WHAT IN THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOUR POLITICIANS? WHY THE **** ARE THESE PEOPLE EVEN IN OFFICE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/13/energy-saving-light-bulbs-ban-republican-bill-fails?CMP=twt_fd

Yours faithfully,
Baconfish.

Hahahah winn.

THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO. UNLESS I WANT TO MARRY A DUDE OR HAVE AN ABORTION. AIN'T NOTHIN' IN MY BIBLE ABOUT LIGHT BULBS.

Ha, I just noticed. Stickz is boneless. Hahahahaha.

Dear Baconfish,

We dont even know.

Love,

America.

Because even though Massassi can ban Wookie, unfortunately our country can't.

What makes it extra dumb is that even if the ban was lifted that doesn't mean that phillips and co would start making them again.

This is just another example that to gain power you just need connections and money, intelligence is not needed and often reduces your likelihood of political standing.

I really don't see what the hubbub is about. I think the article from the guardian is, while informative, a bit disingenuous and a little, well... Pointless? Oh no's! Look at them thar politicians doin they politiciany stuff like they always do! The legislation in question does effectively phase out/ban a large portion of widely used incandescent bulbs. I thought it was stupid when it was passed and I still do.

Cfl's are a pain in the ass. They are expensive at purchase, they give off annoyingly harsh light (although they are getting better with this... For a price) and you have to basically call hazmat if one breaks. And generally the people who champion them are the same ones who use apple computers, go to Starbucks and shop at Ikea and they they are better because of it.

On a side note however, I am marginally in favor of anything that even slightly mars edison's name!!! TESLA FTW!!!

Pointless?

It's there for factgiving etc. and it does so.

Ok, I understand the reason for covering legislation. But, really?? The bill attempting to repeal a ban on incandescent bulbs, that didn't pass is what your going to spend your time writing a full page article about?? The one where even if it did pass it most likely would not cause change? But it didnt pass so it's really a moot point.

Now! If the bill did pass and suddenly a new upstart company arose producing cheap incandescent bulbs, undercutting larger manufactures of CFL and LED lights who have already invested greatly in new infrastructure to produce these more expensive light, and perhaps brought about the downfall of major lightbulb companies and the CFL bulb.... Then THAT would be worth writing about!!! As it stands now though... Meh.

So maybe not pointless... Just quite weak.

Awesome.

They need to ban McDonalds. If they did that, in the long run, people would save a billion dollars! Gee Thanks America!!!

The government is controlling every aspect of american life, one minutiae detail at a time.

They have been doing it for years -->http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,996507,00.html

My grandmother has been in an uproar for a while, anxious avbout this lightbulb bill. Being old and needing an extra ammount of soft light, they are on a mission to buy all the rego bulbs before the shift.

So if anyone needs some light bulb, not that store **** im talking the REAL stuff, meet me in a dark ally with $120.

No you are.

It's aimed at a UK readership of predominantly middle class, intellectual leftwingers. The idea that a political party would so publicly support an idea that is pretty much "WE ARE DELIBERATELY SHAFTING THE PLANET TO SUPPORT BUSINESSES WHO ARE UNWILLING TO MODERNISE BUT WHO CLEARLY GIVE US MONEY" is so hilarious to their readership as to be newsworthy.

It's not rocket science.

What don't you understand about freedom of choice? I'll decide what LIGHT BULBS are best for me, and if you or anybody else thinks you can interfere with that choice then I have here for you a loud, healthy, **** OFF.

But if you can't decide what light bulbs are best for THE PLANET maybe someone else should make that decision for you?

"You're stupid and/or your values are different from mine, therefore I will make all your decisions for you, for your own good."

I think switching to more efficient light bulbs is awesome, and lower "light quality" or whatever is a small price to pay. I still don't think they should BAN any type of light bulb (or anything else for that matter) unless it's for explicitly defined and scientifically supported significant health reasons.

Prove that those lights are best for the planet then well talk. And while they're at it maybe they could decide if coal causes warming or cooling.

Incidentally, I am quite interested to see where these technologies will go. Especially LED lights. If those ever come down in price I would actually like to try them.

It is not about being the best. It is about being BETTER than incandescent.

Also, incandescent bulbs are only going to be cheaper so long as there is a decent supply of tungsten (you know, the stuff that the filament is made of) left.
Also, I would point out that the broken glass shards of a broken CFL are thing that you need to worry about the most.

About the banning, it is pretty much the only way to make progress when it comes to buisnesses. If they have to concentrate on the newer technologies, they will come up with methods to make them for cheaper prices.

So if tungsten supplies are a viable concern, why not let them use it till it is not so readily available? The price would go up and cfl/LED bulbs would be more competitive. (serious question. Do we use tungsten for something else important also?)

^That link was purely for that lady's single boob, the other seems to be missing.^

The article was poorly written. I didn't see anything to support the claim that the Republicans want to ban energy efficient light bulbs. As far is I've heard they just oppose legislation the mandates it.

Did I miss something, or is this just Fox News style bull?



What? No. The vast majority of industry progress occurs because it provides tangible benefits the improve the product or reduce it's cost. This is already happening for alternative light bulbs, with out legation. If you really want to put real pressure on reducing energy use, you need to tax it higher.

Small scale stuff like this is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Yeah, it adds up, but not to much. If the objective is to make a meaningful impact on our carbon emissions, or energy costs, legislation like this will never make a meaningful difference. It's just feel-good stuff for people who don't want to sacrifice what it would take to do something meaningful.

The whole point of the post was really that it's a really silly, trivial thing for people to care about, but way to be needlessly aggressive.

Needlessly aggressive?



And I am not convinced they are significantly better for the environment. I can throw my incandescents away in the trash but I have to take my CFLs to the county hazmat joint where they wear masks and make me stay in the car while they remove them from my trunk with gloves on. WTF? I realize that's not the only thing they deal with, but shiz, do you really have to yell at me when I try to hand them to you?

I also find it funny that those banning incandescents are the same people not only touting plug-in electric cars, but actually using MY tax money to subsidize them.

By the way, 100W bulbs are already banned in California. They still sell 95W bulbs making it almost as useless as our "assault weapons" "ban".

I'm almost always being facetious.

All the CFLs I have are bright. Where they fail is when you first turn them on. They are more expensive up front, but the cost over their lifetime is better, because they (usually*) last so long.

So. The article's title is fallacious and inflammatory. Nobody is trying to ban CFLs, they were trying to lift a different ban.

Second, these bulbs were on the market, and their price quickly dropping, long before this legislation was thought up. All this legislation accomplishes is making it really hard to get incandescent light where I really need it. Reading by fluorescent light SUCKS BALLS. I would object less to a tax on incandescent bulbs. Instead of either, how about we let the market do what it was already doing, and I'll go ahead and pay a premium for the 100 watt bulb in my library.

* I had one that died after a few months, and a couple that didn't make a year. But there are others in the house, in lights that are on more, that are four years old and still going bright.

They banned leaded gasoline too.

-So, y'know. Progress.

Because insane stupid people vote for other insane stupid people.

Look at the debt crisis. A lot of Republican congressmen campaigned on a promise that they wouldn't raise the debt ceiling (because the average American voter knows what that implies and can make an intelligent decision about that issue, right?) so they're effectively trapped. Most Republicans are gigantic pussies and refuse to make any sort of decision ever, but some of them earnestly believe that there will be no consequences for their deliberate inaction.

Bachmann described the deadline as a 'hoax,' because she's an uneducated simpleton. Cantor, Gohmert, the Pauls and others probably recognize the deadline, but the repercussions (see: Greece) are politically advantageous to them. Anybody who voted for any of these people should have all of their arteries opened.

Yeah, man! BIG GOVERNMENT has no right to ban inefficient, short-life lightbulbs! You know what else? I want Freon. Freon ****ing everywhere! Fridges, air conditioners, aerosols. It's MY CHOICE if I use Freon or not, and BIG GOVERNMENT has no right to tell me otherwise! Same thing with trans fats. Man, I love me some ****ing trans fats. BIG GOVERNMENT has no right to force me to use fats that won't kill me.

Obviously if these products are disadvantageous to society as a whole, companies will voluntarily stop making and using these products regardless of how inexpensive they are and how much they need to use/produce them to compete in their industry, even though elementary game theory that a retarded child could understand clearly models that they will not ever choose to do so no matter what.

In the United States, 15 people die from coal power for every TWh produced (source.) Assuming coal power production is reduced proportionally to power savings as a result of this bill, it will save 1867 lives every year.

Argument from ignorance.

More likely they are trying to keep you from developing silicosis from all of the **** in the air.

Or instead of buying a 100W bulb for your "library" (read: basement manga shrine) you could buy one of the new 85W energy-efficient incandescent bulbs that produce as much light as an old 100W bulb and have a lower long-term cost.

What? The government conserving energy, saving me money and encouraging competitive innovation in a stagnant industry? FFFFF. **** THE MAN. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT I'M NOT ALLOWED TO BUY.

No, it's actually a library. The only comic book I've read since I turned twelve was Watchmen, so, it'd make an odd sort of 'manga shrine' without having any in it.

Jon'C you make it sound so trite. Oh poor stupid people, just don't understand the gubberment is just trying to save them from their own stupid selves!

Seriously I am quite familiar with the slippery slope fallacy, but really when is it too much? Where is the line? As you already pointed out trans fat has been banned(don't remember if it's just certain places or nationwide) through regulation the government is literally telling us what we can put into our mouths. Why shouldn't they ban saturated fat? Hydrogenated oils? High fructose corn syrup? Honestly. They banned one type of fat that is only marginally worse than saturated. What the ****!?

How can you be a nerd and not read comics?

Also, I'm sure an otaku is lurking, just waiting to tell you that manga and comics are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

British nerd here, we don't really do comic books.

Bah. Bloody Brits.

You really don't know what you're talking about do you?

well are you refering to government banning trans fat(which clifornia did in resteraunts source) or trans-fat being marginally worse than saturated(which it is, both directly raise LDL cholesterol, but trans fat can also lower HDL.)???

Holy **** did they ban milk in California?

touche'! I dont believe they banned naturally occuring trans fats... maybe.

Speaking of trapped, most of them have signed a pledge stating they would never vote to raise taxes and are being blackmailed because of it by Grover Norquist. All he has to say is three words—read my lips—and he has them utterly whipped. Because of this, I have little doubt that the debt ceiling legislation will only pass alone. We will not get the fix our country desperately needs along with this bill.

Gee, it'd be nice if politicians weren't such weenies. 2/3 of Republican voters approve of tax increases as a means to help resolve the deficit. And yet those total buffoons in Washington remain ideologically rigid, willing to utterly destroy the global economy over nothing but pride. Man, **** them. They're just postponing the issue completely, only it'll be worse the next time it comes around. It's so damn disingenuous to adhere to a 'no tax-increase' stance when there exists a class that is already grossly under-taxed and has been since Reagan.