|
General Discussion Topics of a general nature not relative to any other specific section here |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
House to Consider Bill Nixing Light Bulb Restrictions
House Republicans are pushing a bill Monday that would call off the planned phase-out of certain incandescent light bulbs at the beginning of next year. The Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, is up for debate on the House floor Monday afternoon, with a vote expected later in the week. It would prohibit the government from implementing restrictions that limit the use of standard incandescent bulbs -- potentially compelling consumers to buy fluorescent bulbs which some lawmakers claim are not as reliable. "They don't work. They're subject to blowing out when you get a power surge," Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., told Fox News. "Those new (fluorescent bulbs) are a lot like this Obama administration. They're too expensive to afford." The restrictions stem from a 2007 bill signed by then-President George W. Bush. The bill aimed for better energy efficiency but Republicans have since claimed it will limit consumer options. Blackburn noted that she voted against the bill the first time. The Obama administration issued a statement announcing its opposition to the repeal, saying it would "result in negative economic consequences for U.S. consumers and the economy." The statement of administration policy issued by the Office of Management and budget cited Department of Energy figures that say the law "could collectively save U.S. households nearly $6 billion in 2015 alone." Democrats also ridiculed Republicans for pushing the measure, considering the restrictions were signed into law by Bush and supported by nearly 100 Republicans at the time. A statement from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's office pointed out that while Republicans often claim the legislation amounts to a "ban" on incandescent bulbs, it instead sets stricter energy-efficiency standards. "This legislation is bad for families, bad for our economy, and bad for our environment," the statement said of the repeal bill. Republicans face a heavy lift in passing it. The rules the House is operating under would require a two-thirds majority for the proposal to move to the Senate. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1RpNVwJil |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
That's good news. Energy efficiency should include the energy of production and I think we can reliably guess that the cost of producing the old incadescent bulbs is easily one third that of these plastic and circuit incrusted pieces of junk.
If you want increased efficiency and energy saving, go with the good old flourescent tubes. They give more light per watt than the incadescent filament bulbs and less heat and they are produced just about everywhere in factories that have been around for decades. You can put them in your house, it's as easy as pie.
__________________
The United States of America is for citizens only! Everyone else OUT.
Criminalize asking party affilation for voter registration! End the "two party system"! |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
House Vote to Lift Light Bulb Restrictions!
Jul 11, 2011 Rep. Burgess on energy debate http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/1047814...ylist_id=87485 "Thanks jean!"
__________________
"Deportation, is Job Creation!" http://www.saveourstate.info/showthread.php?t=5250 |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
House Turns Out the Lights on Bulb Ban The House of Representatives voted to preserve a scheduled phase out of incandescent light bulbs Monday evening. The Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act, would have rescinded efficiency standards for incandescent bulbs included in a 2007 energy bill. 233 members voted yes and 193 cast nay votes. But the House required a supermajority to approve this particular package. In this case, it would have needed 285 yea votes to pass. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) voted present. The measure gained support after the 2010 elections, as tea party Republicans seized on the prohibition as an example of government overreach. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, says that the increased efficiency standards have the government picking winners and losers in the lighting market. "To take off the market something that's cheap, effective, and average use costs two or three cents a week to use seems to me to be overkill by the federal government," Barton said of the move away from incandescent bulbs. Supporters of the bill also claim that the compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs designed to replace incandescent bulbs are too expensive and don't work as well as their 19th century competitor."Here's the bottom line, those of us at a certain age, under a compact florescent bulb, we don't look as good as an incandescent bulb," said Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, "The American people should be able to choose what type of light bulb they use in their home. They should not be constrained to all the romance of a Soviet stairwell when they go home in the evening." Democrats were quick to point out that the bulb ban wasn't their idea. "Our current (Energy and Commerce) Chairman Mr. (Fred) Upton (R-Mich.) introduced the bill to set the standards. our former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) supported it along with many other republicans, and finally President George W. Bush signed these standards into law," noted Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Penn. The energy efficiency law Doyle cites passed the House with more than 300 votes in the House and over 80 in the Senate. Upton co-wrote the light bulb language in that energy bill with former Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. Action on the BULB Act was seen by some as a concession to the loser of the Energy and Commerce Chairmanship, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who highlighted Upton's light legislation during their leadership contest last year. Barton has since thanked Upton for taking action on the proposal. The Obama administration issued a statement announcing its opposition to the repeal, saying it would "result in negative economic consequences for U.S. consumers and the economy." The statement of administration policy issued by the Office of Management and Budget cited Department of Energy figures that say the law "could collectively save U.S. households nearly $6 billion in 2015 alone." That's because even though CFL bulbs cost more off the shelf, they last longer and use less energy than incandescent bulbs, and could ultimately save the consumer money over the light's lifetime. The legislation, considered under an expedited rules procedure, required a two-thirds majority for passage. Despite its failure in the House, a way forward in the Democratically-controlled Senate is uncertain. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., supports the current efficiency standards and is unlikely to support action on a similar measure in committee. Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...#ixzz1RxHm3RT1 |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Great mercury filled lights for $4.00 each, is this whole green theme like glowing toxic green? Sure doesn't sound to earth friendly to me!
__________________
"Deportation, is Job Creation!" http://www.saveourstate.info/showthread.php?t=5250 |
|
|