• 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

AdamT said:
Not many, apparently.
Click to expand...

Oh.

(Keep your day job.)

Edit: I completely misread your joke. I missed the preposition.

On re-reading, let me say, Good one!
 
Last edited:
LuckyDan said:
Oh.

(Keep your day job.)
Click to expand...

The funny part was the question, not the answer. We're all sitting here trying to get the tea party to screw in some new lightbulbs and they seem to be struggling with it... I lol'd anyways.
 
teamosil said:
The funny part was the question, not the answer. We're all sitting here trying to get the tea party to screw in some new lightbulbs and they seem to be struggling with it... I lol'd anyways.
Click to expand...

I get it now. See my edit.

I'm not here.
 
LesGovt said:
You can compare your footprint with a person who actually rides a bike and lives in a tent? Truth is you waste energy. Stop it!!
Click to expand...

Are you claiming you ride a bike everywhere and live in a tent???

As for an energy crisis, we don't have one. What we have is a bunch of people manufacturing a crisis. Stop it!!
Click to expand...

Thanks for your esteemed opinion but I've got to go with the US Military on this:

"The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact."

US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015 | Business | The Guardian
 
The US Military is also doing more than just replacing energy wasting light bulbs:

Military going green to save lives, money

"(CNN) -- In 2010 alone, there were roughly 1,100 attacks on U.S. fuel convoys. This has cost the men and women of our armed forces dearly.

Military officials recently reported that more than 3,000 uniformed soldiers and contractors died while protecting such missions in Iraq from 2003 to 2007. But new Pentagon initiatives could dramatically reduce our battlefield fuel demand through the use of new clean energy technologies, helping save lives and stretch ever-scarce defense dollars.

The U.S. Department of Defense is one of the world's largest institutional energy consumers. Using more than 300,000 barrels of oil daily, the U.S. military consumes more petroleum products than three-quarters of the countries in the world.

In fiscal year 2008, energy cost the department about $17.9 billion. Leaders in the Pentagon, though, are up to the challenge."
 
teamosil said:
What could possibly trivialize freedom more than equating it to wanting to use out of date lightbulbs?
Click to expand...

They won't really be outdated until alternatives exist, that consumers willingly choose to buy in their place, without Big Brother having to stick its nose where it has no damn business doing so, in order to force consumers to buy the lights that it thinks they should be buying instead of the lights that they want to buy.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
They won't really be outdated until alternatives exist, that consumers willingly choose to buy in their place, without Big Brother having to stick its nose where it has no damn business doing so, in order to force consumers to buy the lights that it thinks they should be buying instead of the lights that they want to buy.
Click to expand...

There is not a Lowes or Home Depot near where you live?

"Incandescent bulbs meeting the standards that go into effect this January are already available in stores like Lowe’s and Home Depot."
Light Bulb Shopping Guide for Representative Barton | Jim Presswood's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

And sorry, but you don't have the "freedom" to **** in my back yard.
 
teamosil said:
So are you an anarchist? Or what is your standard exactly for when individual preference gives way to the overall well being of society?
Click to expand...

If the harm to the well being of people is so obvious and has indeed occurred this harm should easily be proven in a court of law and easily be reflected on the light bulb itself. If freedom is so trivial to you that you think its justified to use government force to push your will, I think you should reconsider that stance.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
There is not a Lowes or Home Depot near where you live?

"Incandescent bulbs meeting the standards that go into effect this January are already available in stores like Lowe’s and Home Depot."
Light Bulb Shopping Guide for Representative Barton | Jim Presswood's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC
Click to expand...

How in the world does that disprove what he said? You put in place a measure that bans a product and now you're saying they are in fact outdated and all people are willing to buy the alternative? Poor argument my friend.

And sorry, but you don't have the "freedom" to **** in my back yard.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is the light bulbs are just emitting light in a way you find ineffective while you use the excuse that it is in fact the cause of the harm. When the fact is that if there is a indeed a harm it would come from the source of the energy, not the light bulbs.
 
Henrin said:
How in the world does that disprove what he said? You put in place a measure that bans a product and now you're saying they are in fact outdated and all people are willing to buy the alternative? Poor argument my friend.
Click to expand...

He said there were no alternatives available. I pointed out they were as near as the local Lowes or Home Depot.


The problem with this is the light bulbs are just emitting light in a way you find ineffective while you use the excuse that it is in fact the cause of the harm. When the fact is that if there is a indeed a harm it would come from the source of the energy, not the light bulbs.
Click to expand...

Wasting energy unnecessarily, needlessly increases the amount of CO2 and other gases polluting our environment that we all depend on for our livelyhoods. Like I said, you don't have the "freedom" to **** in my back yard. Even back during colonial days you were required to travel a certain distance away from the fort to take a dump. People's freedom to **** inside the fort was a lesser priority than the health of the community as a whole.

Same principle here.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
He said there were no alternatives available. I pointed out they were as near as the local Lowes or Home Depot.
Click to expand...

I will go with what he said, thank you.




Wasting energy unnecessarily, needlessly increases the amount of CO2 and other gases polluting our environment that we all depend on for our livelyhoods. Like I said, you don't have the "freedom" to **** in my back yard. Even back during colonial days you were required to travel a certain distance away from the fort to take a dump. People's freedom to **** inside the fort was a lesser priority than the health of the community as a whole.

Same principle here.
Click to expand...

No, its really not. In your example the guy ****ting in the fort was seen as causing the harm and was in fact the origin of the harm. In this case here, the light bulb is needing more from the source considered harmful than the alternative when in use. Point being, if the harm itself is present it would be coming from the power plant, not either light bulb choice. If your example was true to its intent than not even the alternative would make you happy and everyone would still be ****ting in your yard. All you would have is less ****.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
That is not what I said.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock
They won't really be outdated until alternatives exist, that consumers willingly choose to buy in their place, without Big Brother having to stick its nose where it has no damn business doing so, in order to force consumers to buy the lights that it thinks they should be buying instead of the lights that they want to buy.
Click to expand...

I addressed your availability issue by noting the alternatives were available as close as the nearest Lowes or Home Depot, and I addressed the second part of your opinion, the "freedom" issue by noting that we haven't had the "freedom" to **** in our neighbors yard since the Colonial times when people were REQUIRED to go a distance away from the fort to take a crap.
 
Henrin said:
I will go with what he said, thank you.

No, its really not. In your example the guy ****ting in the fort was seen as causing the harm and was in fact the origin of the harm. In this case here, the light bulb is needing more from the source considered harmful than the alternative when in use. Point being, if the harm itself is present it would be coming from the power plant, not either light bulb choice. If your example was true to its intent than not even the alternative would make you happy and everyone would still be ****ting in your yard. All you would have is less ****.
Click to expand...

That's what we are going for - less **** in our environment.
 
Catawba said:
That's what we are going for - less **** in our environment.
Click to expand...

Less by limiting the rights of the user of the source they have no control over.
 
Misterveritis said:
I prefer not to pull out the ladder and climb up to the, what are they, 14 foot ceilings, to exchange bulbs. So when one burns out I replace them all. I expected by 54 dollars worth to last more than five months. I hate government intervention.

I was evaluating LEDs. They are very nice and very expensive. Still, if the government was not taking my choices away from me in some cases I would buy then for their convenience.

I am willing to pay a premium for reliability.
Click to expand...

You can buy an extension pole with a suction cup to remove and reinstall bulbs in high ceilings. I've got one and it works great.
 
Catawba said:
There is not a Lowes or Home Depot near where you live?

"Incandescent bulbs meeting the standards that go into effect this January are already available in stores like Lowe’s and Home Depot."
Light Bulb Shopping Guide for Representative Barton | Jim Presswood's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

And sorry, but you don't have the "freedom" to **** in my back yard.
Click to expand...

The incandescent bulbs in your link will also be banned in a few years. When that happens, we will be forced to buy inefficient CFL bulbs or expensive LED bulbs. My Lowes does not have the 100 watt Sylvania bulbs listed in your link. I don't believe they exist.

CFL bulbs do not work in cold climates like outdoor lighting or unheated sheds or garages. They also provide very short lifespans when turned on for only short periods like in baths and closets. LED bulbs put out very poor light and cost outrageous amounts of money. Will they come down in price? Probably, but will still be far more expensive than normal incandescent bulbs, creating a hardship for poor people.

Normal incandescent bulbs are more cost effective in some situations and we should have the right to continue purchasing them.
 
Gill said:
The incandescent bulbs in your link will also be banned in a few years. When that happens, we will be forced to buy inefficient CFL bulbs or expensive LED bulbs. My Lowes does not have the 100 watt Sylvania bulbs listed in your link. I don't believe they exist.

CFL bulbs do not work in cold climates like outdoor lighting or unheated sheds or garages. They also provide very short lifespans when turned on for only short periods like in baths and closets. LED bulbs put out very poor light and cost outrageous amounts of money. Will they come down in price? Probably, but will still be far more expensive than normal incandescent bulbs, creating a hardship for poor people.

Normal incandescent bulbs are more cost effective in some situations and we should have the right to continue purchasing them.
Click to expand...

Both CFLs and LEDs are cheaper than incandescent when you figure in the energy savings and longer life. Obviously there is a significant up-front cost with LEDs....
 
AdamT said:
Both CFLs and LEDs are cheaper than incandescent when you figure in the energy savings and longer life. Obviously there is a significant up-front cost with LEDs....
Click to expand...

Yeah?? Tell that to the single mother with two kids working two jobs just to pay for the electric bill, much less having to pay $20 for a new led bulb in her bathroom.

Why do libs hate poor people so much ??
 
AdamT said:
Both CFLs and LEDs are cheaper than incandescent when you figure in the energy savings and longer life. Obviously there is a significant up-front cost with LEDs....
Click to expand...

When you are considering the cost of CFLs & LEDs vs incandescent, is that taking into account the enviromental impacts, or is that just a consumer end cost figure?
 
Catawba said:
Wasting energy unnecessarily, needlessly increases the amount of CO2 and other gases polluting our environment that we all depend on for our livelyhoods.
Click to expand...

So why do you continue to waste energy by driving an automobile and heating and air-conditioning where you live? Come on Pot, stop it!
 
teamosil said:
So are you an anarchist? Or what is your standard exactly for when individual preference gives way to the overall well being of society?
Click to expand...

Good grief! You sure took a leap there in your logic. Because I prefer freedom to tyranny, that makes me an anarchist?

As for my standard, I will accept the Constitution of the United States and what its authors intended, which was limited Federal Government. The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to set standards for lightbulbs and, in essence, ban certain lightbulbs.
 
AdamT said:
First they came for the cheap, Chinese-made, energy wasting 100 watt light bulbs;
And I didn't speak out, because I love crappy Chicom **** and wasting energy;

Then they came for me....
Click to expand...

While being sarcastic, you actually hit the nail on the head. It's amazing how many people today no longer understand freedom.
 
Catawba said:
Are you claiming you ride a bike everywhere and live in a tent???
Click to expand...

Good Heavens, no! I drive a full-size car, perhaps, even larger than a full-size car. And, I live in a comfortable roomy 4 bedroom home in the burbs with heating, air-conditioning and those dreaded old lightbulbs. I am not the one saying that using a particular lightbulb is wasting energy. That would be you. And, your car uses more energy than your lightbulbs. And, your heating and air-conditioning use more energy than your lightbulbs. If you want energy to not be wasted, begin with yourself.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
The US Military is also doing more than just replacing energy wasting light bulbs:

Military going green to save lives, money

"(CNN) -- In 2010 alone, there were roughly 1,100 attacks on U.S. fuel convoys. This has cost the men and women of our armed forces dearly.

Military officials recently reported that more than 3,000 uniformed soldiers and contractors died while protecting such missions in Iraq from 2003 to 2007. But new Pentagon initiatives could dramatically reduce our battlefield fuel demand through the use of new clean energy technologies, helping save lives and stretch ever-scarce defense dollars.

The U.S. Department of Defense is one of the world's largest institutional energy consumers. Using more than 300,000 barrels of oil daily, the U.S. military consumes more petroleum products than three-quarters of the countries in the world.

In fiscal year 2008, energy cost the department about $17.9 billion. Leaders in the Pentagon, though, are up to the challenge."
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this piece doesn't tell me much. It tells me that war is Hell, but I knew that already. I cannot wait to see APCs, tanks, fighters and bombers using alternative energy sources. That should be cool. I would think that countries like Bangladesh, North Korea, and Myanmar don't use much petroleum; however, they are probably better environmentalists than you. They ride bikes and live in shacks that don't have heating or air-conditioning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom