• 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

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Friday defended rules designed to boost light bulb efficiency as a group of Republicans led by Texas Congressman Joe Barton prepared for a House vote next week to repeal the regulations.

At stake is a 2007 energy law requiring that incandescent light bulbs be 30 percent more efficient by 2012.

The House rears it's bat**** crazy head again. Who is for more efficient light bulbs? Consumers, and yes, even the light bulb manufacturers. Who is against it? Energy companies who want to charge you for using more electricity, and who have House Republicans in their back pocket. But did we ever think they didn't?

These Republicans who want to empower the Kochs of the world cite Constitutionality of the new law. However, since the Commerce Clause gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities among the states, this law is indeed Constitutional. Not only that, but will save consumers 81 billion dollars a year, which is money that won't be going into the pockets of energy companies. No wonder Republicans hate this law.

I predict that this bill will die in the Senate, and deservedly so.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Who is against it?

I'm against the government forcing it on the people. In case you missed it this was an unneeded power grab for an action that was already taking place.

However, since the Commerce Clause gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities among the states, this law is indeed Constitutional.

No it doesn't. That is a twisting that has happened. I can quote one of my past posts if need be.
 
Last edited:
The House rears it's bat**** crazy head again. Who is for more efficient light bulbs? Consumers, and yes, even the light bulb manufacturers. Who is against it? Energy companies who want to charge you for using more electricity, and who have House Republicans in their back pocket. But did we ever think they didn't?

These Republicans who want to empower the Kochs of the world cite Constitutionality of the new law. However, since the Commerce Clause gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities among the states, this law is indeed Constitutional. Not only that, but will save consumers 81 billion dollars a year, which is money that won't be going into the pockets of energy companies. No wonder Republicans hate this law.

I predict that this bill will die in the Senate, and deservedly so.

Article is here.

The consumers want to pay twice as much for a light bulb? I don't buy that. Are you excited about paying 5 times more for freon for your a/c, too?
 
The consumers want to pay twice as much for a light bulb? I don't buy that. Are you excited about paying 5 times more for freon for your a/c, too?

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.
 
I have a shelf full of the old bulbs. The light emitted is better. They are far cheaper (even considering electic costs) and my lamp shades don't fit the swirly bulbs.

One day if the price has come down (which will likely happen) I'll switch. Oh yeah, I can also simply throw away the old bulbs.

You know, it's odd that the government didn't have to pass a law to force people to switch from VCR's to DVD's.
 
Last edited:
I have a shelf full of the old bulbs. The light emitted is better. They are far cheaper (even considering electic costs) and my lamp shades don't fit the swirly bulbs.

One day if the price has come down (which will likely happen) I'll switch. Oh yeah, I can also simply throw away the old bulbs.

You know, it's odd that the government didn't have to pass a law to force people to switch from VCR's to DVD's.

A total conversion from VCRs to DVDs doesn't reduce the amount of uranium and sulfur being spit into the air I breathe.
 
I have a shelf full of the old bulbs. The light emitted is better.

Not quite. There's a new LED on the market which in blind (LOL) tests cannot be determined to be different from old incandescent lights.

They are far cheaper (even considering electic costs) and my lamp shades don't fit the swirly bulbs.

Depends how often you use your lights. To be cheaper then LEDs over any considerable time frame, you have to barely use your incandescent bulbs. Meaning less than an hour or two a day.

You know, it's odd that the government didn't have to pass a law to force people to switch from VCR's to DVD's.

The law doesn't ban incandescent. It just requires a level of efficiency. Which some incandescent bulb manufacturers are working on.
 
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.

SHssh. Don't throw facts into Adpst's brain. You know it doesn't do him any good. You should see the savings on some of the LED comparisons. It's something like $150 a bulb over 15 years. So if you have 15 bulbs in the house...
 
A total conversion from VCRs to DVDs doesn't reduce the amount of uranium and sulfur being spit into the air I breathe.

The point being, people switched to the new technology all on their own.
 
Not quite. There's a new LED on the market which in blind (LOL) tests cannot be determined to be different from old incandescent lights.

I hope so. I'll certaintly take your word for it that some test claims this. I'll see for myself at some point. Might be awhile if these bulbs are $6.00 or more.

Depends how often you use your lights. To be cheaper then LEDs over any considerable time frame, you have to barely use your incandescent bulbs. Meaning less than an hour or two a day.

Any single bulb uses very little electricty in a year.

The law doesn't ban incandescent. It just requires a level of efficiency. Which some incandescent bulb manufacturers are working on.

Still, if it's a good deal, people will switch on their own.
 
The law doesn't ban incandescent. It just requires a level of efficiency. Which some incandescent bulb manufacturers are working on.

As I have said in the past changing the efficiency level details changing the light bulb technology effectively banning the old and replacing it with the new. Its not a ban in the classical sense, but its ban all the same.
 
The point being, people switched to the new technology all on their own.

And my point being that when it comes to the air I breathe sometimes the free market is not enough.
 
And my point being that when it comes to the air I breathe sometimes the free market is not enough.

So changing on their own isn't good enough for you?
 
I hope so. I'll certaintly take your word for it that some test claims this. I'll see for myself at some point. Might be awhile if these bulbs are $6.00 or more.[/quiote]

They're estimated to be down to $10 within 18 months. And they are dimable. I think WIRED ran a web article on it the other day. It was in my Google news side bar.

Any single bulb uses very little electricty in a year.

True, but incandescent are exceedingly wasteful. And over time, with replacement costs, they are more expensive.

Still, if it's a good deal, people will switch on their own.

Most people don't think more then a month ahead. Furthermore, power companies are in on this too as it reduces the additional capacity they have to increase at the same making it easier to meet renewable percentages. In the long run, this is basically better for everyone except incandescent manufacturers and jewelers.
 
The House rears it's bat**** crazy head again. Who is for more efficient light bulbs? Consumers, and yes, even the light bulb manufacturers. Who is against it? Energy companies who want to charge you for using more electricity, and who have House Republicans in their back pocket. But did we ever think they didn't?

These Republicans who want to empower the Kochs of the world cite Constitutionality of the new law. However, since the Commerce Clause gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities among the states, this law is indeed Constitutional. Not only that, but will save consumers 81 billion dollars a year, which is money that won't be going into the pockets of energy companies. No wonder Republicans hate this law.

I predict that this bill will die in the Senate, and deservedly so.

If I want to pay more for a lightbulb, and pay more money for the electricity to run that lightbulb I should be able to do it. Why the **** is the government getting involved in legislation about lightbulbs? How about they legislate an upgrade to the power grid, or they legislate and discuss how to supply the country's power needs over the next 30 years instead of dictating lightbulbs. This is the stupidity of government on display - and the stupidity of those who agree with that stupidity. To Government: Let people buy what they want to buy, use what they want to use and keep your grimy hands out of people's lives.
 
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.

Don't care if the new lightbulb blows me and makes breakfast.... if I want an incandescent lightbulb, that's what I want to use. You want to use the foo-foo new bulbs go ahead and have fun.
 
If I want to pay more for a lightbulb, and pay more money for the electricity to run that lightbulb I should be able to do it. Why the **** is the government getting involved in legislation about lightbulbs? How about they legislate an upgrade to the power grid, or they legislate and discuss how to supply the country's power needs over the next 30 years instead of dictating lightbulbs. This is the stupidity of government on display - and the stupidity of those who agree with that stupidity. To Government: Let people buy what they want to buy, use what they want to use and keep your grimy hands out of people's lives.

Are they really telling us to do that as in commanding us or suggesting it? I use old bulbs still and I never heard anything about me having to change from one to the other. The only thing I was suggested to do was switch from analog to digital. Still, I might sound conspiratorial for saying this, but if the government is pushing exposure for these awesome light bulbs either their trying to save energy, or a few suits got a few checks from a certain light bulb manufacture to make a big deal over swirly light bulbs.
 
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.

How much is going to be spent disposing of the mercury filled pig tail bulbs? Far more than 81 million, I bet.
 
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.

So tell me …. why are you against giving people a choice ? If they save money .. and people want to buy them .. then fine .. “let” then buy them … why is it that we need to take the option away from people ??
 
Let me get this straight..... if my cheap bulb burns out I throw it in the trash and buy an Obamabulb?? If that burns out I call the bio-hazard team? Hell's bells. I am ready for a good horse and some candles, but not ABOUT to offer that up to the globalists. $ stores still sell EVIL lightbulbs 4 for a buck... made in China.. go figure.
 
How much is going to be spent disposing of the mercury filled pig tail bulbs? Far more than 81 million, I bet.

The exposure to the mercury in one of those bulbs for 6 hours, if broken, is less than you would get by eating a 6 ounce can of tuna.
 
The exposure to the mercury in one of those bulbs for 6 hours, if broken, is less than you would get by eating a 6 ounce can of tuna.

But, what happens when millions of these bulbs are dumped into the environment?
 
So tell me …. why are you against giving people a choice ? If they save money .. and people want to buy them .. then fine .. “let” then buy them … why is it that we need to take the option away from people ??


That is a straw man - Are you for choice when it comes to putting lead in gasoline?
 
Back
Top Bottom