Who Shut Off the Lights? Bring Back the Incandescent Lightbulb

Who Shut Off the Lights? Bring Back the Incandescent Lightbulb

Adam Sparks
BigGovernment.com
February 8, 2011

The enviros have succeeded in destroying both the environment and jobs with their radical legislative successes. First, it was their complete stranglehold on our nation’s energy policy: no new nuclear plants, a complete ban on exploring for natural gas domestically or for drilling for oil near our coasts. This forced us into the more hazardous and more expensive deep water drilling. This time they’ve succeeded with the outlawing of the lowly light bulb. The incandescent light bulb, the one Thomas Alva Edison invented in 1879, will be put to death in the US due to federal energy regulations. A law passed quietly in 2007 will be phased in next year with the final sales of incandescents occurring in 2014. Don’t blame Obama, this was done under George W. Bush’s watch.

The liberals, who always cry for “choice”, don’t want to give the American consumer choice in choosing light bulbs. They’re apparently only pro-choice with baby killing. Otherwise, they will tell you just how to live your life, thank you. The banning of the incandescent light bulb meant that General Electric, the largest maker of light bulbs, had to close all their plants in the US. The last factory closed in Winchester, VA. in September of last year. The jobs are now all in China. They’re the largest makers of the compact fluorescent bulbs, CFLs. They’re not made here, in part, because they’re too hazardous.

Ironically, the CFL’s contain mercury, a highly toxic substance. A broken bulb can create an environmental nightmare and according to Scientific American at least one case of mercury poisoning has been linked to these bulbs.

Toxic cleanup crews may be necessary to contain a broken light bulb. I guess this is what the enviros mean by creating more “green jobs”. Cleaning up the mess that they’ve foisted on the American people through advocacy of their radical legislation. First, we ban imports of lead in Chinese toys and now this: forcing Americans to buy toxic light bulbs from the Chinese at the expenses of American jobs and consumer safety? What kind of insanity is this?

Congressmen Ted Poe, R-Texas got up on the house floor to give a hilarious step by step explanation of EPA rules on how to dispose of a broken CFL. Suffice it to say, you’ll cry if you don’t laugh. You practically need to hire a hazmat team. The process is a convoluted and expensive nightmare.

Rep. Poe also makes the most impassioned and articulate plea for overturning this legislation.



Fortunately, there’s hope on the horizon. The new chairman of the House Energy Committee, Michigan Republican Rep. Fred Upton, promised to re-examine this ban on the incandescent. Let’s just hope Representatives Fred Upton and Ted Poe along with their GOP house can keep the lights on for us.

It is shit like this that makes me wonder how anyone buys this "green" agenda crap. Probably because the facts in the article above are NEVER discussed on the evening news broadcasts by the major networks or by the mainstream media at large.

Honestly, wtf was Bush thinking in letting this piece of crap getting through? Yeah, I know... just another freaking RINO.

I guess I'm gonna have to start stockpiling incandescent bulbs. No way I'm buying any of those Chinese mercury bombs.

My closet is full of new and unused light bulbs. If anyone needs any, just let me know. They're going for $19.95 a piece.

TexasBlue wrote:My closet is full of new and unused light bulbs. If anyone needs any, just let me know. They're going for $19.95 a piece.

Wise guy....

And when they burn out, you can throw them in the trash. No hazmat suits needed.

TexasBlue wrote:And when they burn out, you can throw them in the trash. No hazmat suits needed.

Exactly! Or even better, they can be recycled for the glass and metal... can't recycle one of those damn Chinese mercury bombs.

It's just mindblowing how stupid people can be.

And remember, not only did Bush sign it but the final bill passed 86-8 in the Senate and 314-100 in the House. Hardly a partisan effort there.

TexasBlue wrote:And remember, not only did Bush sign it but the final bill passed 86-8 in the Senate and 314-100 in the House. Hardly a partisan effort there.

Oh... I know... I was nearly apoplectic when this piece of crap passed.

You should read the Wiki entry on this ban... and Wiki is HARDLY a right-wing resource. But even this entry shows the massive opposition by regular people to this ban around the world.

Can you say "soft tyranny?"

Alexis de Tocqueville was right. How anyone could deny this is beyond my comprehension.

The way I see it is that if the individual states want to pass stuff like this, go ahead. When business and people leave, they have only themselves to blame. I can't leave the country but I can move to another state.

Then to go along with that, it's no wonder as to why the southern states are gaining population and progressive northern/western states are losing.

TexasBlue wrote:The way I see it is that if the individual states want to pass stuff like this, go ahead. When business and people leave, they have only themselves to blame. I can't leave the country but I can move to another state.

Then to go along with that, it's no wonder as to why the southern states are gaining population and progressive northern/western states are losing.

Precisely. It's why people are bailing on states like California and New York to name just a couple.

But honestly, this is exactly what de Tocqueville predicted back in 1835 in his book "Democracy in America."

It's time for people to realize that our states are sovereign states within this country, as per the constitution.

TexasBlue wrote:It's time for people to realize that our states are sovereign states within this country, as per the constitution.

The whole concept of state sovereignty and federalism is lost on the last two generations at least. Most people here haven't even read the Constitution of the United States... never mind their own state constitutions.

We can thank our government schools for that.

dblboggie wrote:The whole concept of state sovereignty and federalism is lost on the last two generations at least. Most people here haven't even read the Constitution of the United States... never mind their own state constitutions.

We can thank our government schools for that.

Straight up!

All I'm sayin. The whole concept of being a responsible citizen by being informed has all but disappeared here. It has only very recently been revived by the Tea Party movement. Let us hope that this movement retains its momentum and grows.

Seriously guys, it is shit like this that makes me lose respect for both of you. Did you check any of his information or was the fact that it was a paranoid rant against 'enviros' enough for you to slobber over every word? The third rate hack who compiled this is blissfully unaware of the quantity of every day items that use mercury in them, including a little known (to him at least) object called a 'thermometer' that gets put into people's mouths?

And seeing as you so readily dismiss cable2's articles by 'mediamatters' because they are apparently left wing and have an anti-american agenda, please give us one good reason why we ought to take a website called 'big government' seriously? Because it appeals to your prejudices and mediamatters does not?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Seriously guys, it is shit like this that makes me lose respect for both of you.

That was an unnecessary cheap shot.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Did you check any of his information or was the fact that it was a paranoid rant against 'enviros' enough for you to slobber over every word?

As a matter of fact......

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:The third rate hack who compiled this is blissfully unaware of the quantity of every day items that use mercury in them, including a little known (to him at least) object called a 'thermometer' that gets put into people's mouths?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs-dangerous

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23694819/

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/03/04/mb-light-bulbs.html

Those links came from the story itself. The 3rd rate hack did a little homework. He even used MSNBC as a source.




And it looks like Europeans don't like it either.........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8229476.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8222941.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6082853/EU-ban-on-traditional-lightbulbs-prompts-panic-buying.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,638494,00.html

http://www.wienerzeitung.at/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4082&Alias=wzo&cob=434279

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:And seeing as you so readily dismiss cable2's articles by 'mediamatters' because they are apparently left wing and have an anti-american agenda, please give us one good reason why we ought to take a website called 'big government' seriously? Because it appeals to your prejudices and mediamatters does not?

Actually Tex, that Scientific American article makes a good case FOR CFL bulbs. Reading it, it would seem the mercury issue has been overblown.

Personally, I'm old enough to remember playing with mercury as a kid - actually handling it on several occasions. It wasn't a big deal back then.

But here's the REAL problem I have with CFL's; we are being FORCED to use them, rather than allowing the free market to make that choice. I had no problem with government information campaigns that encouraged people to make the switch voluntarily, making the case that they were not only greener but cheaper over time.

But that wasn't good enough for our imperial federal government. When that wasn't going fast enough for them, they then created "efficiency" regulations and enforced those on incandescent manufacturers. And when THAT wasn't moving fast enough, they stepped in and legislated an entire industry out of existence.

I'm sick and tired of the federal government and their extra-constitutional thuggery. I am incensed that they feel it is their place to rule over every tiny aspect of our personal lives.

I have a visceral hatred for what is happening in America today because our federal government sees no limit on federal power. And this latest affront has me steaming.

If CFL's are so damn good, then let them PROVE it in the free market place. If they are as good as they claim to be, then they should have no problem shoving an inferior technology aside over time!

I happen to bulbs like that.

They last longer.... and I made the choice to use it.

Wasn't supposed to be a cheap shot Tex, but an expression of concern that you and dbl dismiss without any consideration articles posted by other members on the basis of 'left wing bias'. And then you go and post a website like this with an article that is a barely concealed rant against so-called 'enviro wackos', that also compares such 'enviro wackos' with 'baby killing' and fawn over every word without bothering to check his information on the bulbs. The author ignores the other every day household items that have mercury in, and items that have far more dangerous substances in them. Why are these ignored? Oh yes, because they are inconvenient to his diatribe against 'enviro wackos' who cannot be blamed for toxic chemicals in our refrigerators and freezers, mercury in our thermometers and barometers. Now if you want to debate climate science you know where the relevant articles are

As for your list of cited articles, so what? All that proves is that he can use Google. Is that all it takes to be an investigative journalist these days? Hell, we're all qualified then.

I certainly sympathise with your right to choose to a degree but the stumbling block is your refusal to accept the very real damage we are doing to the environment.

The problem with your free market approach is (once again) that most people are too short sighted to see the obvious benefits. Would you rather spend $1 for something that lasts a month or $6 for something that lasts 9 months? Now if you really sat and thought about it, you would go for the more economical option because time vs cost factor means you get more lastability. However, when in the supermarket you see two items, one for $1 and the other for $6, what would be your instinct? And people are reluctant to change because of the outward cost despite that they would get better vfm. Now, couple that with the cheaper option also being the most hazardous, we have a very interesting problem and cries of 'government tyranny.... What about my freedoms?' Is another example of 'The Tragedy of the Commons.'

TexasBlue wrote:Who Shut Off the Lights? Bring Back the Incandescent Lightbulb

Adam Sparks
BigGovernment.com
February 8, 2011.

when I read the title of this thread a smile can to my face and in my mind, I was like, Yaaaaa bring back the incandescent bulbs.. then I started to read But could not get passed the extreme right wing propaganda rant of

The liberals, who always cry for “choice”, don’t want to give the American consumer choice in choosing light bulbs. They’re apparently only pro-choice with baby killing.

could or should any one get past such right wing hate message

They’re apparently only pro-choice with baby killing

.

Baby Killing equals Lightbulbs.. Yes.. No.. No.. Yes ???

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I certainly sympathise with your right to choose to a degree but the stumbling block is your refusal to accept the very real damage we are doing to the environment.

Many here aren't for destroying the environment. People here like to have choices and don't like govt intrusion. I know you've heard all of this before, ad nauseum, but it's actually how most Americans feel about things.

The correct way for the govt to have done this would be to do a slow phase-in. Of course, they gave plenty of time to convert but it's still govt mandating how and when to do things. On the flip-side, I would have no problem with the states doing it. Cali already has. All fine and dandy.

As I said above, your free market approach doesn't work. We are damaging the environment while we dilly-dally over this and other issues, effectively rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic but in this case we have the ability to plug the gap but always, the deckchairs must be sorted first. When we reach the point of no return for humanity, we'll still be dill-dallying over the issue and then what is and isn't legally permissable will no longer matter.

Under other circumstances I guess the ranting author might expect the government to ban dangerous substances if it wasn't at the mercy of 'baby killing enviros'?

As I said, just another Tragedy of the Commons that we walk into willingly.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:As I said above, your free market approach doesn't work. We are damaging the environment while we dilly-dally over this and other issues, effectively rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic but in this case we have the ability to plug the gap but always, the deckchairs must be sorted first. When we reach the point of no return for humanity, we'll still be dill-dallying over the issue and then what is and isn't legally permissable will no longer matter.

Under other circumstances I guess the ranting author might expect the government to ban dangerous substances if it wasn't at the mercy of 'baby killing enviros'?

As I said, just another Tragedy of the Commons that we walk into willingly.

So, the "solution" you propose is for the government to simply say "fuck you" to the people they are supposed to be representing and to seize such freedoms as they deem damaging to the environment. And since CO2 has been deemed a "pollutant" then this means that ANYTHING that creates CO2 now justifiably falls under government control whether said control is legal under one's form of government or not. This means the government has ABSOLUTE power to control and regulate ALL CO2 production.

Is that how you see it?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:As I said above, your free market approach doesn't work. We are damaging the environment while we dilly-dally over this and other issues, effectively rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic but in this case we have the ability to plug the gap but always, the deckchairs must be sorted first. When we reach the point of no return for humanity, we'll still be dill-dallying over the issue and then what is and isn't legally permissable will no longer matter.

Under other circumstances I guess the ranting author might expect the government to ban dangerous substances if it wasn't at the mercy of 'baby killing enviros'?

As I said, just another Tragedy of the Commons that we walk into willingly.

dblboggie wrote:So, the "solution" you propose is for the government to simply say "fuck you" to the people they are supposed to be representing and to seize such freedoms as they deem damaging to the environment. And since CO2 has been deemed a "pollutant" then this means that ANYTHING that creates CO2 now justifiably falls under government control whether said control is legal under one's form of government or not. This means the government has ABSOLUTE power to control and regulate ALL CO2 production.

Is that how you see it?

I don't want to type words into the mouth of "The_Amber_Spyglass" but surly what one would like a government to do would be to protect it's people not the profits of big business.. if that government was elected on that understanding [surly you would back such a government and would cheer it on as it changed the laws so it could protect the people and not as I say the profits of business] in the same way as government's [even American] have to right to protect it's people from the spread of killer illness.

as I say I don't want to type words into the mouth of "The_Amber_Spyglass" .. so take what I just typed as just being my own person view

cable2 wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:As I said above, your free market approach doesn't work. We are damaging the environment while we dilly-dally over this and other issues, effectively rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic but in this case we have the ability to plug the gap but always, the deckchairs must be sorted first. When we reach the point of no return for humanity, we'll still be dill-dallying over the issue and then what is and isn't legally permissable will no longer matter.

Under other circumstances I guess the ranting author might expect the government to ban dangerous substances if it wasn't at the mercy of 'baby killing enviros'?

As I said, just another Tragedy of the Commons that we walk into willingly.

dblboggie wrote:So, the "solution" you propose is for the government to simply say "fuck you" to the people they are supposed to be representing and to seize such freedoms as they deem damaging to the environment. And since CO2 has been deemed a "pollutant" then this means that ANYTHING that creates CO2 now justifiably falls under government control whether said control is legal under one's form of government or not. This means the government has ABSOLUTE power to control and regulate ALL CO2 production.

Is that how you see it?

I don't want to type words into the mouth of "The_Amber_Spyglass" but surly what one would like a government to do would be to protect it's people not the profits of big business.. if that government was elected on that understanding [surly you would back such a government and would cheer it on as it changed the laws so it could protect the people and not as I say the profits of business] in the same way as government's [even American] have to right to protect it's people from the spread of killer illness.

as I say I don't want to type words into the mouth of "The_Amber_Spyglass" .. so take what I just typed as just being my own person view

I want a government that adheres to the rule of law! I want a government that operates legally, within the confines of our constitution. I don’t need a government to take care of me from cradle to grave. I’m a big boy, I can take care of myself.

I’m not afraid of “businesses” because they cannot force me to do anything. But giving our federal government extra-constitutional power to regulate every single human activity in the name of CO2 output reduction is truly something to fear. The government is the only body that can use deadly force to get its way. They have all the guns, and they CAN force me to do something I do not wish to do. Businesses cannot do that.

We have laws for a reason, I want our government to respect and uphold them, not seize my freedoms in the name of protecting me from myself. If I wanted a government like that, I’d move to another country.