• 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

Polotick said:
Okay, my last sentence looks like I think we should be told every detail, I don't. The Myth of American Freedom™ is openly disappearing now. Perhaps if the Feds did their job instead of meddling in the daily affairs of the citizens we wouldn't be in the lousy shape that this country is now.
Click to expand...

It's disappearing, Polotick, and not too many noticed even noticed, or cared. They figured there must be some positive payoff somewhere down the line. It was all incremental.

If it's any consolation, though it probably isn't, the same thing is happening in all the democracies. We're voting the concept of freedom and responsibility, which are inextricably joined, obsolete.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You know one of the reasons that China is kicking our as in terms of economic growth? Its not lower taxes that's for sure, its that if something is their country's best interest, they mandate it. For example, one of the reasons why their cities air is so noxious is all the 2 stroke mopeds, so the Chinese government mandated that all mopeds sold and licensed would have to be either 4 stroke or electric. They did not have a bunch of nutters in their "people's congress" that argued against the mandate and for giving consumers the choice of buying a 2 stroke moped. They knew 2 stroke mopeds belched out copious amounts of noxious fumes, they knew it was bad for the country, so they just made a decision and stuck with it.

Now, I am not saying that we should adopt some fully totalitarian government like China's. What I am saying is that is our competition. Our competition does not give a rat's ass about consumer choice when that choice is not in the best interest of their country. Our competition will not go to war to benefit its domestic energy industry. Our competition does not argue about consumer choice when setting fuel efficiency standards. They are not going to go to war just so Mr. Wang can have the choice of driving a gas guzzling SUV. They don't give a **** about Mr. Wang being able to drive a yuppie status symbol when its not in the best interest of their country. Anytime our competition sees an opportunity to increase energy efficiency and thus their economic competitiveness they mandate it. Folks, that is our competition right now, that's how they roll, and that's one of the reason's why they are kicking our ass in terms of economic growth.

Once again, I am not arguing in favor of a totalitarian government like China's. I am just saying that if China thought they could save energy by banning the sale of incandescent bulbs, they would do it, and they would sit back and laugh at how stupid we were for arguing about it.
Click to expand...

The US government has indeed mandated the hell out of the auto industry. Open the hood of your car, the evidence is right there.

More importantly, the people are mandating it in they way they purchase. More and more are buying hybrids and so on.
 
Grant said:
It's disappearing, Polotick, and not too many noticed even noticed, or cared. They figured there must be some positive payoff somewhere down the line. It was all incremental.

If it's any consolation, though it probably isn't, the same thing is happening in all the democracies. We're voting the concept of freedom and responsibility, which are inextricably joined, obsolete.
Click to expand...



It was incremental until 9/11. Then Americans flocked to the Alter of False Safety by the millions. Now it can be openly rampant under the guise of being good for us.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Once again, I am not arguing in favor of a totalitarian government like China's. I am just saying that if China thought they could save energy by banning the sale of incandescent bulbs, they would do it, and they would sit back and laugh at how stupid we were for arguing about it.
Click to expand...

They would also manufacture them for pennies.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You know one of the reasons that China is kicking our as in terms of economic growth? Its not lower taxes that's for sure, its that if something is their country's best interest, they mandate it. For example, one of the reasons why their cities air is so noxious is all the 2 stroke mopeds, so the Chinese government mandated that all mopeds sold and licensed would have to be either 4 stroke or electric. They did not have a bunch of nutters in their "people's congress" that argued against the mandate and for giving consumers the choice of buying a 2 stroke moped. They knew 2 stroke mopeds belched out copious amounts of noxious fumes, they knew it was bad for the country, so they just made a decision and stuck with it.

Now, I am not saying that we should adopt some fully totalitarian government like China's. What I am saying is that is our competition. Our competition does not give a rat's ass about consumer choice when that choice is not in the best interest of their country. Our competition will not go to war to benefit its domestic energy industry. Our competition does not argue about consumer choice when setting fuel efficiency standards. They are not going to go to war just so Mr. Wang can have the choice of driving a gas guzzling SUV. They don't give a **** about Mr. Wang being able to drive a yuppie status symbol when its not in the best interest of their country. Anytime our competition sees an opportunity to increase energy efficiency and thus their economic competitiveness they mandate it. Folks, that is our competition right now, that's how they roll, and that's one of the reason's why they are kicking our ass in terms of economic growth.

Once again, I am not arguing in favor of a totalitarian government like China's. I am just saying that if China thought they could save energy by banning the sale of incandescent bulbs, they would do it, and they would sit back and laugh at how stupid we were for arguing about it.
Click to expand...

Do you really give a **** what the Chinese think?

It's the Chinese who are fighting and dying and emigrating to get the freedoms the democracies took for granted. Do you think they prefer being told what light bulbs to put in their lamps or motor scooters they can ride?

Once these regulations start, and more power rests in the hands of the bureaucrats, do you feel they will somehow magically stop?
 
Polotick said:
It was incremental until 9/11. Then Americans flocked to the Alter of False Safety by the millions. Now it can be openly rampant under the guise of being good for us.
Click to expand...

Remember that biker who died recently protesting the use of motor cycle helmets? NY motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law - Yahoo! News

I have to admit to first smirking at the irony of it all but now I realize that this guy died just as much for human rights and freedoms as a soldier on a battlefield.
 
Polotick said:
The US government has indeed mandated the hell out of the auto industry. Open the hood of your car, the evidence is right there.

More importantly, the people are mandating it in they way they purchase. More and more are buying hybrids and so on.
Click to expand...

Of course they have, and the quality of life in the United States is much better for it. Visit a nation that doesn't have all those "onerous environmental regulations" and breath their air. The more fuel efficient our transportation is and the more energy efficient our homes and business are, the more economically competitive we will be and the better are over all quality of life will be. Our economic competition knows this and they are acting. In some areas, such as pollution control, they are playing catch up to us. In other areas, like energy efficiency, they are rapidly trying to pull ahead of us.
 
Grant said:
Do you really give a **** what the Chinese think?

It's the Chinese who are fighting and dying and emigrating to get the freedoms the democracies took for granted. Do you think they prefer being told what light bulbs to put in their lamps or motor scooters they can ride?

Once these regulations start, and more power rests in the hands of the bureaucrats, do you feel they will somehow magically stop?
Click to expand...

That's where we have an advantage over the Chinese. If we don't like our government, we can vote in a different one come the election. However, actually having spent time in China, the average Chinese citizen is very happy that their government is finally mandating stronger pollution controls. You see when you live in a country without environmental regulations, this is what you get outside your window:

chinaairpollutiontracyallen.jpg


Those regulations you seem to hate are the differences between living in a country whose cities look like that, or this:

02464300_1236282569.jpg


It isn't just magic that in our major cities you can look up on a clear day and see a blue sky. It's just not by chance that you can go to a park here and hear birds, or swim in the majority of lakes and rivers here without literally risking your life. You can thank those green regulations for it.

Our biggest economic advantage over China is that unlike China, we have strong environmental regulations and thus unlike the Chinese, we don't live in a toxic cesspool.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Of course they have, and the quality of life in the United States is much better for it. Visit a nation that doesn't have all those "onerous environmental regulations" and breath their air. The more fuel efficient our transportation is and the more energy efficient our homes and business are, the more economically competitive we will be and the better are over all quality of life will be. Our economic competition knows this and they are acting. In some areas, such as pollution control, they are playing catch up to us. In other areas, like energy efficiency, they are rapidly trying to pull ahead of us.
Click to expand...

The Chinese have passed a law saying that, in the interests of personal safety and encouraging a well balanced life, everyone must not ride a scooter with a watermelon on their head. The previously laws regarding made-in-China helmets apparently failed their safety guidelines.

Hangzhou Man Carries Watermelon On Head Riding Scooter – chinaSMACK
 
Grant said:
Yes, that is next. And you will be told what mattresses to sleep on, what to eat for breakfast, what you can drink and when you can drink it, how your vegetables are raised, what you can plant in your front yard, what you can read, watch and think. In fact much of this has happened already so governments telling you what light bulbs you can or cannot use in your home is just another notch in their ever-growing belt. And, as you can read on this thread, many people like the idea.

It apparently doesn't take very long to make sheep out of a previously free people.
Click to expand...

Yes, energy efficiency standards are totally the same thing as 1984.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Of course they have, and the quality of life in the United States is much better for it. Visit a nation that doesn't have all those "onerous environmental regulations" and breath their air. The more fuel efficient our transportation is and the more energy efficient our homes and business are, the more economically competitive we will be and the better are over all quality of life will be. Our economic competition knows this and they are acting. In some areas, such as pollution control, they are playing catch up to us. In other areas, like energy efficiency, they are rapidly trying to pull ahead of us.
Click to expand...

Let's talk about that energy thing. Here we have people with opinions about the best way to generate electricity. Some are for more coal, others only see a nuclear option, some see hydroelectric as the way to go and some see wind generators as the best option.

For the sake of this discussion I will keep my personal preference out of it.

Now, in a country like China there is no discussion among the people about it. The government decides, period. Here there will be discussion, often heated. No, a dam can't be built because some obscure slimy little fish thingy will be driven out of existence. And so on.

Before we tout what others are doing I think it is very important to see what and how they are doing it. I bet Japan right now has some regrets over their dependency of nuclear energy. At the time it probably seemed like a good idea.

You and I may hear what someone thinks about a certain form of energy and think to ourselves, "I can't see your point of view because I can't get my head that far up my ass", but here they have a right to that opinion. Unlike some places.

Many times just because something can be done, that doesn't mean it should be done. I will defend your right to your opinion, but you also better be prepared to defend mine, while what little freedom we have left is still ours.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That's where we have an advantage over the Chinese. If we don't like our government, we can vote in a different one come the election. However, actually having spent time in China, the average Chinese citizen is very happy that their government is finally mandating stronger pollution controls. You see when you live in a country without environmental regulations, this is what you get outside your window:

chinaairpollutiontracyallen.jpg


Those regulations you seem to hate are the differences between living in a country whose cities look like that, or this:

02464300_1236282569.jpg


It isn't just magic that in our major cities you can look up on a clear day and see a blue sky. It's just not by chance that you can go to a park here and hear birds, or swim in the majority of lakes and rivers here without literally risking your life. You can thank those green regulations for it.

Our biggest economic advantage over China is that unlike China, we have strong environmental regulations and thus unlike the Chinese, we don't live in a toxic cesspool.
Click to expand...

I was in Eastern Europe just before the Berlin Wall came down and it was as filthy as the photo you submitted.

You must feel then that personal freedom to do the right thing is good and political and bureaucratic power is not so good. Would that be right?
 
Deuce said:
Yes, energy efficiency standards are totally the same thing as 1984.
Click to expand...

Do you think it stops at "energy efficient standards"?

All these government initiatives are always initiated 'in the public good', and are often carried out by some nameless, faceless bureaucrat.

You don't view any of them with some suspicion?

At one time, as hard as this is to imagine now, Americans once had the responsibility of selecting their own light bulbs.
 
Grant said:
I was in Eastern Europe just before the Berlin Wall came down and it was as filthy as the photo you submitted.

You must feel then that personal freedom to do the right thing is good and political and bureaucratic power is not so good. Would that be right?
Click to expand...

I feel that personal freedom is good, but that the public sector has a strong role to play in terms of environmental protection. We don't have cleaner air, vast public lands, cleaner water, and so on because some autocratic dictator decreed it was the right thing to do. However, its also not because every individual in the U.S. just happened to make the choice either. It's because the American people petitioned their government for environmental regulation and preservation. We have an EPA because the majority of Americans want the federal government to enforce environmental protections. Group psychology is different than individual psychology. The same individual that will go out and by a gas guzzler many times will also be supportive of government mandated fuel efficiency standards. That may be a little hypocritical on their part, but most people seem to realize that as individuals we don't necessarily always act in our collective best interest. It is the Tragedy of the Commons.
 
Grant said:
Do you think it stops at "energy efficient standards"?

All these government initiatives are always initiated 'in the public good', and are often carried out by some nameless, faceless bureaucrat.

You don't view any of them with some suspicion?

At one time, as hard as this is to imagine now, Americans once had the responsibility of selecting their own light bulbs.
Click to expand...

At one time, you could simply burn your old tires rather than having them recycled.

At one time, you could just throw a car battery in the river rather than having it recycled.

At one time, you could purchase pesticides to kill ants around your house that also poisoned the ground water for decades.

At one time, you could buy a lawn mower that polluted more in 2 hours of use than a modern vehicle will in a year.

At one time, you could catch every fish in a river, kill every deer in a forest, and just move on once you completely depleted the natural resources around you.

At one time, you could change your oil in your car, and just pour it around your fence posts.

Do you think you should simply have the choice of still doing all these things, or do you think there is a role for science based reasonable environmental and energy regulations?
 
Dezaad said:
Its not good enough. If we want to reduce pollution, everybody must invest in it, not just the people who want to.
Click to expand...
If you want to increase GE's profits you must be forced to buy their new, expensive bulbs. Although he is not at fault, these are friends of the one term Marxist president Obama. This is crony capitalism at its worst. This was never about pollution. It was only about compelling people to buy a product from a private company in order to increase their profit margin.

It is time to get out the pitchforks and march on Washington.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Do you think it stops at "energy efficient standards"?

All these government initiatives are always initiated 'in the public good', and are often carried out by some nameless, faceless bureaucrat.

You don't view any of them with some suspicion?

At one time, as hard as this is to imagine now, Americans once had the responsibility of selecting their own light bulbs.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope fallacy.

Also, you still have the responsibility of selecting your own light bulbs. They will, however, conform to certain standards. Just like your car or your food.

Your electrical use has an impact on the power grid that we all share. Your electrical use has an impact on the air we all breathe. I believe the government has the responsibility to ensure that reasonable measures are taken to preserve those things to a reasonable degree for everyone.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I feel that personal freedom is good, but that the public sector has a strong role to play in terms of environmental protection. We don't have cleaner air, vast public lands, cleaner water, and so on because some autocratic dictator decreed it was the right thing to do. However, its also not because every individual in the U.S. just happened to make the choice either. It's because the American people petitioned their government for environmental regulation and preservation. We have an EPA because the majority of Americans want the federal government to enforce environmental protections. Group psychology is different than individual psychology. The same individual that will go out and by a gas guzzler many times will also be supportive of government mandated fuel efficiency standards. That may be a little hypocritical on their part, but most people seem to realize that as individuals we don't necessarily always act in our collective best interest. It is the Tragedy of the Commons.
Click to expand...

But you are assuming that it is government that control the environment and without it people will behave irresponsibly even while the facts, including your examples, prove otherwise. Why wouldn't individuals make the choice for cleaner air and water? There are a great many ways to exert others to respect the environment, including the media, environmental groups, public protests, etc. The assumption that governments will always act in the public interest without these public pressure groups, also as per your examples, is unlikely.

I believe that public shaming also works, if people are allowed a free media and public protests. I have become very suspicious of government control because, once we give it to them, it is very difficult to get it back. The EPA will now never disappear no matter how clean the air and water might be. And of course its budget will always grow and the bureaucracy, laws and codes increase. Otherwise the government, according to the self interested, is 'not respecting the environment'.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
At one time, you could simply burn your old tires rather than having them recycled.

At one time, you could just throw a car battery in the river rather than having it recycled.

At one time, you could purchase pesticides to kill ants around your house that also poisoned the ground water for decades.

At one time, you could buy a lawn mower that polluted more in 2 hours of use than a modern vehicle will in a year.

At one time, you could catch every fish in a river, kill every deer in a forest, and just move on once you completely depleted the natural resources around you.

At one time, you could change your oil in your car, and just pour it around your fence posts.

Do you think you should simply have the choice of still doing all these things, or do you think there is a role for science based reasonable environmental and energy regulations?
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree that science and knowledge plays a huge role in making sure that the practices you described are avoided and discouraged. But why can't education play a role once the science is proven?

It is not an either/or thing but one where individual rights are balanced between with that of the community. And the community, if we trust the majority of our fellow citizens, tend to muddle through and eventually do the right thing., They will not commt the sort of crimes against the environment you mentioned above, given enlightenment.
 
Badmutha said:
So your saying you were too stupid to pick out your own light bulbs and you need government to do it for you.........
Click to expand...

I don't see how the government is limiting your choice, you're still completely free to choose whatever lightbulbs you want.
 
Misterveritis said:
If you want to increase GE's profits you must be forced to buy their new, expensive bulbs. Although he is not at fault, these are friends of the one term Marxist president Obama. This is crony capitalism at its worst. This was never about pollution. It was only about compelling people to buy a product from a private company in order to increase their profit margin.

It is time to get out the pitchforks and march on Washington.
Click to expand...

This is the thing in a nutshell.

Huge profits are being made, billions, by the amalgamation of big business and politicians. They will find the scientists who will agree to discover the results they pay for and the excited journalists who will write the scare stories to move the people in the desired direction. The government will then pass laws which they had in mind in the first place. Unintended consequences follow, huge sums of money disappear, and we then move on to the next political administration.
 
Deuce said:
Slippery slope fallacy.

Also, you still have the responsibility of selecting your own light bulbs. They will, however, conform to certain standards. Just like your car or your food.

Your electrical use has an impact on the power grid that we all share. Your electrical use has an impact on the air we all breathe. I believe the government has the responsibility to ensure that reasonable measures are taken to preserve those things to a reasonable degree for everyone.
Click to expand...

I pointed this out earlier but nobody addressed it. You being on the internet has a bigger impact than my choice of lightbulbs.
 
Grant said:
But you are assuming that it is government that control the environment and without it people will behave irresponsibly even while the facts, including your examples, prove otherwise. Why wouldn't individuals make the choice for cleaner air and water? There are a great many ways to exert others to respect the environment, including the media, environmental groups, public protests, etc. The assumption that governments will always act in the public interest without these public pressure groups, also as per your examples, is unlikely.

I believe that public shaming also works, if people are allowed a free media and public protests. I have become very suspicious of government control because, once we give it to them, it is very difficult to get it back. The EPA will now never disappear no matter how clean the air and water might be. And of course its budget will always grow and the bureaucracy, laws and codes increase. Otherwise the government, according to the self interested, is 'not respecting the environment'.
Click to expand...

Dirty is usually cheaper. It's cheaper to dump mercury in your neighbor's back yard than it is to dispose of it properly. The free market has never been good at reducing large-scale pollution. The dirty company operates cheaper, outcompetes the clean company, and takes over the industry.

1Perry said:
I pointed this out earlier but nobody addressed it. You being on the internet has a bigger impact than my choice of lightbulbs.
Click to expand...

More efficient lighting can perform the same task with a much smaller power draw. There is no similar method of greatly reducing the electrical draw of an active computer.

You're drawing the false dichotomy of "do thing" and "don't do thing" and are forgetting the "do thing but do it more efficiently" option.

Computers, incidentally, are already becoming more efficient as a side-effect of the quest for greater performance. There is no similar trend in lightbulbs - we've already hit the desired limit of bulb "performance." (we can already produce more light than would be necessary or even safe for home use!)
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
More efficient lighting can perform the same task with a much smaller power draw. There is no similar method of greatly reducing the electrical draw of an active computer.
Click to expand...

So what, stay off it, you are adding to the pollution.

You're drawing the false dichotomy of "do thing" and "don't do thing" and are forgetting the "do thing but do it more efficiently" option.
Click to expand...

There is no great pressing need for you to be posting here. You are simply wasting electricity.
 
1Perry said:
So what, stay off it, you are adding to the pollution.



There is no great pressing need for you to be posting here. You are simply wasting electricity.
Click to expand...

You're still drawing the "do thing/don't do thing" false dichotomy. Bringing your argument back to light bulbs, nobody has ever suggested you not be able to light your home at all. Nor has anyone suggested that electricity be relegated only to tasks that have some "pressing need."

Maybe you're just upset that your argument wasn't as debate-ending as you thought it was.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom