• 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

Gill said:
Thanks. You confirmed what I had already posted.
Click to expand...

Oh, then before you were talking about bulbs over 310 watts that will have to meet new standards in 2020?
 
Catawba said:
Oh, then before you were talking about bulbs over 310 watts that will have to meet new standards in 2020?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...
Time is on my side. The mix of science and religion is falling apart. You carry on too.
 
UtahBill said:
nope, incandescent floods are not that cheap....and the damn things are HOT....outside the heat isn't an issue, but indoors?
Click to expand...
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.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...
Let's just cut to the chase. Some people are ill suited to live free.
 
Catawba said:
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???
Click to expand...

LOL. Awesome. I am glad you were free to make those choices for yourself.
 
Gill said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
LesGovt said:
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.
Click to expand...


Best of luck to you in your legal challenge of the 2007 energy efficiency standards!
 
Misterveritis said:
Time is on my side. The mix of science and religion is falling apart. You carry on too.
Click to expand...

So, you have nothing to refute scientists measurements of the sun during this warming period I see.
 
Misterveritis said:
LOL. Awesome. I am glad you were free to make those choices for yourself.
Click to expand...

Yep, if everyone had done voluntarily what I did, there would be no need now to force people to act responsibly.
 
Catawba said:
Yep, if everyone had done voluntarily what I did, there would be no need now to force people to act responsibly.
Click to expand...

Freedom means the ability to act irresponsibly ... forcing people to act responsibly according to one persons view of what is or is not responsible requires fear and a totalitarian dictatorship. Finally came out of the closet huh?
 
Ockham said:
Freedom means the ability to act irresponsibly ... forcing people to act responsibly according to one persons view of what is or is not responsible requires fear and a totalitarian dictatorship. Finally came out of the closet huh?
Click to expand...

So then you would favor repealing all criminal and civil laws? According to your logic that vast body of law represents totalitarian dictatorship.
 
satnightpoly said:
TI would still argue that the constitution is a living document and that despite Hamiltons, Wilson, Randoplh, and Madison's views, the the document was drafted as such.
Click to expand...
Such is the view of all tyrants. A living Constitution is not a Constitution at all.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A “superior” technology that can only prevail by having government impose bans or restrictions on the older technology that it means to replace is not “superior” after all, and government is doing a great disservice to those it is supposed to serve, by forcing them to use what is truly an inferior technology to that which they would use if given their own free choice.
Click to expand...

Truth stands on its own. Error requires government support.
 
UtahBill said:
It took an act of congress to mandate cleaner burning cars, which led to better performance, more power, better mileage, etc. Sometimes industry has to be told what to do by govt, sometimes the public has to be told....
Click to expand...
And you are okay with the deaths of all of those people in their egg cars that would have lived had their Congress not put them into inferior cars?

"Sometimes the public has to be told." Yours is the heart of a tyrant.
 
AdamT said:
So then you would favor repealing all criminal and civil laws? According to your logic that vast body of law represents totalitarian dictatorship.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't know the difference between policy and politics, nor the difference between freedom and the consequences of law. Really - is this the best little partisan trap you could think up?

So let me answer your moronic question: Some laws I would be in favor of repealing, both civil and criminal. However, there's a difference between laws applied to all and carried out by a body for the betterment of society, and a single totalitarian view, by one person, applied by fiat with no appeal or process of policy. But you already knew that... or maybe you didn't.
 
Catawba said:
So, you have nothing to refute scientists measurements of the sun during this warming period I see.
Click to expand...
Time is on my side. Some of the scientists are liars and frauds. The man-caused global warming hoax just cannot stay out of the news.

No problem. There is some science, after all, in that arcane mix of Mother Earth and science with a small "s". Who knows what will eventually come of it.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Your freedom does not include adverse effect on the health of others.
Click to expand...
In fact it does. If you can prove that my actions are causing you harm then you can bring me into a court and the court may side with you and make me pay.

Anything else is tyranny. But then, you already know that. You too, have the heart of a tyrant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom