News Incandescent Light Bulbs to Start Being Phased Out in 2012

[Barwick]

So, is everyone that is against the ban against the environmentalists that pushed this legislation to save the planet as part of a popular cause back then? I'm really curious if on one hand you support that movement, as long as it doesn't interfere with you personally, or if it is simply something that has never concerned you.

There are supposed to be tremendous benefits, not only to the planet, but if you pay electric bills, you're supposed to see a reduction in your bills, but I don't see anyone addressing the benefits. This makes me really curious.

Put it this way. I'm all for responsible environmentalism (don't dump trash in public, don't drop toxic waste in water streams, don't spew smog causing pollutants into the air, and screw CO2 it's not a pollutant...)

In short: I'm against Government use of force unless absolutely necessary (someone stole something, use force to stop them. Similarly, settling disputes between parties, etc). There's very few things it's necessary for (and they're all spelled out in the US Constitution so I don't have to quote them here, I'll just reference).

Here's an example:
My neighbor has about 35 dead ash trees in his less than 1 acre back yard. Routinely they fall into my yard, and I have to chop them up and burn them in the fire pit. We live in a 100,000 person suburb of Detroit, if this gives you an idea of how big this place actually is, it ain't exactly the sticks.

I mentioned to people about how this happens, just in conversation, and they say "Why don't you call the city, they'll come and make your neighbor cut the trees down!" To which I reply "I'd rather chew on glass than have the city force my neighbor to do something on his own private property". If I wanted him to cut them down, I would talk to him myself (and I have, and he's in process of doing so, and I'm helping him with it). I'm not going to force him to do it all at once, and if he doesn't do it at all, then I'd just do it myself for the ones that are falling into my yard.

So, I guess to answer your question, to me it's not a "this affects me", it's a matter of principle. I personally kinda like the swirley-bulbs, if they're the right price and use less energy, great. But I'd rather chew on broken glass than have Government mandate that everyone buy one.

 

[NeoDevin]

But I'd rather chew on broken glass than have Government mandate that everyone buy one.

Broken glass and mercury vapor?

 

[Al68]

Now ask yourself, can ANYONE else do that besides the government? No. But who else acts that way sometimes? Criminals.

Specifically, the *Mafia*.

Don't be so quick to compare the Mafia to power hungry politicians. There are many things politicians (Democrats) do that even the Mafia historically has had too much honor and integrity to do.

Passing a new law that applies retroactively comes to mind. Confiscating a large percentage of someone's private income comes to mind. Treating future potential collections from others as if it were already theirs to spend comes to mind. Treating any reduction in forceful collections as if it were a gift comes to mind. Etc, etc.

The self-rationalization required to justify, even glorify, the above (like many who read this just did) comes to mind. Oh, wait, the Mafia does that, too, I suppose.

 

[BobG]

So, is everyone that is against the ban against the environmentalists that pushed this legislation to save the planet as part of a popular cause back then? I'm really curious if on one hand you support that movement, as long as it doesn't interfere with you personally, or if it is simply something that has never concerned you.

There are supposed to be tremendous benefits, not only to the planet, but if you pay electric bills, you're supposed to see a reduction in your bills, but I don't see anyone addressing the benefits. This makes me really curious.

There's costs and benefits to everything a person does. The important criteria is whether the benefits outweigh the costs.

In the case of CFLs, they present no personal sacrifice on my part, provided I just toss them in the trash when they burn out.

Even if I act semi-responsibly and dispose of them properly, there's little sacrifice involved. http://www6.homedepot.com/ecooptions/pdf/CFL-RecyclingProgramRevised.pdf and I like visiting Home Depot.

I do still have a problem cleaning up and disposing of broken bulbs. Plus light covers might not fit over CFL bulbs, since they're bigger (of course, that means making a visit to Home Depot, so it's not a cloud without a silver lining). And I do want my bulbs covered, since I don't want to have to face the dilemma of broken bulbs any more than I possibly have to.

I just have a sneaking suspicion that most users will choose the option that requires no sacrifice at all and just toss the burnt out bulbs in the trash.

We're banning one type of bulb and the most common replacement bulb will be one that will probably be banned in the future. As far as which bulb is worse, I really couldn't say.

I'd also note that it isn't more energy efficient to leave a CFL light on when you leave the room unless you're only leaving the room for 5 seconds or less. It is more cost effective to leave the light on if you're only leaving the room for a few minutes, since turning any light bulb on and off reduces it's lifetime. The exact time where it's more efficient to leave the light on can vary depending on how much you pay for electricity vs how much you pay for the bulb, do you pay more for electricity during peak usage times, etc. The reduced wattage means you're wasting less electricity when you leave the light on, but the break even point is still probably no longer than 15 minutes, at most, and that would probably have to be real cheap electricity and a really high price for your bulb.

The leave the lights on argument makes only slightly more sense than the argument to downshift when approaching intersections to make your brakes last longer (and your transmission last shorter).

 

[CRGreathouse]

We're banning one type of bulb and the most common replacement bulb will be one that will probably be banned in the future. As far as which bulb is worse, I really couldn't say.

Do you mean in terms of mercury? My understanding, the last time I looked this up, was that incandescent light bulbs cause more mercury to get in the environment because they use more electricity, which is mostly produced via coal, the burning of which releases mercury into the air.

 

[Upisoft]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox"

In economics, the Jevons paradox, sometimes called the Jevons effect, is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.

Would that happen again? After all it is attempt to reduce electric power consumption by increasing the efficiency of its usage...

 

[CRGreathouse]

Would that happen again? After all it is attempt to reduce electric power consumption by increasing the efficiency of its usage...

Short answer: No, consumption of electricity would probably not increase, but the electric savings would be less than naively predicted by reducing the energy used by lighting the appropriate percentage.

 

[BobG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox"


Would that happen again? After all it is attempt to reduce electric power consumption by increasing the efficiency of its usage...

It wouldn't happen with light bulbs. But if using lower wattage light bulbs reduces the demand, and subsequently lowers the price, then more of it will be used for something else, raising the price until some new equilibrium is reached.

But you don't change light bulbs in a vacuum. There's a push for better energy efficiency in all your household devices - heater, hot water heater, stove, washer/dryer, etc. And, pushing for better energy efficiency in just about everything that uses energy is the only way to really attack the problem.

 

[Barwick]

Don't be so quick to compare the Mafia to power hungry politicians. There are many things politicians (Democrats) do that even the Mafia historically has had too much honor and integrity to do.

Passing a new law that applies retroactively comes to mind. Confiscating a large percentage of someone's private income comes to mind. Treating future potential collections from others as if it were already theirs to spend comes to mind. Treating any reduction in forceful collections as if it were a gift comes to mind. Etc, etc.

The self-rationalization required to justify, even glorify, the above (like many who read this just did) comes to mind. Oh, wait, the Mafia does that, too, I suppose.

Heh, that's hilarious...




But it's true.

Honestly, it's like one of those old jokes... "Don't say the Government is like the Mafia... that's insulting to the Mafia"

 

[loseyourname]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox"


Would that happen again? After all it is attempt to reduce electric power consumption by increasing the efficiency of its usage...

Energy demand reduction programs at the state level mostly have a pretty good track record of actually reducing energy usage.

This honestly seems like a bit of a stupid way to accomplish the goal. Just levy a punitive tax on energy consumption say, more than 25% over the average of all residences with occupancy and square footage within a certain range. Then again, I can see why the federal government doesn't do that, since they don't have the power because utilities are chartered and regulated by the states.

 

[CAC1001]

Just levy a punitive tax on energy consumption say, more than 25% over the average of all residences with occupancy and square footage within a certain range.

I am confused by your wording there, do you mean take the average energy usage of all residences with occupancy and square footage within a certain range for the residences being averaged, then apply a tax of 25% or higher...?

 

[russ_watters]

My parents just got their summer water bill and it had a $40 surcharge (about 1/3 of the bill) for exceeding a certain usage target, above the normal per-gallon charge.

Some places apparently have progressive rates (Danger mentioned it, iirc), but it is more typical for rates to be regressive (the higher the usage, the lower the rate).

 

[loseyourname]

I am confused by your wording there, do you mean take the average energy usage of all residences with occupancy and square footage within a certain range for the residences being averaged, then apply a tax of 25% or higher...?

Yes. Say you live in a 1,400 sq ft house with four occupants. The utility provider averages the usage of all such households. If your usage is more than 25% higher than the average, your excess usage is assessed a punitive tax.

The numbers are completely arbitrary, obviously, but this is the simplest and most effective way to curb demand. When the price goes up, demand goes down.

Then again, I suppose the reality is that most utilities, so far as I know, already set prices in this way anyway and people still gladly waste electricity and pay for it even though they don't have to. I have no idea how great a tax would need to be before people started to notice and care that their energy bill was so high.

 

[russ_watters]

Then again, I suppose the reality is that most utilities, so far as I know, already set prices in this way anyway and people still gladly waste electricity and pay for it even though they don't have to. I have no idea how great a tax would need to be before people started to notice and care that their energy bill was so high.

In most places, residential rates are a flat rate per kWh. Commercially, rates are tied to demand, since demand is what determines how many power plants you need. The rates work like this:

-You pay a certain fixed rate per kW peak demand (the most kWh you use in an hour in a month).
-You pay for blocks of kWh at progressively decreasing rates. The size of those blocks is tied to your demand. Ie, 80 hours at a 10 kW billing demand means 800 kWh in a block at the first rate tier. 80 hours at 20 kWh is 1600 kWh. This method provides an additional incentive for reducing demand by making a flatter usage profile cost less.

 

[Barwick]

Energy demand reduction programs at the state level mostly have a pretty good track record of actually reducing energy usage.

This honestly seems like a bit of a stupid way to accomplish the goal. Just levy a punitive tax on energy consumption say, more than 25% over the average of all residences with occupancy and square footage within a certain range. Then again, I can see why the federal government doesn't do that, since they don't have the power because utilities are chartered and regulated by the states.

The question here isn't "is it a good idea to do this" (it's not by the way), the question is, "is it Government's job to do things like this" (the answer is "no").

 

[Evo]

The question here isn't "is it a good idea to do this" (it's not by the way), the question is, "is it Government's job to do things like this" (the answer is "no").

This was pushed, in large part, by environmental groups. Back in 2007 there was a "save the planet" craze going on. I remember this being passed and I don't remember there being much public opinion against it at the time. I don't know if it's funny or sad that now that people got what they wanted that they don't want it. Where was the uproar against this in 2007? It was in the news, I remember it.

 

[Kurdt]

The question here isn't "is it a good idea to do this" (it's not by the way), the question is, "is it Government's job to do things like this" (the answer is "no").

What is it that a government should do then?

 

[Upisoft]

It wouldn't happen with light bulbs. But if using lower wattage light bulbs reduces the demand, and subsequently lowers the price, then more of it will be used for something else, raising the price until some new equilibrium is reached.

I had to replace 4 bulbs in my living room. They were 40W and look like this:

I was unable to find any CFL that will replace them. They tend to be too fat near the screw. So I bought halogen -30% energy saver bulb. Now they are 42W, but give light like 60W. So, I ended with a little more wattage 42W vs. 40W and a lot more light. It doesn't look I've done any energy saving.

 

[BobG]

The question here isn't "is it a good idea to do this" (it's not by the way), the question is, "is it Government's job to do things like this" (the answer is "no").

I think this is a grey area. It is government's job to do things like this when failure to conserve shared resources could literally result in disaster.

In the West, having multi-year droughts can reduce water reserves to dangerously low levels. Implementing watering restrictions for lawns and using multi-tiered rates (a surcharge for exceeding some set amount of water usage) are important methods of preventing resources from being totally exhausted. And it would be silly to wait until the situation actually reached crisis level to act - especially when a region with limited water resources experiences steady population growth.

(I have no idea how this gets resolved on a long term basis except for Colorado to pull out of the 1922 Colorado River Compact and go to war against Utah, Arizona, and California. I think Colorado might come out okay since it's a pretty tough terrain for forces from neighboring states to invade. Of course, all those damn tourists that expect to see at least a little bit of water at the bottom of the Grand Canyon would probably demand that federal forces invade from the East, leaving Colorado hopelessly outnumbered.)

 

[Barwick]

What is it that a government should do then?

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Very very simple.

 

[Kurdt]

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Very very simple.

Thats quite naive.

 

[CAC1001]

I think this is a grey area. It is government's job to do things like this when failure to conserve shared resources could literally result in disaster.

In the West, having multi-year droughts can reduce water reserves to dangerously low levels. Implementing watering restrictions for lawns and using multi-tiered rates (a surcharge for exceeding some set amount of water usage) are important methods of preventing resources from being totally exhausted. And it would be silly to wait until the situation actually reached crisis level to act - especially when a region with limited water resources experiences steady population growth.

(I have no idea how this gets resolved on a long term basis except for Colorado to pull out of the 1922 Colorado River Compact and go to war against Utah, Arizona, and California. I think Colorado might come out okay since it's a pretty tough terrain for forces from neighboring states to invade. Of course, all those damn tourists that expect to see at least a little bit of water at the bottom of the Grand Canyon would probably demand that federal forces invade from the East, leaving Colorado hopelessly outnumbered.)

Speaking of which, why don't they just start desalinizing water from the oceans? I mean they are draining the fresh water resources out West. I have read California, or Los Angelos at least, is looking to start getting water from the Pacific. Couldn't the entire West just be supplied with desalinized water from the ocean?

 

[JaredJames]

Speaking of which, why don't they just start desalinizing water from the oceans? I mean they are draining the fresh water resources out West. I have read California, or Los Angelos at least, is looking to start getting water from the Pacific. Couldn't the entire West just be supplied with desalinized water from the ocean?

Cost? Who covers the bill?

Plus, that would but additional strain on an already over stretched electricity supply (well at least in Britain, not entirely sure one the percentage power production per plant in the US).

 

[Office_Shredder]

Speaking of which, why don't they just start desalinizing water from the oceans? I mean they are draining the fresh water resources out West. I have read California, or Los Angelos at least, is looking to start getting water from the Pacific. Couldn't the entire West just be supplied with desalinized water from the ocean?

JUST start desalinizing water from the oceans? That's actually a hard thing to do. Recent improvements in the technology have made it more cost effective today, and many places are installing the infrastructure but it's not something that you can do overnight.

One example of a bid to construct a plant which would provide water to 100,000 homes was for 300 million dollars. If you figure 4 people per home, and a population of almost 40,000,000, it would take 100 of these plants to provide residential water to all of California. As an example here:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3098/

That would provide less than half the water California needs. So you're talking about something on the order of a 100 billion dollar investment to turn California into a totally desalination based state. It probably doesn't make sense to get all the irrigation water fromn desalination (there's no point in not using water in an underground well for example) but the point stands that it's far from a simple task and the economic cost would be huge

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Cost? Who covers the bill?

Plus, that would but additional strain on an already over stretched electricity supply (well at least in Britain, not entirely sure one the percentage power production per plant in the US).

The biggest cost in vacuum desalination is the need for heat, in reverse osmosis it is the electrical need to run the high pressure pumps. For a vacuum system the electrical needs of the plant are minor, and could easily be made on-sight by running a parallel waste heat/steam system.

However with both ways of desalination building a nuclear power hybrid station would easily solve two problems in California with one plant. Electricity for the grid and fresh water for the municipal water system.

Also there is precedence for this system, every single US navy sub and aircraft carrier gets its fresh water this way, the Russians had the Shevchenko BN350 facility, Japan has 10 plants linked with PBRs, India has several research plants, and China has one as well.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf71.html" on nuclear powered desalination.

 

[mheslep]

Yes. Say you live in a 1,400 sq ft house with four occupants. The utility provider averages the usage of all such households. If your usage is more than 25% higher than the average, your excess usage is assessed a punitive tax.

The numbers are completely arbitrary, obviously, but this is the simplest and most effective way to curb demand.

Well it is a possible way, and likely a regressive one.

When the price goes up, demand goes down

Most of the time, but maybe not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand

 

[JaredJames]

The biggest cost in vacuum desalination is the need for heat, in reverse osmosis it is the electrical need to run the high pressure pumps. For a vacuum system the electrical needs of the plant are minor, and could easily be made on-sight by running a parallel waste heat/steam system.

Well substitute electrical with whatever the energy requirements are. But regardless, they're rather high.

However with both ways of desalination building a nuclear power hybrid station would easily solve two problems in California with one plant. Electricity for the grid and fresh water for the municipal water system.

Do you know how much a nuclear plant costs? This is an additional cost to the original cost of the plant.

Also there is precedence for this system, every single US navy sub and aircraft carrier gets its fresh water this way, the Russians had the Shevchenko BN350 facility, Japan has 10 plants linked with PBRs, India has several research plants, and China has one as well.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf71.html" on nuclear powered desalination.

Next to carrying fresh water on board in storage tanks large enough for a trip, is there any other way?
For subs it means the only reason to surface is food. For ships and subs it means the requirement to carry huge amounts of water aren't there. It is economically viable to do it in these situations.

Just because they're on subs and ships doesn't make them cheap and doesn't mean they're efficient. They are doing a job because they suit the requirements. As above, the alternatives aren't viable in comparison.

 

[gravenewworld]

So what happens to all of the mercury from all of the discarded fluorescent bulbs in the future?

 

[russ_watters]

I think this is a grey area. It is government's job to do things like this when failure to conserve shared resources could literally result in disaster.

While I agree with the second, I don't think that's the case here, so I don't think the logic applies. Certainly, there are two questions/problems with that reasoning that need to be addressed for it to be valid (and I already mentioned them, but...):

1. The government makes arbitrary/capricious choices about such things, so it would be difficult to argue that this is necessary while at the same time not implimenting better solutions.
2. It would be difficult to make a case that there is an imminent need for this. And #1 helps support this point: if it was imminent, the government wouldn't be so arbitrary/capricious about it.

I'd be very interested in seeing some examples where the government has done similar things. I haven't seen one I consider comparable. I gave an example before that I think actually shows how unusual this is:

1. The banning of CFCs. CFCs presented an imminent threat and banning them was the only known way to deal with that threat. That covers both the points above.

I can think of another:

2. Wartime austerity measures. A threat doesn't get any more imminent than a world war and drastic measures need to be taken to conserve certain resources. Again, covering both points above.

In the West, having multi-year droughts can reduce water reserves to dangerously low levels. Implementing watering restrictions for lawns and using multi-tiered rates (a surcharge for exceeding some set amount of water usage) are important methods of preventing resources from being totally exhausted. And it would be silly to wait until the situation actually reached crisis level to act - especially when a region with limited water resources experiences steady population growth.

3. Water conservation. I'd consider a multi-year drought to be a pretty imminent problem and conservation to be the only viable solution. Again, that passes both tests I outlined, CF lamps don't.

So do you have any examples of precedents where the government didn't use logic that passed both of my tests or alternately can you provide an argument for why the tests are wrong? Ie, why are incandescent lamps an imminent threat? Why is banning them a more important solution than encouraging (even subsidizing) bulding nuclear plants or wind plants, both of which would be both more direct and more successful solutions to the pollution problem.

 

[russ_watters]

Thats quite naive.

It looks to me like that's the only possible response to such a uselessly vague question.

How about answering the inverse: since the US is a country founded on (among other things), the principle of individual rights, why is banning this product so important that rights should be infringed on and under what precedent would this particular ban be acceptable?

 

[Jack21222]

So what happens to all of the mercury from all of the discarded fluorescent bulbs in the future?

Probably the same thing that happens to all of the mercury released into the atmosphere from burning coal.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you mean in terms of mercury? My understanding, the last time I looked this up, was that incandescent light bulbs cause more mercury to get in the environment because they use more electricity, which is mostly produced via coal, the burning of which releases mercury into the air.

We could, of course, attack the problem both more directly and more successfully by banning coal plants (or, rather, creating incentives to build nuclear and wind plants) rather than banning incandescent lights.

 

[Kurdt]

It looks to me like that's the only possible response to such a uselessly vague question.

How about answering the inverse: since the US is a country founded on (among other things), the principle of individual rights, why is banning this product so important that rights should be infringed on and under what precedent would this particular ban be acceptable?

The question was not uselessly vague. I wanted to know what the posters take on the role of government was. His response is very naive in my opinion.

The only reason an individual in any society has certain rights is up to the ruling body of that society. They are generally in place to maximise the survival capability of said society. It is clear for whatever reason that the US government believes the right to choose between these two types of light bulb is surplus to the requirement that the society of US citizens use one bulb over the other.

 

[JaredJames]

The only reason an individual in any society has certain rights is up to the ruling body of that society. They are generally in place to maximise the survival capability of said society. It is clear for whatever reason that the US government believes the right to choose between these two types of light bulb is surplus to the requirement that the society of US citizens use one bulb over the other.

Extremely well said!

 

[Office_Shredder]

The only reason an individual in any society has certain rights is up to the ruling body of that society.

So which ruling body in particular gets to choose which rights people have?

 

[Kurdt]

So which ruling body in particular gets to choose which rights people have?

In democracies, the one chosen by the people to represent them. In reality there tend to be many. The larger the group of people the more complex the system tends to be.

 

[russ_watters]

The question was not uselessly vague. I wanted to know what the posters take on the role of government was. His response is very naive in my opinion.

Were you intending him to copy and paste an entire American Government textbook? If the question really wasn't meant to be flip, what sort of answer were you hoping for? In other words, how can the question possibly be answered within the allowable posting size limit on PF?

The only reason an individual in any society has certain rights is up to the ruling body of that society.

Ehh, not really. The point of the Bill of Rights is that the ruling body (I assume you mean Congress) can't just take away our rights. Those certain rights were defined when the country was founded. In other types of governments, the individual rights are indeed at the whim of the particular ruler, but that's not how the US works.

They are generally in place to maximise the survival capability of said society.

Ehh, not really, no. The US was founded on a principle that the invidual really is more important than the state. It would be to the state's benefit, for example, for citizens to not be permitted to speak out against the government, for the government to have more freedom in search and seizure, etc. But it is more important to protect then innocent from wrongful prosecution/persecution than to ensure public safety. But even if that were true...

It is clear for whatever reason that the US government believes the right to choose between these two types of light bulb is surplus to the requirement that the society of US citizens use one bulb over the other.

Do you believe such decisions should be based on internally consistent logic or do you believe ther government should be allowed to make whatever arbitrary decisions it sees fit?

 

[Evo]

Do you believe such decisions should be based on internally consistent logic or do you believe ther government should be allowed to make whatever arbitrary decisions it sees fit?

Do you think that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was an arbitrary government decision and wasn't done because it was the "popular" thing with Americans at the time?

 

[Kurdt]

Were you intending him to copy and paste an entire American Government textbook? If the question really wasn't meant to be flip, what sort of answer were you hoping for? In other words, how can the question possibly be answered within the allowable posting size limit on PF?

I was asking what his opinion of the term government was. I was not asking for the whole Government textbook.

Ehh, not really. The point of the Bill of Rights is that the ruling body (I assume you mean Congress) can't just take away our rights. Those certain rights were defined when the country was founded. In other types of governments, the individual rights are indeed at the whim of the particular ruler, but that's not how the US works.

Perhaps. But that is how collective groups of people work in general. The bill of rights is only as valid as the society which it describes. Do you really believe it is infallable and not subject to change?

Ehh, not really, no. The US was founded on a principle that the invidual really is more important than the state. It would be to the state's benefit, for example, for citizens to not be permitted to speak out against the government, for the government to have more freedom in search and seizure, etc. But it is more important to protect then innocent from wrongful prosecution/persecution than to ensure public safety. But even if that were true...

It would be to the ruling body's benefit but not to the state. The state is made up by the people and while individuals are important, it has to be recognised that there are certain rules that have to be enforced if they're to live together succesfully.

Do you believe such decisions should be based on internally consistent logic or do you believe ther government should be allowed to make whatever arbitrary decisions it sees fit?

I don't believe governments should be allowed to make decisions on a whim. That would be ridiculous. All i am saying is that the decision has been made by the people your country elected (whether YOU voted for them or not) to ban that particular item for its perceived benefits to your society.

 

[mheslep]

Posting the following is perhaps pedantic for a light bulb ban thread, but it remains such a timely, clear, accurate, and fundamental response to the suggestion that some ruling class creates rights. No, they have always been there, if unsecured and oppressed for most of history.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

[Evo]

Posting the following is perhaps pedantic for a light bulb ban thread, but it remains such a timely, clear, accurate, and fundamental response to the suggestion that some ruling class creates rights. No, they have always been there, unsecured and oppressed for most of history.

Rights are granted, rights are taken away. You only the have the rights that the governing body allows. As kurdt said the ruling body

In democracies, the one chosen by the people to represent them

So the government of the US is supposedly representing what the American people want. Since they were duly elected, how can anyone say that the law is arbitrary and against the wishes of Americans? You don't like what the elected politicians are doing, you vote them out.

 

[mheslep]

Rights are granted, rights are taken away. You only the have the rights that the governing body allows.

<Sigh> The Declaration does not say that people are endowed by the governing body with certain [STRIKE]un[/STRIKE]alienable Rights.

 

[mheslep]

So the government of the US is supposedly representing what the American people want. Since they were duly elected, how can anyone say that the law is arbitrary and against the wishes of Americans? You don't like what the elected politicians are doing, you vote them out.

As Russ said

Ehh, not really. The point of the Bill of Rights is that the ruling body (I assume you mean Congress) can't just take away our rights. Those certain rights were defined when the country was founded

I.e. duly elected or not there are certain rights representatives may not oppress. If they are heedless of these rights, perhaps because they are in a the majority or for other reasons, then see the next clause in that line:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government​

Never fear though, because in the next sentence

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;​

Light bulb bans surely qualify as light causes.

 

[Evo]

As Russ said



I.e. duly elected or not there are certain rights representatives may not oppress. If they are heedless of these rights, perhaps because they are in a the majority or for other reasons, then see the next clause in that line:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government​

Never fear though, because in the next sentence

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;​

Light bulb bans surely qualify as light causes.

You really think that this law was passed against the wishes of the American public?

What is amazing is how many people in this thread had no idea this law was passed over 3 years ago.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110-140[1] originally named the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007) is an Act of Congress concerning the energy policy of the United States. As part of the Democratic Party's 100-Hour Plan during the 110th Congress[2], it was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Representative Nick Rahall of West Virginia, along with 198 cosponsors. Despite Rahall becoming 1 of only 4 Democrats to oppose the final bill[3], it passed in the House without amendment in January 2007. When the Act was introduced in the Senate in June 2007, it was combined with Senate Bill S. 1419: Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.[4] This amended version passed the Senate on June 21, 2007.[5][6] After further amendments and negotiation between the House and Senate, a revised bill passed both houses on December 18, 2007[7] and President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007 in response to his "Twenty in Ten" challenge to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years.[8]

The stated purpose of the act is “to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007

Have you read the entire Act?

http://energy.senate.gov/public/ind...abd-4900-aa9d-c19de47df2da&Month=12&Year=2007

 

[Jasongreat]

Maybe the 'father of the US constitution' could shed some light:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

Prior to that, in Federalist 41, Madison wrote,

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.”

 

[Office_Shredder]

You really think that this law was passed against the wishes of the American public?

It doesn't matter if the American people wanted it. The Constitution doesn't get to be ignored just because 51% of the population wants a bill to be passed

 

[Evo]

It doesn't matter if the American people wanted it. The Constitution doesn't get to be ignored just because 51% of the population wants a bill to be passed

Did you read the act?

I think the knee jerk reaction due to the "save the planet" craze was wrong. I've also said I don't agree with the ban, but I don't see it as being unconstitutional the way it was written. I also have searched extensively online and really haven't found an uproar over this anywhere, but that could just be that the majority of the US is ignorant of the ban.

 

[mheslep]

You really think that this law was passed against the wishes of the American public?

It certainly could be so. We don't have a government by referendum on every issue. We have representatives with their own parochial interests, just as we all have. Perhaps the ones in office at the time got there because of the electorates' view on the Iraq war, abortion, etc, bu those representatives could be completely counter to the electoral majority on other issues such as this one. See Public Choice Theory.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory

E.g.

It has been recognized at least since the time of the Marquis de Condorcet (1785) that voting among three or more candidates or alternatives may fail to select the majority’s most preferred outcome or may be prone to vote “cycles” producing no clear winner.1 Indeed, Kenneth Arrow’s “impossibility theorem” shows that there is no mechanism for making collective choices, other than dictatorship, that translates the preferences of diverse individuals into a well-behaved social utility function. Nor has any electoral rule been found whose results cannot be manipulated either by individuals voting insincerely—that is, casting their ballots strategically for less-preferred candidates or issues in order to block even worse outcomes—or by an agenda setter who controls the order in which votes are taken.

 

[Evo]

It certainly could be so. We don't have a government by referendum on every issue. We have representatives with their own parochial interests. Perhaps the ones in office at the time got there because of the electorates view on the Iraq war, abortion, etc, bu those reps could be completely counter to the electoral majority on other issues. See Public Choice Theory.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory

E.g.

Well, I think the stuff will hit the fan in a few years when people go to buy bulbs and can't find them. People need to be careful what they wish for. Politicians jumped on that bandwagon because it was popular and we can see what the results are. But, nooo, no one listened to me when I said I was afraid of what kind of stupid things would be done if they weren't thought through.

It's not a phasing out of all incandescent bulbs though. I have those specialty decorative globe bulbs in my bathrooms, that's the type of bulbs it's designed for, anything else will look wrong. I don't know what is supposed to replace those.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There are globe fluorescents. From first hand experience, let me tell you, they are awful.