Reply With Quote
Ok...thats ing funny.
Always the naysayer for progress.
I swear. You are the only Amish I know of with a computer.
Ok...thats ing funny.
"progress" is the carbon industries corrupting public policy and politicians to run the world into resource depletion?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...antastic/8545/In the next decade, a large percentage of America’s 37 million streetlights will be equipped with light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, and other kinds of solid-state lighting. Once again, energy-saving is the driving force. “We’re still at the front end of the wave,” says Mark S. Rea, the director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Ins ute, “but LEDs are inevitable as a replacement technology.” He predicts that LEDs, which are already 10 to 20 percent more energy-efficient than high-pressure sodium lights, will have a 40 percent advantage within a year or two.
I can imagine the cost of street lighting. Corporations making a good efficient light source will see profits rise. If we knew who that would be, I'd say buy their stock.
The Battle of the Bulb: How an obscure lightbulb law became a Tea Party rallying cry
Hhttp://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusiv...131355456.htmlouse GOP leaders are ginning up excitement for Tuesday's high-wattage vote to roll back lightbulb efficiency standards—or, as Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, likes to call it, the "Save the Lightbulb" bill.
The bill, and the rallying cry of "Save the Lightbulb!" have become unlikely hallmarks of the tea party movement, touted by presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann and talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Tea party conservatives have targeted an obscure lightbulb efficiency provision tucked into a broad 2007 energy law as symbolic of what they call government overregulation. They passionately decry the law as a "ban" on the familiar incandescent lightbulbs that Americans have used for most of the last century.
...
They are more expensive than the old bulbs but last longer and have the net effect of saving consumers money, according to the Energy Department, which estimates that the bulb law will save Americans $6 billion annually in energy costs.
...
At the time it was introduced, the legislation was championed by Democratic and Republican leaders alike. The original 2007 lightbulb efficiency language was co-sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Ill. It passed easily through the House Energy and Commerce Committee and was added as an amendment to a bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 86-8, the House by a vote of 314-100, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.
So how did Republicans get from there to here on the lightbulb law?
The answer has very little to do with energy policy, and everything to do with tea party politics.
Barton, the bill's sponsor, turned his attention to the lightbulb law last fall, when he found himself pitted in a bitter contest with Upton for chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. The rivalry played out in the weeks after the November elections, when Republicans were giddy with excitement over their tea party-fueled takeover of the House.
The conservative Barton, who has declared that he was "tea party before tea party was cool", rode that wave in his campaign against Upton, digging up pieces of his opponent's record that he believed would show that Upton was too moderate to hold a prominent leadership post. Among them: Upton's sponsorship of the lightbulb standards
...
All of that alarmed manufacturers, who had begun producing the new bulbs, and feared the rollback of the standards would undermine their investments in developing energy-efficient bulbs. Bulb-maker Philips began an aggressive lobbying campaign, meeting with lawmakers and staffers on Capitol Hill, urging them not to roll back the lightbulb law. They brought along samples of the new bulbs, similar in appearance from the old bulbs.
"The new energy efficient incandescent bulbs look and feel just like the old lights that consumers are used to. The only real difference Americans will notice with the new lightbulbs is their lower electricity bills. Electricity savings per family will be about $100 per year," said Randy Moorhead, Vice President of Government Affairs for Philips Electronics, reprising the pitch he's been making tirelessly to GOP lawmakers.
...
Just when I thought I couldn't get more cynical about congressional Republicans.
Icky.
When change is forced, it isn't good. The marketplace will decode for the same results they attempt to mandate. However, forcing it will meet resistance.
GE
They also stand to make a lot of money from wind power as well.
Their stock has been trashed because of their finance unit, so I think it is a bit cheap.
GE is just one of those companies to hold for a long, long time with a solid dividend reinvestment plan.
Resistance doesn't meen that the old way was really the right way or the most efficient way.
The chaos of the market does not always favor results that are more efficient for society.
The same can be said for leaded paint or leaded gasoline, and this whole thing reminds me of that. Overall this is undoubtedly better for the economy.
It is a no brainer, maybe that's why the tea party has such a problem with it. yeah, I went there.
Yes, they have historically been a solid investment. Bothers me that they had so much in tax credits though, they never needed it.
I find that hard to believe since the only time the tea party was cool was before dip republican politicians like Barton took it over.The conservative Barton, who has declared that he was "tea party before tea party was cool",
I'm not defending the old way. I am offended by the authoritarianism.
Sure it does, when the end result is equal.
Does that apple taste like an orange to you by chance?
The message is lost on you. I don't think I have enough time to enlighten you.
GE's fiscal manipulation has little to do with tax credits. Somebody informed on their fiscal shenanigans would know that.
Sure thing Cosmored. You keep telling yourself that I am just a blind shill, who isn't capable of seeing what is right in front of me.
this from the guy that wants to force poor women to get their tubes tied
No, that's the price to get government service if they are to be irresponsible and need help. Keeps it from happening again.this from the guy that wants to force poor women to get their tubes tied
Stop changing the subject. Stop spinning my intent. That effectively makes you a lair.
Why are you going to do if I don't stop, Mr authoritarian?
Show examples of your lies. If you want to put your ass in the wind, that's your issue.Why are you going to do if I don't stop, Mr authoritarian?
What lies? Did you say or not say you wanted poor women's tubes tied?
Simple question, yes or no.
off dip . You want to debate this, start a new thread or revive the other one.
Did you say or not say you wanted poor women's tubes tied?
Simple question, yes or no. Answer the question, Mr Authoritarian.
Are you stupid?
Ask me in the appropriate thread. I already said that once. after already giving you an appropriate answer.
Are you?
Did you say or not say you wanted poor women's tubes tied?
Simple question, yes or no. Answer the question, Mr Authoritarian.
Well, Lightbulb legistlation is the people's way (via the government) of saying that those who continue to use incandescents are irresponsible and need help. Since it affects the cash flows of the public at large (much like government services), I would say that this is absolutely an apples to apples comparison.
It's so funny to me when someone says "I can drive a hummer since I am the one paying for the gas, YOU shouldn't care what I do" or alternatively "I should be allowed to waste as much electricity as I want, as long as I pay my bill, YOU don't need to say anything." That just shows their ignorance.
Edit: they are right, they can use their money the way they wish, but it's the second portion I find ridiculous. If you are going to foolishly throw your money away in a manner which adversely affects others, don't be surprised when those others band together to make it more difficult for you do so.
Should Hummers, Escalades, Suburbans be illegal?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions