• 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

What? We live in a democracy. We all decide what rules we want to live under together...

The majority decides the rules we ALL live under. At least get your own arguments straight.
 
What? We live in a democracy. We all decide what rules we want to live under together...

And currently they decided that we can have our lightbulbs. Which isn't the real fight, but it is a victory none the less.
 
Bad bad argument. Energy itself can't be used up. I think you mean resources, but that almost just as bad since the use of resources in the market will arise alternatives as the end comes near. Now of course with the government paying the bills and paying for research that goes out the window.

We are talking about light bulbs so at best you have secondary relationship as I said before. As they are not the source of the damage you have no authority for your statement.

If you don't believe in science, that's your choice, but you don't have the right to impose your personal preferences for how we should handle everybody's environment on everybody else. The same rules apply to all of us. We all have the same say in making those rules and we all have to live by what we decide. That's how life is in any situation other than anarchy.

If you can't even come up with one reason that you want to use the old lightbulbs, then it hurts nothing. When we weigh the environmental damage the old bulbs cause against "nothing", the environmental damage is the bigger impact. If you think you can make a persuasive argument in favor of the old bulbs, you can try to convince the rest of the people that share the environment with you that you having the old light bulbs is worth the tradeoffs. But so far you haven't been able to come up with any advantage at all to them, so I don't see that happening.
 
He isn't harming the environment by using resources. He is affecting your ability to merely use those resources. To act as if they are the same is a fallacy.

Of course he is... You understand about greenhouse gasses, right?
 
And currently they decided that we can have our lightbulbs. Which isn't the real fight, but it is a victory none the less.

You may only continue crapping in our backyards until October, live it up!!!
 
Why do debates on the environment always devolve into a capitalism vs socialism debate? Anyone know the game Tragedy of the Commons? This is the real issue at hand. I believe in capitalism's ability to regulate scarce goods, but it fails at distributing scarce and necessary goods like utilities or public lands. The market conditions dictate that there is a certain level at which a product can both meet demand and be affordable but this hastens the use of product. In the case of something like oil, which is the lynchpin modern civilization, prices are artificially low when compared to the utility of the product and the reserves available. As important as oil is, it's price should be much higher but it is so necessary to modern existence that the price has to be kept low and therefore consumption will remain at a high level and the resource is exhausted more quickly. This one place, like with the environment, that capitalism does in fact fail.
 
You can buy an extension pole with a suction cup to remove and reinstall bulbs in high ceilings. I've got one and it works great.
That is a good idea.

My office has high ceilings. Most of the can lights in the house are in my office. Well, I guess the kitchen has nearly as many can lights. The kitchen ceiling is either 10 feet, the living room is twelve and my office and Exercise room are twelve feet. My bookshelves are eight feet, so yes, the ceilings are twelve feet, not fourteen.
 
You may only continue crapping in our backyards until October, live it up!!!

And you can mark that day as the day you lost a choice. Maybe not a choice you would have made, but one that you can no longer make.
 
Both CFLs and LEDs are cheaper than incandescent when you figure in the energy savings and longer life. Obviously there is a significant up-front cost with LEDs....
Perhaps if they last as long as the claims...I have had no such experience to date.
 
Less by limiting the rights of the user of the source they have no control over.

Less waste by consumer = less pollution of the environment that we all depend on. Seems like a direct responsibility to me.
 
Of course he is... You understand about greenhouse gasses, right?

HE isn't doing that.

And I'm not a believer in the importance of CO2 in the equation to create the warmth. The number is far to low and coming in far to slow for it to be that much of any importance.
 
Less waste by consumer = less pollution of the environment that we all depend on. Seems like a direct responsibility to me.

Indirect relationship. The plant is the center of your concern but you are punishing the user that is most likely has no choices for services because of government involvement in the market.
 
when I see an issue that is actually eroding a freedom, I will protest.
Lightbulbs ain't it....
I didn't spend all that time in the military defending the rights of others to trivialize over lightbulbs...there are important issues to consider...try spending time on something important for a change...
Perhaps you did not learn anything of value from your military experiences.
 
The incandescent bulbs in your link will also be banned in a few years.

Another insight by Gill based on absolutely nothing.

When that happens, we will be forced to buy inefficient CFL bulbs or expensive LED bulbs. My Lowes does not have the 100 watt Sylvania bulbs listed in your link. I don't believe they exist.

This makes sense for you. You don't know about it, therefore it doesn't exist. Got it!
 
RIGHTS! Come on man. Get real. What "right" do you think you have to buy crappy lightbulbs?

Why do you even care? The new ones are cheaper. The even have old fashioned incandescent lightbulbs that meet the standards now. The only reason left to want the old ones is if you actually WANT to destroy the environment and waste energy to prove some misguided point...
Do you really abhor the right to decide for yourself what is best for you? Do you really want busybody bureaucrats making choices for you?

Is your religion so dear that you willingly throw away your birthright to support it? When the Soviet Union collapsed (thank you Mr. Reagan) the Environmental movement became the new home of the reds.
 
So why do you continue to waste energy by driving an automobile and heating and air-conditioning where you live? Come on Pot, stop it!

If everyone used as little energy as I do, we would not have a CO2 problem.
 
HE isn't doing that.

And I'm not a believer in the importance of CO2 in the equation to create the warmth. The number is far to low and coming in far to slow for it to be that much of any importance.

Like I said, you're free not to believe in science if you don't want to, but you live in a democracy. You aren't the only one with a say in it.
 
I would think that there are still places in the U.S. where people have outhouses in their back yards.

Only where they are not causing a problem for health and the environment.
 
Do you really abhor the right to decide for yourself what is best for you? Do you really want busybody bureaucrats making choices for you?

What is best for you, sure. Something that just affects you, absolutely that should be your decision and your decision alone. But this is something that affects everybody. When something affects other people, then we need to resolve it together.

Is your religion so dear that you willingly throw away your birthright to support it? When the Soviet Union collapsed (thank you Mr. Reagan) the Environmental movement became the new home of the reds.

You're just being silly now. Comparing phasing out inefficient lightbulbs strikes you as the USSR? Come on man. Get real.
 
Like I said, you're free not to believe in science if you don't want to, but you live in a democracy. You aren't the only one with a say in it.

I believe in science just fine. Where exactly do you think I'm getting my doubt from? I know the workings of Co2 and I know how much is going up and from I understand it simply not workable to be a large factor. This mindset of you people is not helpful to your cause. "You just don't believe in science if you don't agree" Sorry, but get a real argument.

And democracy is not about equal say. Democracy is about majority rules regardless of what the minority says.
 
Last edited:
Why would you even want to buy the old lightbulbs? They have cheaper ones that last longer now, and they're better for the environment to boot... They even have old fashioned incandescent ones that meet the standard if you're feeling nostalgic or something... I honestly can't come up with one reason somebody would want to buy the old ones except to make some kind of misguided point about wanting to destroy the environment or something. Can you explain why you want to?
You are missing the point. I want the free market to allocate resources. I do not want the government telling me what toilet I can have, and what lightbulbs I must buy. I am rich. I will buy the bulb that best fits my needs, including my willingness to pay a premium for convenience.

I do not care one whit about the environment. It does not need my care. Nor does it need yours. It will do just fine without you compelling politicians to take my right to live free from government interference in every aspect of my life.

Lightbulbs are a symptom.
 
You are missing the point. I want the free market to allocate resources. I do not want the government telling me what toilet I can have, and what lightbulbs I must buy. I am rich. I will buy the bulb that best fits my needs, including my willingness to pay a premium for convenience.

The market? How would the market take environmental damage into account? That's an externality.

I do not care one whit about the environment.

That's fine. You don't have to. But you share that environment with people that do care about it. You don't get to impose your will on other people just because you don't care about the environment or understand the implications of damaging it.

Not if you love liberty.

So you think there should not be any rules? Anarchy? Or when do you think it is ok for society to decide on rules to live by together?
 
Back
Top Bottom