Page 61 of 78 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 610 of 771

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

  1. #601
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Thanks. You confirmed what I had already posted.
    Oh, then before you were talking about bulbs over 310 watts that will have to meet new standards in 2020?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #602
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Oh, then before you were talking about bulbs over 310 watts that will have to meet new standards in 2020?
    Nope.

    It's obvious that the paper you linked to has a typo in it. It's not for bulbs over 310 watts, it's for bulbs over 310 lumens.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  3. #603
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,173

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    There are things I don't agree with the SC about now, such as their Citizens United decision. However, it is the rule of law and will have to be defeated through public pressure for a court challenge.

    Under US rule of law, that is the way you address decisions made by the court. Some are now challenging the new health care legislation through the Supreme Court, are they not?

    Now, if the SC rules against the legislation, will their ruling be overruled by any one else?

    I rest my case.
    You rest your case? ROFLMAO!

    Now, what have I said? Have I said that I am the arbiter of constitutionality? Nope. You made that wild claim.

    You say that you believe that public pressure should be brought to bear on issues where the public differs from the Court. Doesn't that mean that people need to get together and agree to take on such a project? How does an individual do that; unless, he has cause to challenge a decision? Well, he might try to persuade others to agree with him. What have I been doing here? I have attempted to have you see if I could get you to agree with me? That's all I have done here. I have made no claim about being an arbiter. I have not said that the Supreme Court cannot interpret the Constitution. I have not said that they must be challenged by having the Court overrule itself or amend the Constitution.

    Your favorite exercise is jumping to false conclusions. Stop it!!

    Now, care to address my points below?

    First, I have never said that I was.

    Second, why would you make such a claim?

    Third, is it not beneficial for Americans to know what is in the Constitution and understand what it means?

    Fourth, are Americans just supposed to say that the Courts know what they are doing and we are not to know anything about the Constitution or law and should not have any thoughts about what is right and wrong on a constitutional basis?

    Fifth, has history ever shown that blindly following a government could lead to tyrannical rule and enslavement of people?

    Sixth, if the Courts tomorrow said that slavery was once again the law of the land or that you could no longer say anything negative about the President or Congress, would you not argue against these decisions? - This one is now in red as you have actually addressed it and you agree that the Courts can get things wrong and that you would argue against a decision where you disagreed. One out of 6 is better than it was.

  4. #604
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

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

    There is nothing wrong with studying the Constitution or questioning the Court's decisions. Both sides do that. Where some people go astray is when they suggest extra-constitutional "solutions" to a perceived problem, i.e. the Court disagreeing with their interpretation.

    The hypothetical of the Court reinstituting slavery makes no sense. Slavery was outlawed by constitutional amendment. The SC does not have the power to repeal constitutional amendments.

  5. #605
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I see.....you've got absolutely nothing to disprove the sun's measurements by scientists. Just wanted to make sure that was clear. Carry on.
    Time is on my side. The mix of science and religion is falling apart. You carry on too.

  6. #606
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

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

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    nope, incandescent floods are not that cheap....and the damn things are HOT....outside the heat isn't an issue, but indoors?
    See, that is the cool part about freedom. You get to choose the solution that best fits your needs and I choose the solution that best fits my needs.

  7. #607
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

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

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Ok, lets just go over the basics. What an externality is is a cost or benefit from something a company or person does that they don't pay or get. There are negative externalities and positive externalities. A negative externality is a cost that a company foists on others, a positive externality is a benefit that the company gives others that it can't charge for. In short, externalities are the things that the market doesn't take account of.

    An example of a negative externality would be a corporation that is manufacturing widgets. It has two options for how to make the widget. One process costs $10, but involves dumping waste in the lake. That waste causes $10 worth of damage to fishermen, property values around the lake and water treatment plant costs. So really it is costing $20 for every widget they make, even though the company only pays $10. The other option is a process where they could make it for $15, but not dump waste in the lake. Left to it's own devices, the company will just do the $10 process, but that is actually the less efficient way to make the widgets. So, government has to step in. It can either forbid dumping waste in the lake or it can make the company pay $10 per widget to pay for cleaning it up, which has the same effect.

    A positive externality is, for example, a shipping company decides they need a lighthouse on a particular rock. That benefits all the other shipping companies too, but there is no way to make them chip in, so the company that builds the lighthouse is unable to recoup the whole benefit of their work.

    Every economist alive, going all the way back to Adam Smith himself, has agreed that government needs to regulate externalities. Otherwise it is just inefficient. The market doesn't account for them in any way, so the market just acts like they don't exist.
    Why that is an excellent reason for 80,000 plus regulations, two and a half million busybody bureaucrats and a host of other very bad results from our flirtation with statism and socialism.

    When you are free you can take those and any other externality into consideration as you decide to pass by the two dollar bulb and reach for the mercury-laden ten dollar one that the busybody bureaucrats have chosen for you. I choose freedom. Government always makes things worse.

  8. #608
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

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

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Lets just cut to the chase. Nobody actually cares that they get to use the old janky lightbulbs. This whole thing is just an excuse for Republicans to go around ranting about how they don't believe in global warming/science.
    Let's just cut to the chase. Some people are ill suited to live free.

  9. #609
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The passive solar house I built in 1984 that has used 60% less energy than average for each year since, I use no air-conditioning, I walk to work, and for occasional long distance travel I have used a car that gets at least 50 mpg since 2001, I organically grow most of my own food, and I use high efficiency stove, refrigeratory, hot water heater, dryer, and lightbulbs.

    Soon I will have my new solar panels hooked up which will produce 1.5 kw of power and they will pay for themselves in 7 years.

    How does that compare with how energy efficient you are???
    LOL. Awesome. I am glad you were free to make those choices for yourself.

  10. #610
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Nope.

    It's obvious that the paper you linked to has a typo in it. It's not for bulbs over 310 watts, it's for bulbs over 310 lumens.
    I checked a couple other sources, I think you are right, it was typo. In my search, I found that CFL's and LEDs will meet the standards when they are raised again in 2020. Except for exceptions made for specialty bulbs, Incandescent light bulbs will take their place with campfires, candles, and kerosene lanterns as means of lighting.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Page 61 of 78 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... 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
  •