Page 15 of 78 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 771

Thread: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

  1. #141
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    Its not good enough. If we want to reduce pollution, everybody must invest in it, not just the people who want to.
    If you want to increase GE's profits you must be forced to buy their new, expensive bulbs. Although he is not at fault, these are friends of the one term Marxist president Obama. This is crony capitalism at its worst. This was never about pollution. It was only about compelling people to buy a product from a private company in order to increase their profit margin.

    It is time to get out the pitchforks and march on Washington.
    Last edited by Misterveritis; 07-13-11 at 07:44 PM.

  2. #142
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    54,690

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Do you think it stops at "energy efficient standards"?

    All these government initiatives are always initiated 'in the public good', and are often carried out by some nameless, faceless bureaucrat.

    You don't view any of them with some suspicion?

    At one time, as hard as this is to imagine now, Americans once had the responsibility of selecting their own light bulbs.
    Slippery slope fallacy.

    Also, you still have the responsibility of selecting your own light bulbs. They will, however, conform to certain standards. Just like your car or your food.

    Your electrical use has an impact on the power grid that we all share. Your electrical use has an impact on the air we all breathe. I believe the government has the responsibility to ensure that reasonable measures are taken to preserve those things to a reasonable degree for everyone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    We have no reason not to believe him. [North Korean Dictator and Mass Murder Kim Jong-Un] has been very honest and accommodating.

  3. #143
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 08:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    I feel that personal freedom is good, but that the public sector has a strong role to play in terms of environmental protection. We don't have cleaner air, vast public lands, cleaner water, and so on because some autocratic dictator decreed it was the right thing to do. However, its also not because every individual in the U.S. just happened to make the choice either. It's because the American people petitioned their government for environmental regulation and preservation. We have an EPA because the majority of Americans want the federal government to enforce environmental protections. Group psychology is different than individual psychology. The same individual that will go out and by a gas guzzler many times will also be supportive of government mandated fuel efficiency standards. That may be a little hypocritical on their part, but most people seem to realize that as individuals we don't necessarily always act in our collective best interest. It is the Tragedy of the Commons.
    But you are assuming that it is government that control the environment and without it people will behave irresponsibly even while the facts, including your examples, prove otherwise. Why wouldn't individuals make the choice for cleaner air and water? There are a great many ways to exert others to respect the environment, including the media, environmental groups, public protests, etc. The assumption that governments will always act in the public interest without these public pressure groups, also as per your examples, is unlikely.

    I believe that public shaming also works, if people are allowed a free media and public protests. I have become very suspicious of government control because, once we give it to them, it is very difficult to get it back. The EPA will now never disappear no matter how clean the air and water might be. And of course its budget will always grow and the bureaucracy, laws and codes increase. Otherwise the government, according to the self interested, is 'not respecting the environment'.

  4. #144
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 08:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    At one time, you could simply burn your old tires rather than having them recycled.

    At one time, you could just throw a car battery in the river rather than having it recycled.

    At one time, you could purchase pesticides to kill ants around your house that also poisoned the ground water for decades.

    At one time, you could buy a lawn mower that polluted more in 2 hours of use than a modern vehicle will in a year.

    At one time, you could catch every fish in a river, kill every deer in a forest, and just move on once you completely depleted the natural resources around you.

    At one time, you could change your oil in your car, and just pour it around your fence posts.

    Do you think you should simply have the choice of still doing all these things, or do you think there is a role for science based reasonable environmental and energy regulations?
    I absolutely agree that science and knowledge plays a huge role in making sure that the practices you described are avoided and discouraged. But why can't education play a role once the science is proven?

    It is not an either/or thing but one where individual rights are balanced between with that of the community. And the community, if we trust the majority of our fellow citizens, tend to muddle through and eventually do the right thing., They will not commt the sort of crimes against the environment you mentioned above, given enlightenment.

  5. #145
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,134

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Badmutha
    So your saying you were too stupid to pick out your own light bulbs and you need government to do it for you.........
    I don't see how the government is limiting your choice, you're still completely free to choose whatever lightbulbs you want.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 08:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    If you want to increase GE's profits you must be forced to buy their new, expensive bulbs. Although he is not at fault, these are friends of the one term Marxist president Obama. This is crony capitalism at its worst. This was never about pollution. It was only about compelling people to buy a product from a private company in order to increase their profit margin.

    It is time to get out the pitchforks and march on Washington.
    This is the thing in a nutshell.

    Huge profits are being made, billions, by the amalgamation of big business and politicians. They will find the scientists who will agree to discover the results they pay for and the excited journalists who will write the scare stories to move the people in the desired direction. The government will then pass laws which they had in mind in the first place. Unintended consequences follow, huge sums of money disappear, and we then move on to the next political administration.

  7. #147
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 10:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Slippery slope fallacy.

    Also, you still have the responsibility of selecting your own light bulbs. They will, however, conform to certain standards. Just like your car or your food.

    Your electrical use has an impact on the power grid that we all share. Your electrical use has an impact on the air we all breathe. I believe the government has the responsibility to ensure that reasonable measures are taken to preserve those things to a reasonable degree for everyone.
    I pointed this out earlier but nobody addressed it. You being on the internet has a bigger impact than my choice of lightbulbs.

  8. #148
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    54,690

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    But you are assuming that it is government that control the environment and without it people will behave irresponsibly even while the facts, including your examples, prove otherwise. Why wouldn't individuals make the choice for cleaner air and water? There are a great many ways to exert others to respect the environment, including the media, environmental groups, public protests, etc. The assumption that governments will always act in the public interest without these public pressure groups, also as per your examples, is unlikely.

    I believe that public shaming also works, if people are allowed a free media and public protests. I have become very suspicious of government control because, once we give it to them, it is very difficult to get it back. The EPA will now never disappear no matter how clean the air and water might be. And of course its budget will always grow and the bureaucracy, laws and codes increase. Otherwise the government, according to the self interested, is 'not respecting the environment'.
    Dirty is usually cheaper. It's cheaper to dump mercury in your neighbor's back yard than it is to dispose of it properly. The free market has never been good at reducing large-scale pollution. The dirty company operates cheaper, outcompetes the clean company, and takes over the industry.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I pointed this out earlier but nobody addressed it. You being on the internet has a bigger impact than my choice of lightbulbs.
    More efficient lighting can perform the same task with a much smaller power draw. There is no similar method of greatly reducing the electrical draw of an active computer.

    You're drawing the false dichotomy of "do thing" and "don't do thing" and are forgetting the "do thing but do it more efficiently" option.

    Computers, incidentally, are already becoming more efficient as a side-effect of the quest for greater performance. There is no similar trend in lightbulbs - we've already hit the desired limit of bulb "performance." (we can already produce more light than would be necessary or even safe for home use!)
    Last edited by Deuce; 07-13-11 at 09:42 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    We have no reason not to believe him. [North Korean Dictator and Mass Murder Kim Jong-Un] has been very honest and accommodating.

  9. #149
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 10:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    More efficient lighting can perform the same task with a much smaller power draw. There is no similar method of greatly reducing the electrical draw of an active computer.
    So what, stay off it, you are adding to the pollution.

    You're drawing the false dichotomy of "do thing" and "don't do thing" and are forgetting the "do thing but do it more efficiently" option.
    There is no great pressing need for you to be posting here. You are simply wasting electricity.

  10. #150
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    54,690

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    So what, stay off it, you are adding to the pollution.



    There is no great pressing need for you to be posting here. You are simply wasting electricity.
    You're still drawing the "do thing/don't do thing" false dichotomy. Bringing your argument back to light bulbs, nobody has ever suggested you not be able to light your home at all. Nor has anyone suggested that electricity be relegated only to tasks that have some "pressing need."

    Maybe you're just upset that your argument wasn't as debate-ending as you thought it was.
    Last edited by Deuce; 07-13-11 at 09:47 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    We have no reason not to believe him. [North Korean Dictator and Mass Murder Kim Jong-Un] has been very honest and accommodating.

Page 15 of 78 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •