• 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

You left out the third photo in the series........how the land looks after it has been recovered.

reclm1.jpg


Kentucky now has the largest elk herd in the eastern U.S., courtesy of reclaimed coal mine land where they thrive. Cows obviously love it too.

And you are dead wrong that electric companies are the ones championing incandescent bulbs. My electric co-op has an obvious interest in coal since all of the electricity they sell comes from it, but they regularly hand out free CFL bulbs and publish articles each month in their magazine on saving electricity. They perform energy audits and give rebates to customers that buy energy efficient appliances. They, as well as most Americans, are all for energy efficiency, we just don't like being forced to buy something we don't like.

I find it funny that many so-called environmentalists are championing the mass production of a product with mercury in it after they have railed against it for many years.
 
Gill said:
You left out the third photo in the series........how the land looks after it has been recovered.

Kentucky now has the largest elk herd in the eastern U.S., courtesy of reclaimed coal mine land where they thrive. Cows obviously love it too.

And you are dead wrong that electric companies are the ones championing incandescent bulbs. My electric co-op has an obvious interest in coal since all of the electricity they sell comes from it, but they regularly hand out free CFL bulbs and publish articles each month in their magazine on saving electricity. They perform energy audits and give rebates to customers that buy energy efficient appliances. They, as well as most Americans, are all for energy efficiency, we just don't like being forced to buy something we don't like.

I find it funny that many so-called environmentalists are championing the mass production of a product with mercury in it after they have railed against it for many years.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that land is somehow better off after it's been wrecked by a mining operation? That's what it appears you're trying to say.

The point for me is, why? This is not a matter of freedom. If the government bans an obsolete technology because it's horribly inefficient they're not harming American freedom, they're removing an horribly inefficient tech from the marketplace. That's all. It's no different than banning a faulty child carseat. There are standards that must be met. If you can't meet them, tough for you.
 
Gill said:
You left out the third photo in the series........how the land looks after it has been recovered.

reclm1.jpg


Kentucky now has the largest elk herd in the eastern U.S., courtesy of reclaimed coal mine land where they thrive. Cows obviously love it too.
Click to expand...

I realize that they reclaim the land. Basically the end result is a mountain is turned into a hill with a thin layer of soil spread back over it. The mountain, streams in the area, and so on, gone forever. On balance, its an environmental catastrophe. There is a large elk herd in Arkansas in the Ozark National forest and along the Buffalo National River. This herd has thrived without having to allow mining companies blowing up the mountains there. They are now reintroducing elk into southern Missouri as well on National Forest land.

And you are dead wrong that electric companies are the ones championing incandescent bulbs. My electric co-op has an obvious interest in coal since all of the electricity they sell comes from it, but they regularly hand out free CFL bulbs and publish articles each month in their magazine on saving electricity. They perform energy audits and give rebates to customers that buy energy efficient appliances. They, as well as most Americans, are all for energy efficiency, we just don't like being forced to buy something we don't like.
Click to expand...

I did not say electric utilities, I said coal mining companies. Electrical utilities are usually behind greater efficiency, even providing bill credits for installing energy efficient windows, and more energy efficient a/c units.

I find it funny that many so-called environmentalists are championing the mass production of a product with mercury in it after they have railed against it for many years.
Click to expand...

The amount of mercury in compact fluorescent bulbs pails in comparison to the amount of mercury released by coal power plants.
 
Tettsuo said:
Do you believe that land is somehow better off after it's been wrecked by a mining operation? That's what it appears you're trying to say.

The point for me is, why? This is not a matter of freedom. If the government bans an obsolete technology because it's horribly inefficient they're not harming American freedom, they're removing an horribly inefficient tech from the marketplace. That's all. It's no different than banning a faulty child carseat. There are standards that must be met. If you can't meet them, tough for you.
Click to expand...

I'm saying the land is just as good after being reclaimed as it was before being mined.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Then what is your problem with the ban then?
Click to expand...

Because they are taking a local problem and handing it over to the Feds.
The issue was debated by elected representatives from every state and congressional district in the country back in 2007 when the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was passed by congress. What you are saying should have happened is exactly what did happen.
Click to expand...

No, the responsibilities stopped being local and the responsibilities transferred out of the hands of the local people who can best judge what's going on in their area.

Moreover, we are one of the last, if not the last, industrialized nations in the world to ban them because they are horribly inefficient.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a good enough reason. The rest of the world is not necessarily cutting edge on anything.
I really don't get you guys on this. We generate most of our electricity in the United States with coal. To get that coal, mining companies are literally blowing up entire mountains in Appalachia. This has destroyed over 2000 square miles of forest in the east. It has destroyed thousands of miles of mountain streams and rivers. To power our homes and businesses we are literally turning mountains like this:
Click to expand...

