Reply With Quote
This is a huge win for the GOP.
...my stockpile of 75 and 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
Congress overturns incandescent light bulb ban
It also effectively turned every home into a potential Super Fund Toxic Waste Site.Congressional negotiators struck a deal Thursday that overturns the new rules that were to have banned sales of traditional incandescent light bulbs beginning next year.
That agreement is tucked inside the massive 1,200-page spending bill that funds the government through the rest of this fiscal year, and which both houses of Congress will vote on Friday. Mr. Obama is expected to sign the bill, which heads off a looming government shutdown.
Congressional Republicans dropped almost all of the policy restrictions they tried to attach to the bill, but won inclusion of the light bulb provision, which prevents the Obama administration from carrying through a 2007 law that would have set energy efficiency standards that effectively made the traditional light bulb obsolete.
This is a huge win for the GOP.
Right-Wing Media Continue To Mislead On Nonexistent Light Bulb "Ban"
With some provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 scheduled to go into effect on January 1, right-wing media have revived the false claim that the government is "ban[ning]" incandescent light bulbs. In fact, the law simply restricts the sale of inefficient bulbs and has led companies to develop numerous alternatives, including energy-efficient incandescents.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201111280004
There are already energy efficient incandescents available due to this "ban".
..."restricts the sale of inefficient bulbs..." being the operative term. That meant nothing over 60 watts, if I'm not mistaken. It was an effective ban on incandescent bulbs over 60 watts.
And, the alternatives are more costly. When they price comes down, I'm switching to LED bulbs but, right now, they're in the $18-$25 dollar range and, even though they might last decades, I would going to have trouble swapping out my entire house before January 1.
The "energy-efficient" incandescent bulbs amounted to those that come with an Easy Bake oven.
Also, the logical replacement is the CFL which is chocked full to carcinogens and other toxins that, if broken, pretty much require a Super Fund cleanup.
http://www.verilux.com/full-spectrum...ndescent-bulbs
http://www.usa.philips.com/c/standar...ONSUMER%3Dtrue
The regulation was to spur a switch to more energy efficient lighting, and "free market" producers responded where "free market" was not producing efficient bulbs.
Now if set top box makers would quit selling energy-hungry boxes, and vampire chargers were turned off or at least reduced to tiny milliwatts of standby waste
You are astoundingly stupid if you think that's what the law said.
another LED thread. awesome.
Unfortunately for both you and your source, there was no ban on incandencent light bulbs, as has been determined here after an ad nauseum debate on the subject.
The ultimate source of the claim was a bizarre exaggerated claim from a chain email sent out by a group seeking election donations for Republican candidates.
The truth is that there was simply a requirement that they meet certain energy efficiency standards. The light bulb companies had already geared up their production lines to meet this standard, and are jumping in with compliant incandescent bulbs now, if memory serves.
Sorry, once again, the Conservative Avenger appears to have stepped on his .
Joke's on you, RG. He has no .
Is this the point in the thread when yoni disappears?
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 12-16-2011 at 01:18 PM.
Those light bulbs that are supposed to last thousands of hours never do. They burn out just like the rest. At least that has been my experience.
lol yoni the doorbell ditcher
At what cost? And, yes, the legislation effectively banned low-cost incandescent light bulbs over 60 watts.
CFL's are a costly disaster.
LED's have more promise and, are more durable. I suspect the claim LED's can last decades is closer to the truth than the absurd claims that were made about the CFL's.
If they can just bring costs down. But, even if they don't, I plan to start replacing my incandescent bulbs with LED's, one at a time, if I have to. They make sense.
I've put in a few LEDs. I like them, but the soft white one was still a touch too blue for my taste. I'll get used to it.
I like the one LED bulb I bought some time back.
What are they down to for 60 watt equivalents? Have you seen 75 and 100's yet?
I suggest the "daylight" variety. They will keep you in a better mood in the winter months.
That's odd, where I'm from we call that Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_ knocking.
Personally, I prefer the soft yellow glow of my old incandescents. Makes me feel all 80s and .
Edit: Awesome, I finally got auto-censored for saying nugger (with an I).
Mine were 60w equivalents. Were like $25, but I was replacing an incandescent every couple of months at like $4 per bulb as it was a unique size.
Daylight is way too blue for me.
that's what we called it tooThat's odd, where I'm from we call that Luck_The_Fakers
I still don't see why we can't say niggеr, when we can say , , etc.
, you're a stupid .
Apparently YOU can.
He's sneaky about it tho, he knows some kind of hacker trick with computer languages or somethin'. That's mighty coon of him to tip-toe like that, if ya ask me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
