• 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'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.

LOL. If you were concerned about the added pollution you would do what you could to curtail it.
 
I don't see how the government is limiting your choice, you're still completely free to choose whatever lightbulbs you want.

Correction......your completely free to choose from the lightbulbs that the Nanny state approves of........

We have a government......that uses its monopoly of brute force........to control everything from the lightbulbs you can buy to the water level in your toilet........while you may see no wrong in it..... rest assured it has nothing whatsoever to do with FREEDOM.
.
.
.
.
 
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'.

We tried your system of simply educating citizenry about protecting the environment. Prior to the early 1970s that was the system we operated under in the United States. The results:

Rivers that were so polluted they caught fire.
Lakes in the Adirondacks that were so poisoned from acid rain that they were the pH of table vinegar.
Many states where the majority of lakes and rivers had fish consumption advisories.
The air quality in almost every major city in America was worse then than today.

I am huge Civil Libertarian. I believe that your rights extend so far as to not impede the rights of another individual. However, where libertarian ideology is totally inadequate is with environmental protection. If there is any place we need government, other than providing a court system and protecting the borders, its with environmental protection. You should read "The Tragedy of the Commons". Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Rivers that were so polluted they caught fire.

With the same people deciding to clean things up. The lakefront and rivers around Cleveland wasn't cleaned up because the federal government forced it. It was because the people wanted it.
 
Correction......your completely free to choose from the lightbulbs that the Nanny state approves of........

That's not a limitation on your choice of lightbulbs to buy, that's a limitation on producers that produce lightbulbs. You still have free choice on what products you can buy.
 
With the same people deciding to clean things up. The lakefront and rivers around Cleveland wasn't cleaned up because the federal government forced it. It was because the people wanted it.

Environmental Policy does not result from some decree by Caesar, it results from citizens petitioning their government to regulate polluters. When the Cuyahoga River caught fire several times in the late 60s, what cleaned it up was not a community trash pick up, it was the citizens of Ohio and other states where industries were poisoning their air and water, petitioning and lobbying the government to regulate polluting industries. In fact, the Cuyahoga River Fires were the poster child for building the public support for the creation of the EPA and the passage of the Clean Water Act.

Totalitarian nations usually have horrible environmental records because its not the governments that force environmental regulations on the people, its the people that force governments to enact environmental regulations and protections.
 
That's not a limitation on your choice of lightbulbs to buy, that's a limitation on producers that produce lightbulbs. You still have free choice on what products you can buy.

Which is akin to saying "You can keep your health care if you like it"......unless the Liberal Nanny doesnt approve of it.

Akin to every Public Option.......where there is but one option.......
.
.
.
.......Your FREEDOM to CHOOSE.......disappears a bit more with every piece of Democrat legislation.........
.
.
.
 
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.

If you can show some common examples where this has actually happened, it might support your argument.
 
Environmental Policy does not result from some decree by Caesar, it results from citizens petitioning their government to regulate polluters. When the Cuyahoga River caught fire several times in the late 60s, what cleaned it up was not a community trash pick up, it was the citizens of Ohio and other states where industries were poisoning their air and water, petitioning and lobbying the government to regulate polluting industries. In fact, the Cuyahoga River Fires were the poster child for building the public support for the creation of the EPA and the passage of the Clean Water Act.

Totalitarian nations usually have horrible environmental records because its not the governments that force environmental regulations on the people, its the people that force governments to enact environmental regulations and protections.

That's right. It was the citizens of the States involved which engineered the clean-up, which is as it should be. First by neighborhoods, then by counties and then by States. The best government is local government. and if your county chooses to ban light bulbs, for example, after serious debate, then they can do so.

When the Federal government takes the power away from the people of the entire country, and pits one against the other, just as they are doing now with economic threats, then the system begins to collapse. If each State was stronger the United States would be stronger.
 
China Mexico India
perhaps you recall Bhopal or the massive air pollution in Mexico city

Yes, I do recall the tragedy of Bhopal and am aware that it never happened again. Do we really want to get into a discussion regarding the number of deaths caused by governments vs. the number of deaths caused by private companies?

There is massive pollution in most third world nations, and there are no lack of laws. Education is the key.
 
Environmental Policy does not result from some decree by Caesar, it results from citizens petitioning their government to regulate polluters. When the Cuyahoga River caught fire several times in the late 60s,

Once and it was a minor fire happening just after the city had committed 100 million to clean it up.
 
China Mexico India
perhaps you recall Bhopal or the massive air pollution in Mexico city

For the most part industries do not make the decisions in these countries, the government does.
 
Grant said:
.......Your FREEDOM to CHOOSE.......disappears a bit more with every piece of Democrat legislation.........

It disappears with all kinds of things that limit production. Maybe you should complain to Maglite for limiting your freedom of choice for not producing a solar powered flashlight?
 
It disappears with all kinds of things that limit production. Maybe you should complain to Maglite for limiting your freedom of choice for not producing a solar powered flashlight?

No bureaucrat has either banned solar power flashlights, yet, nor has any bureaucrat demanded they be produced, yet. Ergo, my freedom of choice has not been effected. That remains a matter between Maglite and me, and if I choose to complain to them I shall, and all without government intervention.
 
There is massive pollution in most third world nations, and there are no lack of laws. Education is the key.

No lack of laws? Kenya, with the most advanced constitution, perhaps most transparent government (second only, maybe, to SA) and relatively limited corruption... will institute environmental regulations for industries in ~4 years, as scheduled in the constitution. It dumps nearly untreated sewege into Lake Victoria - to some extent because the Lake is owned by several countries and, as a "common", is screwed. Most countries here in Africa have nothing in the way of environmental laws. Fortunately, without having undergone industrialization, the pollution is limited. Mining, waste disposal and sewage are the majority of problems. Aside from the aforementioned sources, the major sources are foreign-funded conventional agricultural schemes, especially cut-flower (for euro export) greenhouses. We can hope that, before industrialization occurs, laws will be in place and they will be enforced (unlike Costa Rica).

Democracy favors the environment. Our worst pollution (globally) occurs under tyranny in indistrialized nations (where people do not have the right to petition the government for environmental action). We need world democracy to end wars and to halt global pollution - DPT for the win.
 
It disappears with all kinds of things that limit production.

....and with every piece of Democrat legislation ever written........

Maybe you should complain to Maglite for limiting your freedom of choice for not producing a solar powered flashlight?

Maybe I should send men with guns to Maglite's front door.......and demand they start producing it......

.......oh wait.....Im not the Liberal Nanny State Government.
.
.
.
.
 
No lack of laws? Kenya, with the most advanced constitution, perhaps most transparent government (second only, maybe, to SA) and relatively limited corruption... will institute environmental regulations for industries in ~4 years, as scheduled in the constitution. It dumps nearly untreated sewege into Lake Victoria - to some extent because the Lake is owned by several countries and, as a "common", is screwed. Most countries here in Africa have nothing in the way of environmental laws. Fortunately, without having undergone industrialization, the pollution is limited. Mining, waste disposal and sewage are the majority of problems. Aside from the aforementioned sources, the major sources are foreign-funded conventional agricultural schemes, especially cut-flower (for euro export) greenhouses. We can hope that, before industrialization occurs, laws will be in place and they will be enforced (unlike Costa Rica).

Democracy favors the environment. Our worst pollution (globally) occurs under tyranny in indistrialized nations (where people do not have the right to petition the government for environmental action). We need world democracy to end wars and to halt global pollution - DPT for the win.

I said "laws" not environmental laws, and my point was that many of these laws do the people no good unless they are accompanied by an educated populace. I think its safe to say that Kenya has tons of laws, many of which make no sense whatsoever but are nonetheless enforceable.

I think we can forget about "world democracy" when even the American people, who were among the those who have benefited most from democracy, protested strongly with its introductions to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can safely forget about Western Europe entertaining any notion about "world democracy" as well. Who's left?

It all begins locally and through education. Given their records, and Lord Acton's insightful observation about power, I would never trust any government.
 
Really??? Did someone else post a quote from a recently published peer reviewed scientific study verifying that broken CFL bulbs emit mercury beyond recommended levels ?????

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.

Yes, as a matter of fact you did.

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:

Give me a guesstimate on how many EVIL incandescent light bulbs you have broken over your lifetime?

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.

Disagreement does not equal "hate".

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.

Do you exhibit this persecution complex in your real life like you do here on DP???

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.
 
Last edited:
Sure you can. Finding one, however, might be difficult.

...so you can't.

Sure I can if they are available

But they're not so you can't. ZOMG your freedom to choose is being limited!!!

Also I'm sure someone has but has anyone pointed out that these regulations were solely regarding efficiency standards for incandescents which means that you will still be able to buy your beloved crappy lightbulbs?

Finally, who here has pointed out that this had bipartisan support last time it was passed?
 
I hope so. If the car you're driving still pollutes our land and air and we have an alternative that's faster, uses only green fuels, stronger, safer and better in every way possible, I certainly hope the government bans the old ones.
Even though I produce corn and E-85 has nearly tripled farmers profits it was a complete failure. And I doubt ill ever drive a hybrid escalade in 100 years.
 
That's right. It was the citizens of the States involved which engineered the clean-up, which is as it should be. First by neighborhoods, then by counties and then by States. The best government is local government. and if your county chooses to ban light bulbs, for example, after serious debate, then they can do so.

Then what is your problem with the ban then? 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.

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

BLUE-RIDGE-MOUNTAINS.jpg


Into this:

MTR1.jpg


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. 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?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom