• 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!

Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

Incandescent Light bulb ban.... do you care?

  • I care! The ban is foolish! I want my incandescent bulbs!

    Votes: 13 23.6%
  • I like the ban! Bring on new lighting technology!

    Votes: 17 30.9%
  • I dont care either way!

    Votes: 10 18.2%
  • I like incandescent bulbs and fluorescent ones. But dont make a law about them!

    Votes: 11 20.0%
  • OTHER / I dont know / Chimichanga

    Votes: 4 7.3%

  • Total voters
    55
The fort is the property of the state. The state can make rules on where restrooms will be on their property. Bad comparison.


The State can also pass regulations about your indoor plumbing.
 
You know what? No, I'm not going to just yet. I want to first see if you are actually able to hold a civilized debate. I want to know: Do you think we should preserve incandescent bulbs or switch over to CFLs?

The new standards do not require switching to CFLs. There are incandescent light bulbs now that meet the new standards and they can be purchased at Home Depot for $3 for a two bulb package.
 
Cars have pollution control systems. And in my state if your car does not pass a pollution inspection you can not drive it on the road, legally.

Tyranny!!! I tells ya, Tyranny!
 
I would question it. Federally they can not. State wise it should be illegal.


Statutory Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other than Automobiles, covering major household appliances including plumbing products. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 subsequently amended EPCA by requiring updated energy conservation standards for plumbing products if American Society of Mechanical Engineers/American National Standards Institute Standard A112.18.1M-1989 or A1129.6-1990 is updated. (42 U.S.C. 6295(j)(3);(k)(3))



Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Plumbing Products Rulemaking


They also can pass regulations on the water coming into your house.
 
Statutory Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other than Automobiles, covering major household appliances including plumbing products. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 subsequently amended EPCA by requiring updated energy conservation standards for plumbing products if American Society of Mechanical Engineers/American National Standards Institute Standard A112.18.1M-1989 or A1129.6-1990 is updated. (42 U.S.C. 6295(j)(3);(k)(3))



Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Plumbing Products Rulemaking


They also can pass regulations on the water coming into your house.

They pass regulations on everything. Big whoop. Not the reason I said they didn't have the power.
 
The fort is the property of the state. The state can make rules on where restrooms will be on their property. Bad comparison.

The government has the charge from we the people to protect health and the environment on our behalf, just as those in charge of the forts did.
 
Last edited:
They pass regulations on everything. Big whoop. Not the reason I said they didn't have the power.


Well good luck on that. I for one like bathing in and drinking clean potable water on a daily basis.
 
The government has the charge from we the people to protect health and the environment and on our behalf, just as those in charge of the forts did.

No they don't.
 
Well good luck on that. I for one like bathing in and drinking clean potable water on a daily basis.


What are you going on about now? You don't need government to have clean water to drink.
 
Want to tell me how treating everyone as a criminal is not?

Sorry, I don't see anyone being arrested. Want to post a link to this new claim?
 
No they don't.

It is the rule of law. Of course, I understand there is a fringe element in society that do not believe in the rule of law. Are you one of them?
 
Sorry, I don't see anyone being arrested. Want to post a link to this new claim?

Being a criminal doesn't mean you get arrested. The punishment could just be the loose of just one freedom or a fine to go with it. In this case everyone is dragged and given an order to obey and if they doesn't pass they can't drive the car that failed.
 
You don't need government to have clean water to drink.

Actually you do. Or about an 80% reduction in population (for everyone to have direct access to clean water). Direct access to clean water is limited in space and duration, and we are not doing so sustainably. Just because you happen to live on a lake or river does not mean you can access clean water without the government, for at least two reasons. First, that water can be polluted vi air and otherwise, and it is beyond your control. Second, that land could be taken from you without the government; you would be a static target and as soon as the invaders had stand-off weapons in excess of your range you'd cease to exist.
 
Last edited:
Being a criminal doesn't mean you get arrested. The punishment could just be the loose of just one freedom or a fine to go with it. In this case everyone is dragged and given an order to obey and if they doesn't pass they can't drive the car that failed.

As it should be, I don't want to be on the road with those who think it is their freedom to have non-working brakes if they choose. This is your example of what you see as tyranny eh???
 
Actually you do. Or about an 80% reduction in population (for everyone to have direct access to clean water). Direct access to clean water is limited in space and duration, and we are not doing so sustainably.

Water can not be destroyed and private companies can provide this service without government being involved. My point..

Just because you happen to live on a lake or river does not mean you can access clean water without the government, for at least two reasons. First, that water can be polluted vi air and otherwise, and it is beyond your control.

Ah, ok. I can clean the water and I'm not asking for the entire lake so..

Second, that land could be taken from you without the government; you would be a static target and as soon as the invaders had stand-off weapons in excess of your range you'd cease to exist.

Ok. But that has nothing to do with water but property. It also assumes I can't protect it.
 
As it should be, I don't want to be on the road with those who think it is their freedom to have non-working brakes if they choose. This is your example of what you see as tyranny eh???

Did they happen to crash into you?
 
...and what percentage of the population lives two blocks from work? I do, but this is clearly uncommon, and thus I walk to work.

Let's get back to the main subject of this thread. Please provide your argument of how the new light bulb is going to worsen anyone's life. Your argument supporting the bicycle is that for "some" it is an alternative. My argument supporting the new light bulb is that for "everyone" it is a reasonable alternative.

My point is, if it is, people will choose it.
 
It is the rule of law. Of course, I understand there is a fringe element in society that do not believe in the rule of law. Are you one of them?

Lets be clear they have no obligation to protect your health or the environment in which you live. They only have the obligation to protect your rights and preserve your liberty. Big difference my boy.
 
My point is, if it is, people will choose it.

No, they won't. Some people can't even tell you what is the difference between a 60W and 100W bulb. You expect me to believe that they're going to choose the more efficient bulb? If I remove the wrong answers from a multiple choice problem then everyone will get it right.
 
Honestly? I don't think they're going to be phased out entirely. I think the market will pick up, yes, but I think that demand will still exist for paper books. But there is a real chance that you are right. Look what happened to typewriters: Manual typewriters are only found in museums now, and even electronic ones have almost entirely been phased out. Might the laptop be next?
Manual typewriters museums, and even electric one are now being refurbished and being sold in small stores for $200 or more. Yes, not a lot but I don't like incorrect absolutes.
 
...Let's get back to the main subject of this thread. Please provide your argument of how the new light bulb is going to worsen anyone's life. Your argument supporting the bicycle is that for "some" it is an alternative. My argument supporting the new light bulb is that for "everyone" it is a reasonable alternative.
I need to repeat to support extrastrictman. I think halogen, longer life, incandescents will still be legal because they are somewhat more efficient. What I like about the law is that it allows me to use a 60w incandescent, the halogen version. It's a little more expensive w/ a much longer life and effenciency, where I need an incandescent. An engineer must have thought out this law.
 
Last edited:
So do light bulbs :shrug:

Wrong the argument is minimize the impact of pollution and reduce wasted energy on a already overly loaded grid.

Lightbulbs add up

pretty much everything is subject to increased energy efficiency.

The argument by the proponents of lightbulb bannings has not been to minimize the impact of pollution or reduce wasted energy. If either of those would have been the argument, they would seek a ban on air conditioning units and automobiles. Picking on lightbulbs is not even a serious effort.
 
The argument by the proponents of lightbulb bannings has not been to minimize the impact of pollution or reduce wasted energy. If either of those would have been the argument, they would seek a ban on air conditioning units and automobiles. Picking on lightbulbs is not even a serious effort.


Okay show me what you think the argument is.............
 
Back
Top Bottom