• 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!

Should Congress Lift The Ban On The Incandescent Lightbulb?

Should The Ban On Incandescent Light Bulbs be Lifted?

  • Yes, They're cheaper

    Votes: 9 47.4%

  • No, they're bad for the environment

    Votes: 4 21.1%

  • The states should decide.

    Votes: 6 31.6%
  • Total voters
    19
SPC

SPC

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
215
Reaction score
46
Location
Missouri
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Republicans have to decided to try to lift the ban on the Incandescent light bulbs that goes into effect in two years. Governor Rick Perry has already signed legislation that refuses to abide by the ban. Do you think the ban should be lifted?
 
SPC said:
The Republicans have to decided to try to lift the ban on the Incandescent light bulbs that goes into effect in two years. Governor Rick Perry has already signed legislation that refuses to abide by the ban. Do you think the ban should be lifted?
Click to expand...

Please provide more information on this issue, or a news article relating to it.
 
And this is a major issue because....?
 
They are not only cheaper to make the production provided jobs and they don't pollute land fills as the replacements do.

This ban was great only for China

This was a stupid idea thought up to save a few pennies in power but costs our economy millions.
 
samsmart said:
Please provide more information on this issue, or a news article relating to it.
Click to expand...

It was on FOX News this morning. The issue is supposed to be brought up tomorrow.
 
I don't think it has anything to do with being cheaper, I just don't want the government regulating what can and cannot be purchased by law-abiding citizens. Now I will admit, most of the lights in my house are CFLs, simply because it does save a lot of money on electricity, but for some things, CFLs just aren't equivalent to incandescent bulbs. Let the people decide, stop imposing government control.
 
From WIKI:
Federal legislationIn December 2007, many of these state efforts became moot when the federal government enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires all general-purpose light bulbs that produce 310–2600 lumens of light[30] be 30% more energy efficient (similar to current halogen lamps) than current incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014. The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.

Light bulbs outside of this range are exempt from the restrictions. Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights, including appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, and plant lights.

Wow, incandescent halogen lamps are allowed, but I was told incandescent were to be banned. And in 2012 it only applies to 100 watt equivalents. I just bought 6 ea. 60 watt equivalent CFLs for less than $4 at Home Depot. They are even lower profile than before. Now what’s the problem for me, I forgot.
 
SPC said:
It was on FOX News this morning. The issue is supposed to be brought up tomorrow.
Click to expand...

So again, please provide details on the issue or provide a news article so those of us who didn't watch FOX News this morning knows the details of the issue you're talking about.
 
Should have never been a ban to begin with.
 
I put the states should decide...but honestly my whole house inside and out is fluorescent and it saves me a good buck every month...in fla heat is bad and incandescents throw tons of heat whereas fluorescents are alot cooler...so I save on cooling plus lighting
 
lpast said:
I put the states should decide...but honestly my whole house inside and out is fluorescent and it saves me a good buck every month...in fla heat is bad and incandescents throw tons of heat whereas fluorescents are alot cooler...so I save on cooling plus lighting
Click to expand...

Have you thought about using LED instead? As I understand it, LED bulbs are more expensive but they last much longer, and that's where the savings come in. And I think LED lights are what Congress are trying to push.
 
Yes they should.

Why?
Because people are already buying the CFL's and LED bulbs in heavy numbers.
Old incandescent still have a useful purpose, especially for hobbyists and things like that.

I predict in the future, Congress will get credit for proliferating CFLs when they didn't do anything but jump in front of the parade.
 
To me this is a non issue thing. Where were Republicans when they forced digital signals and forced people to get a box or an HDTV? Sure they delayed it but the point is, congress seems to only ever do anything if there is something in it for them. So I think the real question that needs to be asked is, what is in it for Congress this time?
 
samsmart said:
Have you thought about using LED instead? As I understand it, LED bulbs are more expensive but they last much longer, and that's where the savings come in. And I think LED lights are what Congress are trying to push.
Click to expand...

What Congress is trying to push are those squiggly bulbs that are filled with mercury. Not only do they cost more, they're dangerous.
 
SPC said:
The Republicans have to decided to try to lift the ban on the Incandescent light bulbs that goes into effect in two years. Governor Rick Perry has already signed legislation that refuses to abide by the ban. Do you think the ban should be lifted?
Click to expand...

Yes the ban should be lifted. Many people like incandescent light bulbs and if you are poor then it is much cheaper right now to buy incandescent bulb then it is to be a any other type of bulb. Plus I do not like the government basically telling me I have to buy certain bulbs.
 
JohnWOlin said:
To me this is a non issue thing. Where were Republicans when they forced digital signals and forced people to get a box or an HDTV? Sure they delayed it but the point is, congress seems to only ever do anything if there is something in it for them. So I think the real question that needs to be asked is, what is in it for Congress this time?
Click to expand...

With analog broadcasting, it was phased out by the companies, nobody mandated that after a certain date, nobody would be allowed to broadcast in analog. Technology moves on. Either go with it ro be left behind. In this case though, companies are all too willing to keep making light bulbs, the government is forcing them to stop.
 
SPC said:
It was on FOX News this morning. The issue is supposed to be brought up tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Oh let me hop in my time machine so I can swing back in time to catch it.
 
Well it saves money over time so I don't see the big deal:

A U.S. article stated "A household that invested $90 in changing 30 fixtures to CFLs would save $440 to $1,500 over the five-year life of the bulbs, depending on your cost of electricity. Look at your utility bill and imagine a 12% discount to estimate the savings."
Click to expand...

Also here is just another consideration, if Congress or the government wants to save American people lots of money like...30 years worth of never needing lightbulbs again worth here is a handy chart showing each:

Compare: LED Lights vs CFL vs Incandescent Lighting Chart

LED is obviously much more expensive but at 30 year lifespan I would say WORTH IT.
 
"No, their bad for the environment." Wow, what a choice. Here is why:
How much mercury do power plants emit to light a CFL?
About 50 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants. When coal burns to produce electricity, mercury naturally contained in the coal releases into the air. In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 tons of mercury into the air—the equivalent amount of mercury contained in more than 9 billion CFLs (the bulbs emit zero mercury when in use or being handled).
Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury—plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.
Note that some things have changed since this article was written. The amount of mercury in a CFL has been reduced and their efficiency has gotten better.
 
Last edited:
SPC said:
What Congress is trying to push are those squiggly bulbs that are filled with mercury. Not only do they cost more, they're dangerous.
Click to expand...

Well please post a news article so we can all join in on the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom