• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Polotick said:
Speaking of tyranny, let's repeal The Patriot Act first, then fight over light bulbs.
Click to expand...
What are your assumptions? Do you believe the US no longer requires the ability to identify and track terrorists? Does the US Constitution no longer require that the nation defend itself?
 
Misterveritis said:
What are your assumptions? Do you believe the US no longer requires the ability to identify and track terrorists? Does the US Constitution no longer require that the nation defend itself?
Click to expand...

Over 800,000 Americans now with security clearances spying on Americans.
TSA daily violating the 4th Amendment.
I don't see a fleet of fishing boats filled with screaming Arabs off the coast.

Are you really saying that you think TPA doesn't violate the Constitution?

I am more afraid of fishing in the rain than a terrorist. But, go lock yourself in your home and continue to forfeit your rights and freedoms in the name of a false illusion of safety.
 
This is going off topic but the government does have an obligation to protect the country. It's one of the few things they are supposed to do. It can't come at the expense of our rights though. There are ways to do it without making citizens give up their rights but the government doesn't have the will to do it.

Hint. Israel doesn't search every passenger but yet their planes don't get hijacked.
 
1Perry said:
This is going off topic but the government does have an obligation to protect the country. It's one of the few things they are supposed to do. It can't come at the expense of our rights though. There are ways to do it without making citizens give up their rights but the government doesn't have the will to do it.

Hint. Israel doesn't search every passenger but yet their planes don't get hijacked.
Click to expand...

I liked your post with one caveat. Israel uses profiling as a large part of its screening. Profiling is a large loaded weapon and should be used with extreme care. Also the way TSA conducts its screening causes a large bottleneck of people all in a compact space to board various flights. That to me, is a far more dangerous place than actually being on a plane.
 
Polotick said:
Over 800,000 Americans now with security clearances spying on Americans.
TSA daily violating the 4th Amendment.
I don't see a fleet of fishing boats filled with screaming Arabs off the coast.

Are you really saying that you think TPA doesn't violate the Constitution?

I am more afraid of fishing in the rain than a terrorist. But, go lock yourself in your home and continue to forfeit your rights and freedoms in the name of a false illusion of safety.
Click to expand...
I understand your assumptions. That is sufficient to understand your position. I disagree with you.
 
Polotick said:
I liked your post with one caveat. Israel uses profiling as a large part of its screening. Profiling is a large loaded weapon and should be used with extreme care. Also the way TSA conducts its screening causes a large bottleneck of people all in a compact space to board various flights. That to me, is a far more dangerous place than actually being on a plane.
Click to expand...

Indeed extreme care but Israel seems to be able to pull it off.
 
I'm sure this has already come up in this thread, but I'm curious how many of the cons complaining about the tyrannical light bulb energy standards know that this is a Bush policy, and that energy standards have been in place since Reagan, I believe.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
I'm sure this has already come up in this thread, but I'm curious how many of the cons complaining about the tyrannical light bulb energy standards know that this is a Bush policy, and that energy standards have been in place since Reagan, I believe.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't give a rats rear end as to whose stupid idea this was. It was wrongheaded and tyrannical.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

If given a choice at the check out, depending on how their budget would go, possible many consumers would opt out for the old bulbs..however, if the savings are going to be that much..over time..well I guess a little force feeding is necsessary.

I know true conservatives want to have that choice for them selves, guess that's why I am a middle to the left, accept a bit of force feeding if needed if for the larger good I guess.

Learned to lock up the seat belt, go through the scanners at the air port, recycle my papers, glass and plastic, don't burn the leaves in the fall, bag em , and so many other things that are now second nature to me and I just accept..all by being forced fed, and I have learned to cope, so guess this one will also be one that goes down easy.
 
LesGovt said:


Let's go thru this one step at a time:

1. You say you like tyranny and I agree with you that you do. We have an agreement.
Click to expand...


Wrong, I said I like efficiency and conservation, which you see as tyranny.



2. You sound a lot like Chicken Little.
Click to expand...

Your post seems it was written by an idiot.


