I hoarded a ton of the old ones and am ready to sell them at a healthy profit as soon as the demand is there.

so you will have 3 lifetimes worth of bulbs to use if they repeal the ban?

 

[uscitizen]

saw a blurb yesterday, NYC requires you, when disposing of a cfl to bring it to the dump and they have a special bin....survey says? not a chance of that happening.

So? there are rules for disposing of dry cell batteries, motor oil, anti freeze, paint, most household chemicals, etc and such too.

anf the lithium batteries in your cellular devices. I guess we should not make those either since they are a disposal hazard?

 

[Zoom-boing]

I think if you had to pickup body parts off the highway after an auto accident you would understand why we have seat belt laws. It’s not all about you. It’s about the family where Dad decides to exercise his personal freedom and the family pays the price. It’s about the increase costs of healthcare and insurance caused by increased auto fatalities. It’s about the kids that follow the example of their parents and don’t buckle up. My daughter walked away from a crash that killed her best friend because she was wearing seatbelts. Requiring seat beats is one the smartest laws we have ever passed. But I see right wing nuts are at work here. House vote may repeal seat belt law | Northfield News

I have CFLs in my house and really don’t like them as much as the old incandescent bulbs because they don’t come to full brightness immediately. But I think that’s a small incontinence when considering I’m saving about $10 bucks a month on electricity and don’t need to replace them as often. When you consider the amount of energy it would save the nation it’s well worth it.

I'm sorry to hear about your daughter's friend and the accident. Thank heavens she's ok injury-wise. Just out of curiosity . . . was your daughter's friend who was killed wearing a seat belt?

Wearing a seat belt is a smart thing to do. The government passing a law that says I have to because some people are too stupid? No. Let them be stupid, it's their choice.

Sorry, I don't think government should be mandating this or banning that because 'oh, we're saving the children and society' blarg. Some things? Yup. Most things? Nope, and that includes light bulbs. But hey, they need to save energy where ever they can so we can charge our little electric cars they want us all to be driving. Zoom zoom.

Just how much personal freedom are you giving up by snapping on a seat belt. My guess is you would still buckle up without the law but what about your 17 year old son or his best friend. When he decides he's going to show his buddies that he doesn't need to wear a seat belt and get's killed in an accident, it's the family that suffers and the other drivers that pay higher insurance rates.

The same argument that applies to the seat belts applies to motorcycle helmets, life jackets and dangerous consumer products.

How much of my personal freedom am I giving up by being forced to buckle up? Just a bit. But that's how it works. Bit by bit, little by little and folks like you say 'but it's for your own good, it's for the kids, it isn't much why are you complaining'. One day you'll wake up and that 'little bit' will be a big assed chunk. True story.

Kids will buckle up because it's the law? Not. A 17 year old will do as they please . . .they always do. They're invincible, don't you know?

The government has no business mandating/banning things like light bulbs or seat belts. It should be left up to the individual. When a better bulb comes along (and to repeat from my previous post it already is w/the LED's; time will bring the cost down) people will buy it. CFL's will cause a problem down the road when they are dumped by the thousands into landfills . . . but I'm sure the government will pass some other kind of ban or mandate to address the problem... that they created.

btw, you never answered my question (I was being sincere). Was your daughter's friend wearing a seat belt?

 

[slackjawed]

just dislike the new ones, wrong color wrong shape, not healthy if you break them and expensive to boot.

I should have voted the other way though as to preserve my self-interests. I hoarded a ton of the old ones and am ready to sell them at a healthy profit as soon as the demand is there.

so you will have 3 lifetimes worth of bulbs to use if they repeal the ban?

How many can I put ya down for if the ban stands?