Texas light bulb bill would skirt federal plan

Jun 14, 2011 By Anna M. Tinsley

Texas could soon be in a position to turn the lights off on a federal plan to phase out certain light bulbs.

State lawmakers have passed a bill that allows Texans to skirt federal efforts to promote more efficient light bulbs, which ultimately pushes the swirled, compact fluorescent bulbs over the 100-watt many grew up with.

The measure, sent to Gov. Rick Perry for consideration, lets any incandescent light bulb manufactured in Texas - and sold in that state - avoid the authority of the federal government or the repeal of the 2007 act that starts phasing out some next year.

"Let there be light," state Rep. George Lavender, R-Texarkana, wrote on Facebook after the bill passed. "It will allow the continued manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs in Texas, even after the goes into effect. ... It's a good day for Texas."

The Council, a New York-based , is calling on Perry to veto the bill.

"The Texas legislation is designed to showcase the state's independence," said Bob Keefe, senior press secretary with the council. "But what it really shows off is how some politicians in the Lone Star State will do anything to score political points - even if it means echoing misinformation and wasting time and money passing legislation that can't practically be implemented and isn't in the best interest of constituents."

Perry has until Sunday to veto bills, sign them into law or let them become law without his signature.

Lavender has described his House Bill 2510 as a common-sense bill.

"The 'new and improved' compact don't work as promised, are significantly more expensive as are the LEDs and have environmental and disposal problems due to the mercury they contain," according to a statement from his office.

The goal of the bill is to make incandescent light bulbs manufactured in Texas - that are sold in Texas and don't leave the state - not subject to federal law or federal rules. Such a bulb would have to have "Made in Texas" clearly imprinted somewhere on it. There are no estimates of how many incandescent light bulbs are manufactured in Texas.

If the bill becomes law, it would go into effect Jan. 1 and would apply to light bulbs made from that day forward.

U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, is trying to repeal the 2007 energy independence act passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush.

The federal act doesn't ban incandescent light bulbs, but it creates new standards for them, such as requiring 100-watt bulbs to be 25 percent more efficient. After that, similar changes will go into effect for 75-, 60- and 40-watt bulbs. The goal is to make the bulbs more energy efficient because much of the traditional bulbs' energy leaves the bulb as heat rather than as light.

The act requires the changes or essentially removes incandescent light bulbs from the market by 2014, leaving consumers to mostly use fluorescent bulbs, which some say are more energy efficient and others say are just more expensive.

"People don't want the government dictating the lighting they can use," Barton said. "Traditional incandescent bulbs have been brightening the night since Thomas Edison created the first one in 1879. They are safe, cheap and reliable."

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee may soon hold a hearing on energy efficiency and could include Barton's BULB act.

"I am happy that the state Legislature voted to keep incandescent lights on in Texas, but the state wouldn't have to get involved if the federal government would just butt out," Barton said.

For some, the Texas bill represents this state's efforts to claim sovereignty from the federal government, proving that Texas has the right to regulate some commercial activities conducted only in this state.

"Telling Texans what types of light bulbs they can manufacture, sell, purchase and use is not the proper role of the federal government," said Janise Cookston, a spokeswoman for the Wharton-based nonprofit group "We Texans," which works to protect "private property, personal and economic liberty" as well as constitutional government.

"This bill sends the message to Washington that Texas will no longer sit idly by and take unconstitutional intrusion into our lives."

Some say they worry about fluorescent bulbs because they contain mercury, a toxic metal linked to birth defects and behavioral disorders. Estimates show the average bulb has 4 to 5 milligrams of mercury, enough to cover the tip of a ballpoint pin. No mercury is emitted while the bulbs are in use, but vapors can escape if a bulb breaks.

Supporters also say fluorescent bulbs can cost more than $3 each; incandescent bulbs can cost as little as 35 cents each.

Opponents say the health risks of the mercury are minimal. And they say the bill violates the constitutional clause that states the federal law is the "supreme law of the land."

They say the state can't prevent a light bulb from being taken across a state line, which would make it subject to interstate commerce rules and federal regulation. They also say incandescent bulbs are archaic and have been replaced by fluorescent bulbs that last longer, are more environmentally friendly and don't create the same fire hazards incandescent bulbs do.

"Nobody is forcing anybody to use only compact florescent bulbs," said Keefe, of the NRDC. "Several manufacturers are already making incandescent bulbs that have the same lighting quality as old-school incandescents that we all know and use. It's just that newer, more efficient versions use 25-30 percent less energy - saving the average Texas household an estimated $100 per year and reducing overall Texas energy bills by more than $900 million."

Officials with Osram Sylvania, a popular producer of incandescent , declined to comment on Texas' bill. But the company noted that it has developed a more efficient incandescent bulb called the Sylvania SuperSaver that will meet the new federal requirements.

GE, meanwhile, is moving forward to fill the demand for fluorescent bulbs.

Officials there say demand for traditional incandescent bulbs has declined and consumers have switched to more efficient lighting.

"As policymakers consider changes to current legislation, we hope they keep in mind that repeal of national standards would result in states establishing their own standards," said Kim Freeman, a spokeswoman for GE Appliances & Lighting. "That could create 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."

Explore further: Researchers achieve 'holy grail' of battery design: A stable lithium anode

4.1 /5 (8 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Lights out for old 100-watt bulbs in EU next week

Aug 26, 2009

Old-style 100-watt light bulbs will be banned in Europe's shops from next week in favour of new energy-saving models, but consumers groups on Wednesday gave the move a guarded welcome.

Care for some light music? LEDs make it possible

May 12, 2010

(AP) -- Light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, are starting to become cost-effective alternatives to standard light bulbs and fluorescent tubes. That opens up some interesting possibilities, such as the combination ...

Recommended for you

Economical and agile offshore construction ship

Jul 25, 2014

Siemens is currently installing the power supply and propulsion systems into a new multi-purpose offshore construction ship for Toisa Ltd. The ship, which is being built by the Korean company Hyundai Heavy ...

User comments : 55

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Moebius
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2011
I just bought my first LED bulb for about $20. It's a 60W replacement and it works pretty well so far. That price isn't too far from when CFL's first came out. This bulb should last much longer than a CFL and has no mercury to spill if you drop it.

Seems to me CFL's should be phased out before incandescent and LED's phased in now. Problem solved. Just provide recycling for the LED bulbs at all points of sale.
Jaeherys
3 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2011
Nostalgia, almost on par with ignorance.
Shelgeyr
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 14, 2011
This is wonderful news, and I sincerely hope Perry signs it.

"People don't want the government dictating the lighting they can use," Barton said.

Amen to that!

Moebius said:
Seems to me CFL's should be phased out before incandescent and LED's phased in now.

How about not phasing anything out (by which I assume you mean have the law dictate what is or is not available), and letting the market take care of it?

Much as I hate, hate, hate CFL bulbs, I understand that some people like them (no accounting for taste, apparently). I say let them buy them if they like, and grant the rest of us the same privilege. I'll stick with incandescent bulbs, and be yet again grateful to God above that I live in Texas.
Shelgeyr
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2011
Addressing a couple of specific points:

And they say the bill violates the constitutional clause that states the federal law is the "supreme law of the land."


Nonsense. This is a 10th Amendment issue, not an Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 one.

They say the state can't prevent a light bulb from being taken across a state line, which would make it subject to interstate commerce rules...


Nonsense. Someone should explain to these unnamed "opponents" what "interstate commerce" actually means, i.e "trade that takes places across state lines". Buying something in-state and then bringing it across state lines for yourself doesnt count. You just cant legally resell it.

The idea that simply taking your own property across state lines makes it subject to federal trade regulations is a political tactic intended to grow federal power. Big surprise, huh?
FrankHerbert
4.1 / 5 (41) Jun 14, 2011
Shelgeyr, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wickard v. Filburn.

http://en.wikiped..._Filburn
cyberCMDR
2.8 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2011
There is an easier way to make CFLs and LEDs more popular in Texas, if you want the marketplace to decide what bulbs are bought. Add a Federal surcharge to your energy bill. That way, people have the freedom to choose to spend more of their income on obsolete lighting fixtures, while the smarter people save by using more efficient technologies. Less smoke/mercury out of the coal fired power plants, so we don't need a cap and trade architecture. Helps balance the budget, and drives energy innovation. All these good reasons mean that conservatives will hate the idea.
unknownorgin
4 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2011
Way to go texas, the federal government has better things to do instead of telling the public what type of lightbulb to use. I use CFLs only because they do lower my electric bill but CFLs use more resources to make than the incandescent bulb and the LED type will not sell well until the price drops and maybe a night light feature could be added to make them more useful.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (13) Jun 15, 2011
"Way to go texas, the federal government has better things to do instead of telling the public what type of lightbulb to use." - Unknown

Banning Incandescent bulbs, an exceptionally good decision, will free up the equivalent of 20 or so electric generating stations nationally. That power can either be taken off line - in the case of coal burning facilities, or re-tasked to other purposes.

Those Conservatives who whine that they will continue to use Incandescent bulbs are in effect arguing that they will continue to send tens of billions of dollars to America's oil producing friends in the middle east.

Republicans are traitors to the core.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (12) Jun 15, 2011
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - ShelgeyrTard

Sorry ConservaTard but you don't even know your own constitution.

The regulation of interstate commerce is clearly a federally mandated function of the U.S. constitution. And as such your reference to the 10th amendment is completely not applicable because they are powers delegated to the United States.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th ammendment

In general, the more you see some Conservative American whining about the federal government violating the constitution, the more ignorant or dishonest that Conservative is regarding the constitution.

Moebius
4.5 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2011
CFL's are dangerous. CFL's can break when dropped. Lots of CFL's WILL be dropped and broken spreading mercury contamination.

They need to be phased out. The market never has and never will do even an adequate job of policing itself when it comes to safety.
FrankHerbert
4.2 / 5 (44) Jun 15, 2011
Anecdotal but:

My father had an allergic reaction/neurological disorder that causes him coordination problems. The doctors couldn't figure out what was wrong with him and did virtually every test they could think of. Tens of thousands of dollars worth of tests.

During this time period he broke a CFL by trying to twist it by the bulb (lol). Not just that, he then vacuumed it up (which the package says not to do! OMG!).

Back to the tests. His mercury was tested about a month after this as part of the battery of tests they were giving him. His mercury was exceptionally low.

The point is CFLs have very little mercury and unless you are breaking them open routinely and huffing them I doubt you have any health risk. I think the hysteria comes from the older, larger bulbs that have more mercury, and the fact that having just about any amount of mercury in something will earn it a hazmat label.

Have any of you called poison control over swallowing Listerine or tooth paste? Read the labels
Shelgeyr
2.9 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2011
Thank you, FrankHerbert. I am in fact familiar with Wickard v. Filburn, and regardless that I think it is bad law, and regardless that YES it is still in fact the law, I would argue that the Wickard precedent does not apply because contrary to the actual points of law upon which Wickard was rendered, once the incandescent ban goes into place there will not be any interstate trade for which the intrastate trade could be considered to be infringing upon.

The key was that "failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market", but if there is no "interstate market" then regulations of it can't be undercut. We're not talking "black market" here.

I'd love Wickard to be overturned, but even if it never is, a "United States v. Morrison (2000)"-based argument can be made that it doesn't apply here.

ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2011
The point is CFLs have very little mercury and unless you are breaking them open routinely and huffing them I doubt you have any health risk.

You may be correct, but CFL require a separate disposal path in most communities.
You are not supposed to just toss them into the bin when they burn out. Another regulation.
lighthouse10
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2011
According to the Governor's office,
Governor Rick Perry has decided to sign Bill allowing the light bulbs in Texas
Unofficial as yet...
freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com
.
.
dandaniels
not rated yet Jun 19, 2011
so thats whats makeing the world heat up all those light bulbs
bugmenot23
3.5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2011
I can understand MOST people not wanting the heat from incandescent bulbs, but some of us that live out in the boonies NEED that heat in the winter to keep water lines in well houses from freezing up. I'd like to see a CFL keep my lines thawed out.
SCVGoodToGo
5 / 5 (1) Jun 20, 2011
And if you take power generation mercury emission into account, CFL's are still 1/5 that of an incandescent even if the Edison bulb contains no Hg.
FrankHerbert
4.1 / 5 (40) Jun 20, 2011
I can understand MOST people not wanting the heat from incandescent bulbs, but some of us that live out in the boonies NEED that heat in the winter to keep water lines in well houses from freezing up. I'd like to see a CFL keep my lines thawed out.


Free tip, buy an electric heater. They don't burn out every 1000 hours.
dudevic
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2011
Ever heard of the Supremacy Claus? It means that federal law is supreme throughout the land, even in Texas. This is just another sad attempt by backwoods Texas Republicans trying to regain ground on what power the states have already given to the federal government. Its just sad that Texas is using light bulbs as a "showcase the state's independence." Really? As if their aren't more pressing matters to deal with in the Texas Legislature. What a waste!!!
1630
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2011
CyberCmdr, "There is an easier way to make CFLs and LEDs more popular in Texas, if you want the marketplace to decide what bulbs are bought. Add a Federal surcharge to your energy bill."

So, federal manipulation of energy cost is your definition of letting the market decide?

"Less smoke/mercury out of the coal fired power plants, so we don't need a cap and trade architecture."

Leaving aside the idiocies of Cap and trade (which is a CO2 regulation architecture, not smoke and mercury), coal is less important here in Texas. Most of our electrical power generation is clean natural gas, and nuclear (and we lead the nation in wind power generation).

What's wrong with letting people and the marketplace decide? I don't like to pay a lot for energy. I drive a hybrid and for the house,I installed solar screens and radiant barrier. They paid for themselves in 24 months. But I hate CFLs, so I don't mind the small amount extra per month for old bulbs. That's how the market is supposed to work.
Wowbagger
3 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2011
Don't forget that these "backwoods Texas Republicans" have also balanced the state budget, leading to Texas having one of the best economies and housing markets in the union. They must be doing something right. Why not reassert the 10th amendment, which has all but been completely ignored anyway?
FrankHerbert
3.8 / 5 (44) Jun 21, 2011
They also take more federal money per capita than most states.
Shelgeyr
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2011
Ever heard of the Supremacy Claus? It means that federal law is supreme throughout the land, even in Texas.


Not on all matters... kind of why we have a 10th Amendment in the first place. Federal law is only supreme in areas where federal law is allowed to exist at all. Granted, that's been abused a great deal (see above note re: Wickard v. Filburn), but the 10th is still in place...
1630
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2011
FrankHebert: "They also take more federal money per capita than most states."

As a Texan that didn't sound right, so I looked at your claim. It was not only wrong, but quite the opposite in fact. In 2005, Texas ranked 40 out of 50 (not 57) states in federal per capita spending, and that was with a Texas Republican in the White House.
FrankHerbert
4 / 5 (43) Jun 21, 2011
Sorry, I worded that poorly. I meant to say "Texas takes in more federal money than they pay out," which is absolutely true.

http://www.politi...ly-rece/

(not 57)

Too bad it's not 49 instead of 50.

So in short, please secede. It will save the successful states a lot of money.
1630
2.8 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2011
Did you even bother to read the article that you linked? The study that Maddow referred to covered a 25 year period, in which Texas only received more than it paid in for 6 of those years. In those 6 years, yes, Texas received more federal funds than it paid in taxes. So did 33 other states. As the article notes, it is not unusual.
The interesting thing is what constitutes federal money. Apparently every penny from DC to Texas counts. It's not just highway funds, but things ranging from military spending (a lot of major bases and defense contractors in Tx) to federal retirements (a lot of retirees here as well). In which case, yes, I suppose you're right. My military retirement brings more to me than I pay in taxes.
FrankHerbert
4 / 5 (43) Jun 21, 2011
If you had read the article more carefully you would have noticed that the trend reversed in 2003, and since then Texas has consistently paid less than it has taken in.

The interesting thing is what constitutes federal money.

If not this:
Apparently every penny from DC to Texas counts.

then what? Seems like you want to redefine what federal money means to suit your view.

Why shouldn't military bases be counted? Let's watch Texas' unemployment skyrocket when it secedes and all those military jobs leave the state. Let's let Texas pick up the tab on those federal retirements since they aren't worth counting either.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with Texas per se. My problem is with the gaping maw jack-ass minority that is constantly spewing vomit beyond your borders. Wall off a few hundred acres and let them "secede" please.
Shelgeyr
2.5 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2011
FrankHerbert, I haven't bothered to check the state-by-state federal money intake vs. payout stats, BUT given the nightmarish state of the federal economy, isn't it likely that most/all of the states take in more fed money than they pay? I mean, the feds don't seem to be at all constrained by (and possibly treat as anathema) the notion of "living within one's means".

That said, what do either of your statements (the untrue "They also take more federal money per capita than most states", or the I-don't-care-enough-to-check-if-true "Texas takes in more federal money than they pay out") have to do with light bulbs?

If the nationwide incandescent phase-out isn't repealed, and if our Texas-made-bulbs-for-Texans plan moves forward, that will be just one more reason to vacation here.

Come to Texas, where neither the women nor the lighting are hard on the eyes!

(Oh, and 1630, thank you very much for your service to our country!)
1630
3 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2011
Shelgeyr, you're welcome. It was a great 22 years.

Apparently every penny counts - yeah. Let's think through this together. Your claim that Texas rakes in more than it pays out was to demonstrate that Tx is not an economic success. I think that's only germane if those dollars are spent on state projects - bridges, roads, infrastructure, state-paid welfare. Federal spending on federal programs that happen to be in Texas is a nonsensical data point, isn't it? Don't you see a difference between federal funds to rebuild a bridge across the Brazos river on a state highway versuses paying a sailor's salary at Corpus Christi NAS?

When the govt runs a 1.4T deficit (expenditures vs revenues), it's impossible for there not to be states receiving more than they pay in. It is not a metric of a state's success but of a federal failure.
FrankHerbert
4 / 5 (42) Jun 21, 2011
BUT given the nightmarish state of the federal economy, isn't it likely that most/all of the states take in more fed money than they pay?

Seems-like-you-don't-care-enough-to-check. I'll give you a hint it's certainly not all and since Texas is such a proud-talking, ball-swingin' state, you'd think they wouldn't be the welfare leaches they are. Go figure.

I mean, the feds don't seem to be at all constrained by (and possibly treat as anathema) the notion of "living within one's means".

Households and governments operate by different rules. It's really weird and sort of pathetic that conservatives get all jealous at the government because they can't run up a $14 trillion debt. Boo hoo.

that will be just one more reason to vacation here.

I understand your dislike for Wickard v. Filburn, but this most certainly is interstate commerce, unless you're seriously suggesting people will vacation in Texas to bask in harsh incandescent light only while they are there.
FrankHerbert
4 / 5 (42) Jun 21, 2011
Don't you see a difference between federal funds to rebuild a bridge across the Brazos river on a state highway versuses paying a sailor's salary at Corpus Christi NAS?


Sure I do. One is a valuable investment in infrastructure and the other is a waste.

I have a term for you you may not have heard before. "Warfare queen." Except "warfare" isn't the warfare you are thinking. It's a portmanteau of "war" and "welfare." However, unlike welfare queens, warfare queens actually exist.
1630
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2011
Frank, I surrender to your mastery of logic, wit, and poetic oratory. Your comeback about the sailor being a warfare queen - Ha! A brilliant stroke - I didn't see it coming. Why should I? Twenty-two years and no one had denigrated my service before. Quite unexpected! It's truly great watching a deep liberal thinker at work: your consummate knowledge of the Constitution and your subtle distain for those who serve to uphold it, not to mention the way you deflected the questions about current deficits leading all states to your proposition by saying, "it just ain't so," would have made the great debaters of old proud. My hat's off to you, sir. Have a great Navy day, shipmate!
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2011
1630, just a point to clarify:
Your claim that Texas rakes in more than it pays out was to demonstrate that Tx is not an economic success.


That wasn't my claim - I had said regarding the second of FrankHerbert's two claims: "I-don't-care-enough-to-check-if-true (that) 'Texas takes in more federal money than they pay out'".

Otherwise - spot on!
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2011
Texas has a large border with Mexico the US govt is supposed to guard. There should be more federal dollars sent to Texas to keep out illegal aliens who vote for 'progressives'.
Shelgeyr
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2011
FrankHerbert said:
(regarding Texas) ...you'd think they wouldn't be the welfare leaches they are.

Wow! That's the first time I've ever heard of the entire state of Texas being referred to as "welfare leaches"! And by an apparent leftist! Careful, you may rip a hole in the fragile space/irony continuum! To an outsider the view is likely skewed, seeing how Austin is pretty much our only Hippie-Lib reservation (I'd say "Hippie-Lib ghetto" except the scenery is so nice).

It's really weird and sort of pathetic that conservatives get all jealous at the government because they can't run up a $14 trillion debt.


It's really weird and completely delusional you think "jealously" is the problem conservatives have with the government running up a $14 trillion debt.

...bask in harsh incandescent light...


It's CFLs that are "Eastern-European-stairwell" harsh.

While here, feel free to bask in the warm glow of our incandescents and/or our radiant beauties.
FrankHerbert
3.9 / 5 (42) Jun 21, 2011
Have a great Navy day, shipmate!


Ship'mate', seaman, poopdeck. You Navy guys are hilarious.
Shelgeyr
2.8 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2011
An honorable Navy man handles a disgraceful, insulting child (who judging by his alias probably still thinks the Dune novels were the best thing ever) with cheerful and upbeat sarcasm, and gets junior-high-level scatological jokes in reply. The contrast is painful, but very instructive.

Fortunately it is obvious (just to tie this back into the thread) who sees the light!
FrankHerbert
4.2 / 5 (38) Jun 21, 2011
Wowbagger
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2011
FrankHerbert, like most on the left, shows his true colors when faced with facts that are contrary to his own personal beliefs: insult and denigrate those who disagree with you. Texas has done nothing but grow its economy in the past 10 years, and there's a reason for that. Over the past 40 years, its population has grown by 116%. People want to go to Texas because it has job opportunities, no state income tax, and great educational opportunities (not to mention the current NBA champs).

Back to the salient issue: it will be interesting to see how this pans out, since it could perhaps be considered a Commerce Clause argument, and there could be a conflict between that and the 10th amendment. I wonder if this could possibly lead to a Supreme Court ruling, where the ominous specter of Wickard v. Filburn could be invoked, or maybe even overturned?
freethk
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2011
Sure, let Texas have their old, inefficient light bulbs. Get rid of the regulation, let them do whatever they want to the environment in their own state as long as they make sure to keep it on their side of the border. Texas is on a separate electrical grid, so, we'll need to ensure that they don't have the ability to draw power from the rest of us when supply is running low to prevent brownouts. In addition, the rest of us would appreciate it if Texas politicians would stop manipulating our nation's textbooks to insert religion and right-wing ideology. Again, keep it on your side of the border.
yopper
5 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2011
The feds should stay out of the selection of energy efficient products by applying efficiency rules that result in the killing of important products. Incandescent bulbs have an important function to play by allowing a low cost alternative to many lighting applications. These include closets, garage door openers etc . These applications are in use so infrequently that their tax on the grid system is non existent.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2011
Sure, let Texas have their old, inefficient light bulbs. Get rid of the regulation, let them do whatever they want to the environment in their own state as long as they make sure to keep it on their side of the border. Texas is on a separate electrical grid, so, we'll need to ensure that they don't have the ability to draw power from the rest of us when supply is running low to prevent brownouts. In addition, the rest of us would appreciate it if Texas politicians would stop manipulating our nation's textbooks to insert religion and right-wing ideology. Again, keep it on your side of the border.

Manipulating text books?
'Progressives' have done a wonderful job of destroying US history to promote their agenda.
Why not advocate for the end of state control of education and let parents decide? The state of TX school board sets policy and chooses texts to obtain a volume discount.
Gle
not rated yet Jun 23, 2011
The time you spent drafting this nonsense could have been spent on a little research and you'd come to realize halogen screw in bulbs are a way better choice if you can't let go of incandescent bulbs. Use regular screw in halogen bulbs, which last a lot longer than incandescent and produce a better quality of light.
Theodsman
5 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2011
So, where is all the fighting to get lead-based paint back and asbestos back in our children's schools? Why isn't Texas fighting for that?

And yes, manipulating textbooks. The TX Board of Education has an agenda just like every other Texas political body. I witnessed first hand the refusal by the board to maintain historical accuracy in order to promote political and religious agendas.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2011
If you hadn't noticed, the 'progressive' school systems across the USA have not taught history well.
You blame TX for that?
In 8th grade my children attended a charter school. The teacher couldn't find a history book written after 1979 she thought was accurate.
"Ravitch, a professor of education at New York University, shows how publishers are squeezed by pressure from groups on the right (which object to depictions of disobedience, family conflict, sexuality, evolution and the supernatural) and the left (which correct for the racism and sexism of older textbooks by urging stringent controls on language and images to weed out possibly offensive stereotypes)-most publishers have quietly adopted both sets of suggestions. In chapters devoted specifically to literature and history texts, Ravitch contends that these sanitized materials sacrifice literary quality and historical accuracy in order to escape controversy. "
FrankHerbert
4.2 / 5 (38) Jun 23, 2011
In 8th grade my children attended a charter school. The teacher couldn't find a history book written after 1979 she thought was accurate.


Is the opposite of a 'non sequitur' just a 'sequitur'? If so, this is a sequitur.
Dan1302
5 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2011
@wowbagger: You might want to check your facts on Texas' formerly robust economy. Your state is projecting a $25 billion deficit over the next two years. And I wouldn't be touting education, either, when your schools rank 36th in the nation. (I tried to provide a link to these stats, but apparently the comment won't post with it. I'm sure you can Google it easily enough, as I did.)
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2011
@wowbagger: You might want to check your facts on Texas' formerly robust economy. Your state is projecting a $25 billion deficit over the next two years. And I wouldn't be touting education, either, when your schools rank 36th in the nation. (I tried to provide a link to these stats, but apparently the comment won't post with it. I'm sure you can Google it easily enough, as I did.)

I've checked facts too and Texas performs quite well in education. I am sure you can look it up. Here is a link:
http://nces.ed.go...b1_2.asp
gjolly
3 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2011
Light bulbs are light bulbs the key here is the we maintain our market driven economy and keep the federal governments greedy paws out of our business. If the damn bulbs are good people will start buying them soon enough. I did. End of story.
J-n
not rated yet Jun 23, 2011
I have a lot of insects where i live. The mosquitos are horrible. I can't wait until texas starts to manufacture it's own DDT so we can get around those STUPID SOCIALIST Environmental laws!!! DDT works better than other insecticides, so why not right? We're not going to see the negative affects (I don't believe they even exist) for 20-30 years anyway, Why NOT bring back DDT so i can get rid of my mosquitos? I mean who cares about the water, air, birds, fish, human babies, etc... We can always make more right?
FrankHerbert
4.1 / 5 (39) Jun 23, 2011
All the following joined on or after 6/20/11 and have posted only in this topic: 1630, Wowbagger, yopper, Gle, and gjolly.

Dandaniels joined 4/12/11 and has only posted in this topic.

Lighthouse10 joined 3/2/11 and has posted in only two topics, both on light bulbs.

Are they all the same person or have conservatives made a concerted effort to manipulate conversation here?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2011
How typical!
'Progressive' Frank wants to censor instead of discuss.
FrankHerbert
4.1 / 5 (39) Jun 24, 2011
'Conservatives' don't like it when you point out their astroturf movements.
Miriam
5 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2011
Liberal or conservative has nothing to do w/this issue. I am a senior citizen & I HATE these bulbs. They are dangerous due to not being light enough to see by, especially in stairwells. They take too long to brighten up & then don't do a very good job of that! Give me the old bulbs, please!
FrankHerbert
4.1 / 5 (39) Jun 26, 2011
Add Miriam to the list.

Member since: June 26, 2011, 6:35 pm

Recently commented on:
Texas light bulb bill would skirt federal plan, 52 minutes ago


No one sees a pattern here?