There should be a diversity of energy but the Feds won;t allow it. The people of Alaska might want to send their oil to the lower 48 but the Feds say No. And that's what happens when you give outsiders control over your resources. They well act politically in their national interests rather than acting for the people with local interests.




That is literally the environmental costs of powering our homes and businesses. The people that blow those mountains up for the coal are the ones that want us to repeal the ban on incandescent bulbs.
Click to expand...

Do you have any support for this claim? Just who are these people? Can you name some names?

They are the ones that are against energy efficiency mandates. They are the ones that are against environment legislation. Those are the guys you are siding with here. I don't understand how this issue is even controversial. If banning incandescent bulbs results in us using less coal than we other wise would, and it will, and thus results in less mountains being literally blown up to get to that coal, then what is the problem? Should we destroy are remaining wild-lands just so you can buy 100 year old inefficient light bulb technology?
Click to expand...

This is getting into areas of hysteria.
Click to expand...
 
Tettsuo said:
Do you believe that land is somehow better off after it's been wrecked by a mining operation? That's what it appears you're trying to say.
Click to expand...

If I wanted to say that I would do so.

The point for me is, why? This is not a matter of freedom. If the government bans an obsolete technology because it's horribly inefficient they're not harming American freedom, they're removing an horribly inefficient tech from the marketplace. That's all. It's no different than banning a faulty child carseat. There are standards that must be met. If you can't meet them, tough for you.
Click to expand...

Or faulty helmets, mattresses, etc. The consumer is stupid and the government must make these decisions for them. I get it. But what we see happening is that the government can make decisions which will benefit their supporters, and themselves, by enacting laws which are not necessarily beneficial to the public interests. They will have to buy light bulbs made exclusively from company A, for example, rather than company B.. And that can apply to any product once the concepts become publicly acceptable.

This thinking that the Federal government will act altruistically and not act in their own self interests is a common enough mistake, and one that is repeatedly made despite their history. Chip O'Neil (I think it was) once said that "All politics is local", but that is changing. Federal politicians are now vying one part of the country against the other, workers against each other, classes against each other, and so on. They have become more powerful than the individual States and local power has diminished accordingly.

The philosophies and experiences of the Founders is now being ignored and the US is becoming like any of those problematic countries who are also making all the decisions for their people. And you appear to be encouraging this trend.
 
Grant said:
If I wanted to say that I would do so.
Click to expand...
Good. Cause that would be stupid.
Or faulty helmets, mattresses, etc. The consumer is stupid and the government must make these decisions for them. I get it.
Click to expand...
Only person saying that is you. I'm saying somethings need to be phased out because they suck and are in no way beneficial to our society. In fact, they are harmful. Wasting energy is harmful to our society because that energy doesn't come through clean methods. The old bulbs are basically a waste of American energy. Insisting on their use is foolish and boardline stupid.
But what we see happening is that the government can make decisions which will benefit their supporters, and themselves, by enacting laws which are not necessarily beneficial to the public interests. They will have to buy light bulbs made exclusively from company A, for example, rather than company B.. And that can apply to any product once the concepts become publicly acceptable.
Click to expand...
As I've said above, the old light bulbs are terribly inefficient. The government isn't banning equal products, they aren't even banning a product at all. They're simply saying meet efficiency standards. If the old bulbs can't do that, tough.
This thinking that the Federal government will act altruistically and not act in their own self interests is a common enough mistake, and one that is repeatedly made despite their history. Chip O'Neil (I think it was) once said that "All politics is local", but that is changing. Federal politicians are now vying one part of the country against the other, workers against each other, classes against each other, and so on. They have become more powerful than the individual States and local power has diminished accordingly.
Click to expand...
First... we are the government. The government is not some foreign power trying to destroy us. We buy our oil from those people. The real threat is when people stop actually thinking for themselves and relinquish their god-given reason to others so those folks can shape it for them.

Phasing out old tech is a good thing. Having standards is a good thing. To link lower standards and old tech to freedom is not reasonable thing to believe.

The philosophies and experiences of the Founders is now being ignored and the US is becoming like any of those problematic countries who are also making all the decisions for their people. And you appear to be encouraging this trend.
Click to expand...
This quote is an example of what I've written above. We elected our politicians to do what's in our best interest. If you disagree, you have the right to do so.

And by the way, the founding fathers decided what was best for the people they represented as well. They certainly didn't asked everyone for their input on the Declaration of Independence or the Consititution.
 
So GILL

You going to address this, namely how you blnatantly lied about my post, or are you going to pretend like you never made that argument rather then own up to being a liar?

obvious Child said:
Did anyone argue that they don't? In fact we were discussing the issue of mercury, particularly why it was not analogous to leaded gasoline.

The Gill School of Debate. Can't win an argument? Pretend someone said something, disprove it and declare victory.



You know, I can actually cite what I was replying to. You really should wrap your deceit in better clothing.

Note what I was replying to:



Hmmm. Since when were incandescent CLFs?

Gill, try to fail less often. You're embarrassing the forum.

I get you don't really have any skills here, but try to at least work on lying better. I know exactly what I replied to. And Bad was asking specifically about incandescent, not CLFs. So you saying I said CFLs have filaments when I was not talking about CFLs is not only serious dishonesty, but a really pathetic attempt to get a revenge hit on me.



True, but obvious, blatant fabrications meant to get revenge hits does. You clearly took the time to search what I wrote, read the post and then cited it. You have no excuse to say you didn't read what I was replying to. Therefore, the sole conclusion is here is you deliberately removed context, lied about what I was talking about and then attacked me on saying something I never did. That is a serious sign of hate.



See above. I'm not the one who deliberately lies about someone's post, completely removes the context and then bashes them for something they never said. You are.

Watch: you're going to flee from this thread after I pointed out how you are not only a spiteful person, but a spiteful liar. You're going to pretend like you never made that argument rather then own up to being a liar.
Click to expand...
 
This lightbulb legislation is just another sign of how tyrannical our government is becoming. This type of legislation is not needed, and certainly not wanted by me. I have to remember to go to Lowes, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, and Ace Hardware tomorrow and buy out their supply of the bulbs we use. The last Congress had too many freedom-hating numbskulls in it. Too bad that too many are left in this Congress.
 
obvious Child said:
So GILL

You going to address this, namely how you blnatantly lied about my post, or are you going to pretend like you never made that argument rather then own up to being a liar?
Click to expand...

I will admit I missed the reference to incandescent bulbs. If you want to call that lying, feel free.

As to embarrassing the forum, you have the monopoly on that. No other poster here is as obnoxious and rude to other members as you are.
 
Gill said:
I will admit I missed the reference to incandescent bulbs.
Click to expand...

Despite reading my post twice.

If you want to call that lying, feel free.
Click to expand...

How did you read my post twice, especially AFTER I pointed out I did not say CFLs had filaments and STILL think I said CFLs had filaments? You went as far as to directly quote what I posted, yet you completely missed twice that I was directly replying to a question on incandescent?

I think you know you got caught. And you're just hoping I'm not going to bring this up elsewhere as to why you are completely untrustworthy.

As to embarrassing the forum, you have the monopoly on that. No other poster here is as obnoxious and rude to other members as you are.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Arrogance coupled with a general tendency to be correct is tolerated by the educated folk here. What isn't tolerated is arrogance and the tendency to be wrong, such as you.

Next time you try to get a revenge hit on me, cloak your deceit in better cloth. That attempt was embarrassing.

Btw, where are your data points showing pollutant PPM are the same as before the mining?
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
...just so long as they are expensive, and made by friends of the one term Marxist president Obama.
Click to expand...

How much of a right to pollute your air do I have?
 
1Perry said:
You are doing it right now.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question.

The world isn't black and white. It's not a yes/no question. What would you consider reasonable measures that I should have to take to reduce how much I pollute the air you breathe?
 
Deuce said:
You didn't answer the question.

The world isn't black and white. It's not a yes/no question. What would you consider reasonable measures that I should have to take to reduce how much I pollute the air you breathe?
Click to expand...

Well the question wasn't directed towards me but I'm just wondering why it's O.K. for you to use all this power to run your computer but it's not O.K. for me to use a smaller amount to run my lightbulb?

Computers do get more efficient. Slowly people turn to them but initially they are too expensive for most. The government doesn't demand you buy these more efficient computers right off. There is no reason the same couldn't have been done with lightbulbs.
 
1Perry said:
Well the question wasn't directed towards me but I'm just wondering why it's O.K. for you to use all this power to run your computer but it's not O.K. for me to use a smaller amount to run my lightbulb?

Computers do get more efficient. Slowly people turn to them but initially they are too expensive for most. The government doesn't demand you buy these more efficient computers right off. There is no reason the same couldn't have been done with lightbulbs.
Click to expand...

Trillions of dollars in debt and the federal government is passing laws telling people what lights bulbs they can and cannot use.

This would be hard to sell as satire, though a Kafka might make use of it.
 
1Perry said:
Well the question wasn't directed towards me but I'm just wondering why it's O.K. for you to use all this power to run your computer but it's not O.K. for me to use a smaller amount to run my lightbulb?

Computers do get more efficient. Slowly people turn to them but initially they are too expensive for most. The government doesn't demand you buy these more efficient computers right off. There is no reason the same couldn't have been done with lightbulbs.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't some different method of building computers that results in a substantial energy savings while keeping the same performance. The two situations are not comparable.

But you don't get this. You can't seem to think in ways other than absolutes. We could still light every home in America using less than half the electricity we use to do it now, with no loss in performance (amount of light produced). We can't run every computer in America using less than half the electricity we use to do it now and maintain computer performance.

Unlike what Rush Limbaugh et al. have been telling you, the purpose of environmental regulations is not to reduce your quality of life.

Grant said:
Trillions of dollars in debt and the federal government is passing laws telling people what lights bulbs they can and cannot use.

This would be hard to sell as satire, though a Kafka might make use of it.
Click to expand...

A significant reduction in electrical load saves money on upgrading and maintaining electrical infrastructure as well as economic and health damage caused by pollution.

Trillions of dollars in debt and you guys are freaking the **** out over having to change light bulbs even though it will save a ton of money for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
No, there isn't some different method of building computers that results in a substantial energy savings while keeping the same performance. The two situations are not comparable.

But you don't get this. You can't seem to think in ways other than absolutes. We could still light every home in America using less than half the electricity we use to do it now, with no loss in performance (amount of light produced). We can't run every computer in America using less than half the electricity we use to do it now and maintain computer performance.

Unlike what Rush Limbaugh et al. have been telling you, the purpose of environmental regulations is not to reduce your quality of life.



A significant reduction in electrical load saves money on upgrading and maintaining electrical infrastructure as well as economic and health damage caused by pollution.

Trillions of dollars in debt and you guys are freaking the **** out over having to change light bulbs even though it will save a ton of money for everyone.
Click to expand...

If you need to be told which light bulb you should use then I guess the Federal government knows what it's doing. It's certainly makes it appear that they are interested in saving money despite all the trillions to the contrary so perhaps, to them, this law was worth it.

Perhaps they should start passing laws which would ration their spending. Some real laws.
 
Deuce said:
No, there isn't some different method of building computers that results in a substantial energy savings while keeping the same performance. The two situations are not comparable.
Click to expand...

Typical response and one I dismiss. If you are so concerned about energy useage and the pollution it creates put your computer away.

But you don't get this. You can't seem to think in ways other than absolutes. We could still light every home in America using less than half the electricity we use to do it now, with no loss in performance (amount of light produced). We can't run every computer in America using less than half the electricity we use to do it now and maintain computer performance.
Click to expand...

There is a loss in performance and there are many people who will have a hard time spending $10 each for lightbulbs. You are simply wasting time on your computer right now. It's not somehow a necessity. Turn it off.

Unlike what Rush Limbaugh et al. have been telling you, the purpose of environmental regulations is not to reduce your quality of life.
Click to expand...

Another lame ass response that I've long ago learned to dimiss.
 
1Perry said:
Typical response and one I dismiss. If you are so concerned about energy useage and the pollution it creates put your computer away.



There is a loss in performance and there are many people who will have a hard time spending $10 each for lightbulbs. You are simply wasting time on your computer right now. It's not somehow a necessity. Turn it off.



Another lame ass response that I've long ago learned to dimiss.
Click to expand...

Really? The CFL doesn't produce the same amount of light for a lower electrical cost?

Prove that.
 
Deuce said:
Really? The CFL doesn't produce the same amount of light for a lower electrical cost?

Prove that.
Click to expand...

What if it does? If you are so concerning with energy usage, like I said, turn your computer off. Also, what if I don't much care for the added Mercury in a CFL bulb? Why do your concerns trump mine?
 
Ockham said:
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?
Click to expand...

In other words, why should they not let you make stupid decisions if you want to make stupid decisions? Because those stupid decisions are having an adverse effect on the rest of us.
 
Catawba said:
In other words, why should they not let you make stupid decisions if you want to make stupid decisions? Because those stupid decisions are having an adverse effect on the rest of us.
Click to expand...

So would the added Mercury from the acceptable bulbs with Mercury in them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom