US lightbulb rules spark new political fight

The US law does not ban incandescent bulbs, but creates new standards for them, basically requiring increased efficiency, so that the bulbs with a lighting equivalent of 100 watts consume just 72 watts.

Industry representatives contend the state laws may be counterproductive, adding it was unlikely that a manufacturer would establish a plant just for one state.

Kim Freeman of GE Appliances & Lighting said the various state efforts could lead to "a patchwork of inconsistent standards across the nation that would mean increased manufacturing and distribution costs, higher prices for consumers and lost sales for retailers."

Kim Freeman of GE Appliances & Lighting said the various state efforts could lead to "a patchwork of inconsistent standards across the nation that would mean increased manufacturing and distribution costs, higher prices for consumers and lost sales for retailers."

I'm sorry but your fashion preference threatens the survival of mankind.

You will have to do without.

I'll rather take full continuous spectrum, instant on, dimmable, suitable for hot and cold, cheap lamps.

This whole white light nonsense just won't do. What's the sense in wasting energy to produce red and blue parts of the spectrum when you could see adequately under a yellow sodium lamp?

...but your fashion preference threatens the survival of mankind

"You can buy whatever you want."

Let's keep it that way please!

You can really call those yellow abominations "full continuous spectrum" with a straight face? The new incandescent bulbs have a much fuller spectrum (also most CFLs) than the ones you are complaining about losing. It is the full spectrum you don't like!

Firstly, they each contain a small amount of mercury (typically 3-5 mg per bulb), which will inevitably end up in landfill since a substantial number of people will not bother to recycle them but just chuck them in their household waste bins.
I wonder if a proper, comprehensive and independent environmental impact assessment of these CFL bulbs has actually been carried out?

As I have said, plese learn about what you are using and how to dispose them PROPERLY! Until then, any studies of environmental impacts are worthless due to users'wilful laziness and defiance to give a bad name to new tech so they can happily continue with their great-great-grand father's ways.

There are 6 sites within 6 miles of Chelmsford.
http://www.mass.g...gmap.htm

Get over yourself.

I was taking SH's word for granted

Meh,

you can find out quite easily where to dispose of CFLs, you just don't give a damn.

Why would you do that? He has been proven to lie, many times.

SH has provably lied to you on this particular matter,

...has SH threatened you?

Sounds a bit obsessive to me.

Another example of 'tolerant' 'progressives'

Apparently the govt doesn't give a damn or they would be promoting locations and make it easy for everyone. If the govt doesn't care, why should I?

Which is a typical 'progressive' response.

This (his) attitude is not the way the founding fathers of this nation had hoped we would engage in political discourse.

How do you know? Their political discourse was quite vigorous

So, J-n, why don't you defend your 'progressive' positions instead of complaining about civility?

If Lowes or Home Depot were so eager to recycle CFLs, why don't they promote that service in their stores?

$2 TRILLION in two years on unconstitutional actions unrelated to any wars

And we have an entire political party, the socialist democrats, that refuse to acknowledge the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security

Their discourse may have been vigorous but they did not stoop to the levels seen here.

Republicans started the wars we are involved in.

They are unfunded BECAUSE of actions of Republican politicians taking money from those accounts,

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

GW did not engage in conflict without the support of Congress.

145 Democrats voted to "To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world"

Yea incandescents!" and "Don't try to force me to save energy - that's between me and my power bill!"

ryggesogn2, in J-n you obviously have an opponent with whom you can debate who doesn't immediately reach for name-calling as a strategy.

While i understand the desire to not be forced by government to do or be a party to things you do not agree with, it is, unfortunately, the nature of the beast.

While i understand the desire to not be forced by government to do or be a party to things you do not agree with,

Where is the limit?

I am as Liberal as they get,

Where is the limit?

That's a good question. Everyone has their own opinion on the answer. You might not want government telling you what lightbulbs to purchase, I might not want the government telling me that a corporation has as many if not more rights than I do.

It's a pendulum and we vote in the leaders who most accurately represent our beliefs. Or at least we try.

they tend to favor state intervention for the purposes of providing economic, social, and cultural rights and ensuring the equitable distribution of the values or capabilities involved

In free markets, the consumer has the ultimate power over any corporation. Why don't 'liberals' trust consumers?

i am in favor of providing rights to Individuals and making sure those right are equal.

As a counterpoint to negative civil and political rights, they tend to favor state intervention for the purposes of providing economic, social, and cultural rights and ensuring the equitable distribution of the values or capabilities involved

a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder.

So, you are saying that the state (federal government) mandating the aboliton of "Seperate but Equal Laws" was a bad thing?

are not something that is typically recognized by governments or extra governmental bodies,

I also support the governments right to take MY wealth and redistribute it to you.

as most thinking folks realize that a combination of the two types is the only way a society can function.

If the state has the 'right' to legally plunder your wealth, why shouldn't they plunder it all?

But yes, the aboliton of seperate but equal laws, does qualify as a "Positive right", that infringes on individual/business property rights.

Telling me to go read a book means that you are unable to explain yourself,

he right to not be discriminated against when applying for a job based on race, age, religion, etc etc can't be a bad thing.

I'm sorry but your fashion preference threatens the survival of mankind.