House GOP Set To Repeal Incandescent Bulb Ban...

[cielo42]

what's wrong with being more energy efficient?

 

[slackjawed]

what's wrong with being more energy efficient?

Quote: Originally Posted by uscitizen View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by slackjawed View Post
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? "(end quote)



don't worry, i'll catch ya up.

 

[Trajan]

wow, I did not see this thread ...whoops. * search function sux a mop*..

 

[Trajan]

waste of time, as usual.... it won't get pass the senate...they know it too...but yet they still spend useless time doing this kind of crap.... (not that i like those florescent bulbs or the light they give off....I just really do NOT like them)

where are the jobs bills?

this congress is turning out to be even more useless than the previous one imho and as facts are showing....

At $275,000 Per Job created,it would be wise to not offer anymore Government "Help" on Job-Creation. We just can't afford anymore of their "Help." Also,banning light bulbs in the first place was useless crap. This is the right thing to do and definitely not useless.

ok, then please tell me, in your own words, why you think this is the RIGHT thing to do? Please explain to me, so i can understand, why being the only country in the world, to be left using the incandescent light bulb, that truly does waste energy, a good thing?

the negatives that i can see with the florescent light bulb:

the light they cast is harsh and not soft enough on the stronger bulbs and they don't cast enough light on the lower watt bulbs.

and

when you break them, they have the poisonous Mercury in them and the clean up is a bitch...I broke one, right on the stove!

outside of those 2 things, on the positive... they do cut our energy use down as a nation, and are greener...

I am hoping that LED lights will be better....

Care...are you aware that at the time in 2008 ( booosh he owns it) we had 2 homegrow co's making cfls...since the bill? they are in....wait for it...

china.

read please some of my posts above, the ban was a total whack job, its ridiculous. there is 5 mg of mercury in each bulb depending on size. mercury is bad ju ju..

 

[frazzledgear]

so what say you USMB yes, or no.


Why Republicans are fighting to save the 30-cent light bulb

House Republicans are attempting to repeal energy-efficiency standards that would phase out the least efficient – and least expensive – incandescent light bulbs. They see the regulations as another example of government meddling.

By Mark Clayton, Staff writer / July 11, 2011

Under a "Bring Back the Bulb" banner, Republicans in the House of Representatives will debate legislation on Monday to roll back energy-efficiency standards, thereby permitting Thomas Edison's original, highly inefficient incandescent light bulb to continue being sold next year.

But were the bulbs ever actually banned? The bipartisan legislation, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2007, sought to boost lighting efficiency and save on energy costs by requiring lightbulbs be more efficient, not by banning any particular style of bulb – part of a long-term government energy efficiency process that has enjoyed both parties' support for decades. Now, that support is dimming, as "nanny-government" critics complain Americans are so hen-pecked by bureaucrats that they can't even buy a simple old light bulb.

“This is about more than just energy consumption, it is about personal freedom," Rep. Joe Barton (R) of Texas, the new bill's sponsor, said in a statement earlier this year. "Voters sent us a message in November that it is time for politicians and activists in Washington to stop interfering in their lives and manipulating the free market. The light bulb ban is the perfect symbol of that frustration. People don’t want Congress dictating what light fixtures they can use.”

more at-

Why Republicans are fighting to save the 30-cent light bulb - CSMonitor.com

merged with existing thread.

Come ON people! Where the hell does Congress get off banning light bulbs in the first place? (And yes, it was essentially a ban on incandescent light bulbs because those standards are beyond the capabilities of an incandescent bulb no matter how it is built so it is in practice a BAN.) Or for that matter trying to force light bulb makers to make them the way Congress has arbitrarily decided they should be made? This isn't even remotely a safety or health issue to justify it. This was about a pack of arrogant politicians in Congress who think they know best about what YOU should be ALLOWED to buy. If you think the proper role of government is to decide FOR YOU how you may be allowed to spend your money, then sure, you'd be right behind this major nanny government move it really was. But for a FREE PEOPLE the rationale cited by government for a law that in practice bans the incandescent bulb (which is still in HIGH DEMAND by people who know good and well they are getting what they pay for with cheap bulbs) and thereby limits YOUR own sources of energy and choices is completely insufficient and inadequate grounds to justify what they did with this ban.


The real question in all this is who got the kickbacks and payoffs by talking Congress into passing a law intended to gut entire companies for the benefit of another one? Somebody sure made out like a bandit by exploiting the power of government to reduce the ability of their competition to actually compete in the market place. Just how much is that unfair advantage worth because I have no doubt someone put a price tag on it, received it and deposited it -either in a bank or another freezer. But the proper role of government is NOT to try and determine the winners and losers in the private sector and NOT to try and hand an advantage to one company by deliberately handicapping another one. But Congress believes its purpose is a never ending stream of bullshit laws and regulations specifically intended to strip ever more power and freedom from you and claiming it belongs with government instead. And there will always be that freedom-loathing leftwing minority who applaud seeing it happen.

 

[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?

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

None, I think I only still have 2 incandescents going, I like the CFL's.

 

[Moonglow]

The incandescents don't last very long.

 

[uscitizen]

Just live under a high voltage power line and the flourescent tubes will glow for free.

 

[Moonglow]

that's on the back 40

 

[Flopper]

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?

The loss of some personal freedoms in order to benefit all society is the price of living in modern society. The amount of electricity you use, doesn't effect just you but everyone. Increased auto fatalities and injuries from not using seat belts increase insurance rates.

The denser the population the greater the need for limitation on personal freedoms. I fear that it's inevitable that personal freedoms will be more restricted as the population of the nation and the world grows.

 

[Flopper]

The opposition to the required use of CF bulbs have made a big deal about the mercury content and it's effect on the environment. Today the average CF contains 4mg of mercury. Some of the new CF's contain 1 to 2mg. By comparison a mercury thermometer contains 500mg.

Most mercury vapor inside fluorescent light bulbs becomes bound to the inside of the light bulb as it is used. EPA estimates that the rest of the mercury within a CFL – about 11 percent is released into air or water when it is sent to a landfill, assuming the light bulb is broken. Therefore, if all 272 million CFLs
sold in 2009 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) – they would add 0.12 metric tons, or 0.12 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans. And this is only if the bulbs are not recycled.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

 

[Mr.Owl]

Why should we get rid of something when theres nothing wrong with it? Energy Efficiency my ass! Save energy by turning off the lights when you leave the room, or don't have 20 in one room! Besides, in a modern contemporary setting,(or any setting for that matter) CFLs are just downright gaudy. They look like garden hoses. At least we know the GOP's got SOME sense.

 

[The Rabbi]

The opposition to the required use of CF bulbs have made a big deal about the mercury content and it's effect on the environment. Today the average CF contains 4mg of mercury. Some of the new CF's contain 1 to 2mg. By comparison a mercury thermometer contains 500mg.

Most mercury vapor inside fluorescent light bulbs becomes bound to the inside of the light bulb as it is used. EPA estimates that the rest of the mercury within a CFL – about 11 percent is released into air or water when it is sent to a landfill, assuming the light bulb is broken. Therefore, if all 272 million CFLs
sold in 2009 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) – they would add 0.12 metric tons, or 0.12 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans. And this is only if the bulbs are not recycled.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

So now you're in favor of pollution?

 

[Ravi]

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.

Except....since this ban was voted in in 2007, manufacturers have already come out with incandescents that meet the energy efficiency guidelines.

This is nothing but pandering to idiots, the repeal of a law the Repukes already overwhelmingly supported.

 

[sparky]

Except....since this ban was voted in in 2007, manufacturers have already come out with incandescents that meet the energy efficiency guidelines.

This is nothing but pandering to idiots, the repeal of a law the Repukes already overwhelmingly supported.[/QUOTE]

sorry but, we've been hearing about 'energy laws' in the trades now for decades>
Energy Policy Act of 1992 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ravi]

I'm talking about this particular energy efficiency guideline.

Did you people cry when a/c, freezers, etc. were forced to be made energy efficient?

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

so Flopper.....that kid is not going to showoff for his friends because of the Seatbelt Law?......once he takes off in that car its up to him to wear the belt, Law or not.....i dont see what point your trying to make here....

 

[Seawytch]

my question still stands Wytch......Anti made his statement.....im saying to him, were you complaining when Democrats around the Country were talking about Light Bulbs instead of our more serious problems.....simple as that.....and i should not have used the word Banned.....because they are not being banned.....the Wattage is just being down graded.....

Let's see...the "ban" went into effect before the financial meltdown. So, what "problems" were we facing at that time that needed to be addressed and wasn't?

The current House isn't doing anything else...

we were not having problems in 2007?.....

You tell me. What problems were we having in 2007 when the original regulations went into effect that the Senate or the House weren't working on?

 

[traveler52]

Dems banned these bulbs????

Major Wrong.

The bill was signed in 2007. The bill was signed by the shrub, who was in the White House in 2007.

Jeez, you guys would lie about water being wet if Dems said something different.

 

[Oddball]

The incandescents don't last very long.

What business is that of yours or the gubmint's?