The House on Friday morning moved to block federal light bulb efficiency standards without even a roll call vote.
An amendment from Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) defunding the Energy Department’s standards for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient starting next year was approved rather anticlimactically by voice vote. …Politico via Hot Air
Here's the rest of the story:
The new amendment does not actually repeal the federal regulation. It only forbids the Department of Energy from enforcing the standards in the next budget year. Even if this passes the Senate and gets Obama’s signature — probably likely, since it’s now attached to the funding for all energy and water-development agencies — it only fixes the problem through September 2012. The amendment would have to be attached every year unless Congress removes the regulatory language, an effort that will have no chance of passage at all while Obama is President.Well, yah, but that's 12 more months of inventory-building for us.
16 comments:
I wonder if you knew that the light bulb efficiency standards amendment was sponsored by two Republicans, passed the Senate 86-8, the House 314-100 and was signed by George W. Bush in 2007.
Yah, I did.
And they are all despicable.
Unlike you Jim, a lot of people are capable of realizing that stupidity is stupidity regardless of who does it.
I know it's easier for you leftists to be told who to hate and who to love, I know when they feed you your opinion and they feed you your lines you start to think others have it as easy. We don't.
"I know it's easier for you leftists to be told who to hate and who to love"
I don't know what you are talking about, and obviously neither do you.
Jim,
None are as blind as those who do not see.
None so deaf as those who do not hear.
and of course none so lacking in social skills
than does who are self professed leftest, uh I mean those with Asperger’s syndrome...........
... oh wait, its the same thing...
Billions for war, but what you're worried about is light bulbs.
Do these light bulbs come standard on corporate jets?
Billions for war, but what you're worried about is light bulbs.
No, more worried about the government telling us how to spend our own money.
Republican or Democrat idea, telling me what light bulbs I can/can't buy is pure, utter B.S.
And just another file in the ever-expanding drawer labeled "Nanny State (see also: Liberals)"
Not 'nanny state.'
Totalitarian State.
"Republican or Democrat idea, telling me what light bulbs I can/can't buy is pure, utter B.S."
You can buy anything that is available.
Can you buy cribs with drop-down rails? Can you buy electrical appliances without grounded plugs? Can you buy a car without seat belts?
According to the AP, in 1987 President Reagan signed into law efficiency standards for 12 classes of home appliances, including refrigerators, stoves and air conditioners. In 1992 George H.W. Bush added additional efficiency standards for lights, shower heads, electric motors, and commercial heating and cooling systems.
A study by the University of California found:
The lab's analysis of efficiency standards that became effective between 1988 and 2006 concluded that "The standards had saved residential and commercial consumers an estimated $64 billion by the end of 2005" and "The estimated cumulative net present value of consumer benefit amounts to $241 billion by 2030, and grows to $269 billion by 2045."
Incandescent light bulbs are extremely inefficient: energy produces 10% light, 90% heat. Same technology "invented" by Edison over 100 years ago.
People! Join the 21st century!
Ahhhhh, yes.
All is Progress!
Put POISON bulbs into your homes!
And, of course, that $200++Bn net present value savings would NEVER have been achieved were it not for EPA, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, and Bush 1&2.
No one--not one single appliance-maker--would have invented a less-expensive-to-run item.
Never.
By the way, you didn't mention the use of the term "problematic"--which is how the study defines its conclusions.
Even the initial price of any given appliance is "problematic," insofar as price-reductions are not attributable to "energy saving" features.
And of course, the study utilizes DOE numbers as its foundation. Those numbers are UN-doubtedly neutral, as no Gummint agency would shave or fiddle with numbers to preserve its funding. Nope. never.
$240++Bn over 30 years is, frankly, not too impressive.
Jim,
Can you buy ethanol free gasoline?
Gasoline that will not screw up my chainsaw and shorten its life and ruin its gaskets?
The non stop maintenance cost for small engines that are being ruined by corn-a-holer ethanol are another hidden tax and another subsidy to the monsantos of the world.
It is a Totalitarian State and we are sick and tired of the endless government BS and it comes from both sides. Light bulbs are just another example.
Greg
I wonder if GE had anything to do with getting the original ban passed since they sold off their incandescent light bulb business to PR China and were hoping to sell more profitable florescent bulbs?
Besides, those florescent bulbs wear out quickly if you use them in a room where you turn them on and off a lot.
Get lost, Foust.
Dad29, were you concerned with the mercury in bulbs/tubes before this legislation came along?
Post a Comment