3. We have used the "evil" lightbulbs for a century and not one person has died using them.
Click to expand...

Millions of people have suffered and some have died from our air pollution.

4. The war in Iraq was not over oil. That is a falsehood.
Click to expand...

It most certainly was as was spelled out by the president's task force before we invaded them. It sure wasn't because they were a threat to us now was it?

5. If you even wanted oil, we could get it right here in the United States, but tyrants don't want us to drill and refine for oil or gas.
Click to expand...

We passed peak oil in the US in 1971. We have never produced as much oil as in that year, no matter what party was in control of the government.

6. I'm guessing that you support battery powered cars as opposed to using gasoline. Well, which uses more energy from the power plants, my "evil" lightbulbs or the battery powered cars? Don't you see the dichotomy of the left's position?
Click to expand...

I support battery powered cars charged with solar panels and wind mills.

7. This is not about energy and health.
Click to expand...

The hell it isn't!
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
I'm sure this has already come up in this thread, but I'm curious how many of the cons complaining about the tyrannical light bulb energy standards know that this is a Bush policy, and that energy standards have been in place since Reagan, I believe.
Click to expand...

Signed I believe in 2007.
 
Catawba said:
Wrong, I said I like efficiency and conservation, which you see as tyranny.
Click to expand...

Tyranny - Oppressive power exerted by government. Yep! You like it.

Catawba said:
Your post seems it was written by an idiot.
Click to expand...

Ah, now that is humorous.

Catawba said:
Millions of people have suffered and some have died from our air pollution.
Click to expand...

Please tell me the name of one person who died using or was near incandescent lightbulb. Or, please tell me the name of one person who died next to a power plant where the cause of death was the usage of incandescent lightbulbs.

Catawba said:
It most certainly was as was spelled out by the president's task force before we invaded them. It sure wasn't because they were a threat to us now was it?
Click to expand...

Please prove this. Show me the words of President Bush where he said that the war was about oil for the United States.

Catawba said:
We passed peak oil in the US in 1971. We have never produced as much oil as in that year, no matter what party was in control of the government.
Click to expand...

That may be true. It is difficult to exceed a prior peak with restraints on exploration, drilling, and refining. If you could run the 100 yard dash in 10 seconds, I bet you would not exceed that speed if you had a ball and chain tied to your leg.

Catawba said:
I support battery powered cars charged with solar panels and wind mills.
Click to expand...

I see. How much will that cost the consumer compared to what gasoline could be if we explored, drilled, and refined right here in the U.S.? Again, you want to impoverish the entire U.S. Not a good idea. Battery cars are here. They aren't selling many, but they are here. Which solar or wind power station should I stop at to charge my 100 mile battery? Which century will they be available?

Catawba said:
The hell it isn't!
Click to expand...

No, it really is not about energy and health. It is about destruction of capitalism and freedom. It's all about power, aka tyranny. You guys cannot sell your idea to the American public. You know better than they do and you will cram all of these tyrannical ideas down peoples' throats even if they don't want it.

FREEDOM!!!
 
Misterveritis said:
You assume we are safe from attack. We are not. But I understand your position given your assumption.
Click to expand...

No place is completely safe. Once in a while we are given the choice of living on our knees or dying on our feet. I choose the latter.

Give me freedom or give me death.
 
LesGovt said:
Personally, I don't give a rats rear end as to whose stupid idea this was. It was wrongheaded and tyrannical.
Click to expand...

The far right: We don't need no stinkin' energy efficiency, we need to nip that kind of talk in the bud - “Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Fla.) has introduced an amendment to the Energy and Water spending bill that would limit funds for any DOE website “which disseminates information regarding energy efficiency and educational programs to children or adolescents.”

Oppose the Future
 
Catawba said:
The far right: We don't need no stinkin' energy efficiency, we need to nip that kind of talk in the bud - “Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Fla.) has introduced an amendment to the Energy and Water spending bill that would limit funds for any DOE website “which disseminates information regarding energy efficiency and educational programs to children or adolescents.”

Oppose the Future
Click to expand...

Good for Rep. Adams. We need children and adolescents to learn how to read, write, solve math problems, and maybe even learn a bit of history. That's what they should be learning rather than being indoctrinated by the tyrants.
 
Catawba said:
Well buy a ****ing halogen bulb then, or remain in the dark, I really don't give a ****!
Click to expand...

Halogen bulbs are almost as inefficient as incandescent. Their efficiency ratings are almost identical. They also have other problems such as heat output and difficulty in handling. A lot of fires have been started by halogen bulbs because they become so hot, although that problem has mostly been corrected by shielding them. They have to be handled with a towel or gloves because oil from fingers cause them to burn out faster.
 
Gill said:
Halogen bulbs are almost as inefficient as incandescent. Their efficiency ratings are almost identical.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your personal opinion even though it is wrong, as usual.

"Indeed, in response to the new standards, manufacturers like Philips, GE, and Osram Sylvania devised improved incandescent bulbs that have a halogen capsule around the filament. The devices are 30 percent more efficient than conventional bulbs and typically sell for $1.49 per unit."

Market for More Efficient Light Bulbs Moves On as House Vote Fizzles - NYTimes.com
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for your personal opinion even though it is wrong, as usual.

"Indeed, in response to the new standards, manufacturers like Philips, GE, and Osram Sylvania devised improved incandescent bulbs that have a halogen capsule around the filament. The devices are 30 percent more efficient than conventional bulbs and typically sell for $1.49 per unit."

Market for More Efficient Light Bulbs Moves On as House Vote Fizzles - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

The NYT's opinion is as wrong as your's.

To get to the crux of your question: halogen bulbs are indeed more energy efficient than incandescents, but only incrementally.

In general, filament-type bulbs have an efficacy (the industry term for efficiency) of somewhere around 10–20 lumens per watt (LPW); and
they are only around 5% efficient, meaning just a small amount of the electricity consumed is actually converted into light.
Click to expand...

How energy efficient are "Xenon" halogen bulbs in light fixtures? - Green Home Guide by USGBC
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Consulting outdated articles provides outdated info. Look at the links I provided above and learn about the improvements made to the halogen incandescent light bulbs that make them 30% more efficient than the old incandescent bulbs. This why they meet the new efficiency standards and the old incandescent light bulbs do not.
Click to expand...

I find it hilarious that you believe every word of a manufacturer's claims on energy efficiency. On any other subject, you would be crying about the lies that evil corporations tell to sell products.

In any case, I trust the statements and testing of groups like the USGBC and Energy Star over the claims of people manufacturing bulbs in China, bribing politicians here to ban inexpensive bulbs, and then peddling the "improved", more expensive bulbs to us.
 
Gill said:
I find it hilarious that you believe every word of a manufacturer's claims on energy efficiency. On any other subject, you would be crying about the lies that evil corporations tell to sell products.

In any case, I trust the statements and testing of groups like the USGBC and Energy Star over the claims of people manufacturing bulbs in China, bribing politicians here to ban inexpensive bulbs, and then peddling the "improved", more expensive bulbs to us.
Click to expand...

The new improved halogen incandescent light bulbs made by Phillips and others in this country that you just learned about, meet the efficiency standards created under the Bush Administration while the old incandescent bulbs do not. Now, if you are seeking even higher efficiency such as EnergyStar ratings, you should go with the CFL's or LED's. While more expensive intitally they are less expensive over the light bulb's life due to their exceptional efficiency and long life. :sun
 
Catawba said:
The new improved halogen incandescent light bulbs made by Phillips and others in this country that you just learned about, meet the efficiency standards created under the Bush Administration while the old incandescent bulbs do not. Now, if you are seeking even higher efficiency such as EnergyStar ratings, you should go with the CFL's or LED's. While more expensive intitally they are less expensive over the light bulb's life due to their exceptional efficiency and long life. :sun
Click to expand...

So the advertisements claim. Do you believe every advertisement you see ???

Yep, tell the single mom with two young kids while working a $8 / hour job that. I'm sure she'll be thrilled that you want her to buy a $30 LED instead of a 49 cent incandescent.

Wait, don't tell me......... the dems will now propose bulb subsidies for everyone under 5 x poverty level, right ????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom