Marxism from Republicans? Sad, but true . . .


. . .  Groucho Marxism.

(From Horsefeathers; longer version of entire scene, here.)

The U.S. House of Representatives scheduled a vote today to force light bulb manufacturers to keep manufacturing bulbs the market has rejected — Marxist socialism at its apex! — in order to overturn energy conservation standards signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007.

ThinkProgress explains:

Lately it seems that the House Republican leadership is against everything that isn’t pre-approved by Big Oil or the Tea Party. Perhaps the most outlandish example of this Groucho Marx approach to public policy is today’s vote on the BULB Act, H.R. 2417. It would repeal the energy efficiency standards for light bulbs established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, or EISA, P.L. 110-140. It would also prevent California from setting its own light bulb efficiency standards. The original author of the provision is House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI), who is now supporting the repeal of his own idea after conservatives attacked it along with other clean energy programs.

EISA, with Rep. Upton’s efficiency measure, passed the House in 2007 by a bipartisan vote of 319-100, with support from 49.7 percent of Republicans who voted and 98 percent of Democratic votes. President George W. Bush signed it into law.

Afterwards, Rep. Upton bragged in a press release, “Upton Measure to Upgrade Energy Efficiency Standards for all Light Bulbs Now Law” . . .

Mark Twain observed that it takes just one man of conscience to stand up to a mob and frustrate stupid mob action.  Fred Upton is not that man of conscience, alas.

Meanwhile, PopVox has a poll on the bill.  Go on over there and vote “no,” meaning you wish to keep the conservation standards.

Tip of the old scrub brush to ThinkProgress via Jennsmom.

33 Responses to Marxism from Republicans? Sad, but true . . .

  1. We can’t go on using energy at the rate we have…if for only the simple fact that the sources we use to power that energy will either run out or in one way or another they cost too much…It is time you and your party grow up and start acting like rational responsible adults instead of like a bunch of mealy mouthed brats who are throwing a hissy fit at the idea that you don’t get your way all the time.

    So in keeping with this kind of thinking, you must be in favor of cutting spending and leaving the debt limit where it is, right? You’re going to write to Mr. Get My Way All The Time Himself, at 1600 Pennsylvania, and express this sentiment, right?

    I would remind you: This is the stereotype of liberals painted by conservatives. Everyone outside of government needs to partake in what’s called a “shared sacrifice” — government, in all functions outside the military, gets to be like Michelle with her 1700 calorie meal, and grow, sprawl, consume, expand…never think about cutting a single thing. Here’s your chance to fight that stereotype, or help to sustain it. My prediction is you’ll sustain it.

    I’m wrong, aren’t I?

    Like

  2. James Kessler says:

    Yes, Morgan, this is how far to the extreme right your party has gone…where by your own party’s definition things that Reagan, H Bush, W Bush and members of your own party is “marxist” or “socialist.”

    Sorry, you don’t run a country of 300 million people with the power, wealth and responsibilities of the United States with a libertarian mindset. It is in the best interest of the United States to lower its energy consumption. It is in our best interest economically, environmentally and as a subject of national security. We can’t go on using energy at the rate we have…if for only the simple fact that the sources we use to power that energy will either run out or in one way or another they cost too much.

    It is time you and your party grow up and start acting like rational responsible adults instead of like a bunch of mealy mouthed brats who are throwing a hissy fit at the idea that you don’t get your way all the time. If you and your party can’t grow up and start acting like rational and responsible adults then do the country a favor and shut up, sit down and let the real adults fix the problems you and yours either create or want to ignore.

    Like

  3. James Kessler says:

    Ed, so was Reagan a marxist when he proposed the original standards in the first place?

    And was George W Bush a marxist when he signed the law that upgraded the standards?

    Which I suppose raises the question of was half the Republican party, give or take, marxist when they voted for the updated standards?

    Like

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    Stuff some people might find useful on the issues of energy conservation and light bulb standards:

    1. March 10, 2011 hearing of the Senate Energy Committee on, among other things, S. 395, a bill proposed to vitiate the 2007 light bulb standards (text version). See especially the statements from Home Depot (in the appendices), and the state energy officials association. (This is the hearing where Rand Paul ranted about his inability to find a toilet that flushes, for more than 20 years.)

    2. 2007 GAO report to the Senate Committee on Energy (in .pdf form — 88 pages), saying that federal agencies could do a better job of putting out consumer information to help people buy energy efficient products. I haven’t checked all the dates — this report is from September — but I suspect this was part of the process leading up to the 2007 legislation.

    3. Statement of GAO on problems of Energy Star program, in 1982 hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee

    4. 2009 GAO brief to Senate Energy Committee, noting that the light bulb regulations were done according to Hoyle, and that there would result significant cost and energy savings, but no significant increase of regulatory red tape.

    5. Boston Globe editorial from March 23, 2011, noting the broad support for the light bulb standards, especially from the groups most heavily affected and regulated by them. “Congress’ Dim-Watt Caucus” should tell you where the paper’s editorial board came down, but look at the information upon which they base their arguments.

    Like

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    Ed, can you tell us how members of Congress are qualified to make decisions about light bulb standards? I mean, over & above people who make light bulbs…as Phil pointed out, and it’s a great point, if the people who make light bulbs would’ve been following this anyway, the standard would have been ineffective.

    I don’t understand your point.

    The Energy Star program has been effective for more than 30 years in providing consumers with clear comparisons of energy use of appliances and other household energy-using products, much as the mileage program of DOT labels autos with apples-to-apples comparisons of gas mileage and thereby pushes people to buy more energy efficient products (with the possible exception of the intentional sabotage of the program during the Reagan administration).

    So you’re arguing against a long history that testifies to the benefits of providing consumers with information so consumers can choose energy efficient products.

    Energy standards are as old, though not quite so well developed in all areas. Eleven categories of household energy-using products now have standards that manufacturers are urged to meet, or required to meet.

    Congress’s experience indicates that they can collectively effectively legislate energy standards.

    In the case of the 2006 lighting standards, Congress didn’t write them — the manufacturers and energy experts did. Congress gave a stamp of approval. Do I think GE, Sylvania, Philips and Osram (among others) are competent to write standards on energy use and advancing standards achievable in the future? Yes.

    Is Congress competent to put those standards into a regulatory structure? Sure.

    In this entire discussion you’ve not offered an iota of evidence of any problem with any of the standards beyond a faux-macho claim of government over-reach. How is it over-reach for Congress to help consumers with good information?

    By arguing that the standard had a positive effect, you, Ed, are the one arguing that there must be something about politicians that makes them smarter about this than the makers of light bulbs.

    Morgan, you don’t really have a clue about any of these programs, do you. Congress often writes laws on complex standards, with aid from agency experts, industry experts, and in this case, from consumer groups and manufacturing groups and the public at large. That’s exactly what’s supposed to happen. It’s a process that makes us hold our breath sometimes, like when Congress ordered automobiles to be cleaner than any technology then-available could do — giving rise to the invention of a working, affordable catalytic converter that now cleans the air of our nation (and others). This is a process that works in countless industries, and has worked well for no less than 50 years (at least a century if you count food regulations).

    Rep. Joe Barton is the guy (idiot?) who claims he knows better than the experts, the consumers, GAO, and the Chamber of Commerce. Where do you get off defending such a totalitarian jerk?

    Let me repeat, for at least the third time: The light bulb manufacturers wrote the standards. Not Congress. Do I think light bulb manufacturers know what they are talking about? In this case, with all the qualifiers that we shouldn’t put unwarranted trust in any business, I trust ’em to do a good job in this process. Do I trust Congress to figure out a law that makes those standards work? Yes. That’s their job, and they’ve gotte a lot better at it over the past 35 years.

    This is how a modern republic works, in a very complex world, where we use markets to do the “regulating” that dictators would do in a totalitarian regime. Joe Barton wishes he were the dictator, but all the evidence shows his scheme wouldn’t work as well as the current law.

    In the spirit of returning to the original topic, maybe you can answer that in a straightforward way.

    The original topic of this thread was a joke about Republican/Tea Party head-in-the-sand, unthinking opposition to all ideas, good or bad. Alas, with Rep. Gohmert’s idiocy in the press today, the post looks less like a parody and more like incisive commentary.

    What was it you wanted to get back to?

    Energy conservation hasn’t worked flawlessly through the years, but the light bulb standards don’t come close to the policy disaster of the Reagan era when DOEnergy simply refused to issue any standards in most categories, contrary to law.

    We must reduce our dependence on foreign fuel sources. We must reduce our over-consumption of energy sources, and greatly improve our energy efficiency if we are to compete as an industrialized nation in the 21st century. Energy conservation keeps proving to be an outstanding way to advance our economic and social well-being. Some California city governments were able to reduce their municipal power usage by 25% with the simple replacing of incandescent and other bulbs in traffic lights with LEDs. We are achieving similar results in Texas cities. This technology was driven by laws requiring cities to get lean, utilities to encourage conservation, and grants from DOEnergy to develop new technologies to commercial applications. (Joe Barton has fought that stuff every step of the way.)

    If we can get better traffic lights that reduce energy consumption, thereby reducing need for oil imports or coal usage, who would be idiot and anti-American enough to stand in the way — I mean, other than Joe Barton, Rand Paul, and maybe you?

    Links you may find useful coming.

    Like

  6. James Kessler says:

    To quote myself:
    Secondly, I suspect that if one actually explained what the original bill did they wouldn’t have a problem with it.

    “Secondly I suspect that if one actually explained to the people what the original bill did they wouldn’t have a problem with it.”

    Of course that would require the Republicans to stop being paranoid fear mongering chicken littles. It would also require the Republicans to treat their fellow Republicans like intelligent adults and with respect. But no..the Republican party continues to treat its members like stupid little children. And the Republican faithful like Morgan continue to let themselves be conned by their own party.

    Like

  7. James Kessler says:

    Peek writes:
    Ed, can you tell us how members of Congress are qualified to make decisions about light bulb standards? I mean, over & above people who make light bulbs…as Phil pointed out, and it’s a great point, if the people who make light bulbs would’ve been following this anyway, the standard would have been ineffective. By arguing that the standard had a positive effect, you, Ed, are the one arguing that there must be something about politicians that makes them smarter about this than the makers of light bulbs.

    You mean besides the fact that the light bulb industry itself asked for the standards? Or did that somehow escape your notice? That the light bulb industry asked for there to be a federal standard so they didn’t end up having to make lightbulbs to cover the different standards of 50 states.

    Your side is actually asking the light bulb industry to waste money and do something against its will.

    Considering any time the Democrats ask an industry to do something against its will the Republicans jump and down screaming “socialism” or “marxism” how is it any different when they do it?

    Oh and Morgan, your side pulled a Groucho Marx move because it tried to do something stupid and foolish with repealing their own law just so they could sit there and do something stupid and foolish and fool you and your fellow peons into thinking they’re actually attempting to do their jobs instead of being miserble failures and incompetent boobs.

    There you sit, injesting the right wing opium blindly and stupidly.

    Like

  8. James Kessler says:

    Morgan writes:
    No, I think I’ll side with the majority of Americans and the majority of Congress in our understanding that this was a boneheaded move and shouldn’t have been done.

    If the majority of congress thought it shouldn’t have been done it would have been repealed..oops it wasn’t. Secondly, I suspect that if one actually explained what the original bill did they wouldn’t have a problem with it.

    But tell me…you want to obey the percieved majority there but you want to disobey the majority that wants to raise taxes on the rich?

    As for “trained monkeys” sorry that’s still just you. You didn’t have a problem with the law until you got told to have a problem with the law. Because not once in 5 years Morgan have I seen you voice any objection to that law. If the Republicans hadn’t suddenly decided that their own law was “government overreach” you would never have uttered a single word of objection.

    You simply have no ability to think for yourself.

    Like

  9. www.peekinthewell.net/blog/ says:

    More like,

    Ed, can you tell us how members of Congress are qualified to make decisions about light bulb standards? I mean, over & above people who make light bulbs…as Phil pointed out, and it’s a great point, if the people who make light bulbs would’ve been following this anyway, the standard would have been ineffective. By arguing that the standard had a positive effect, you, Ed, are the one arguing that there must be something about politicians that makes them smarter about this than the makers of light bulbs.

    In the spirit of returning to the original topic, maybe you can answer that in a straightforward way.

    Like

  10. Ed Darrell says:

    No, I think I’ll side with the majority of Americans and the majority of Congress in our understanding that this was a boneheaded move and shouldn’t have been done.

    Only 20% of Americans are aware of the bill. Not only is that not a majority, I’ll wager there’s not a majority of those who know about it who give a whit.

    Remember, this was done at the request of the lightbulb makers. It was supported by all stakeholders in 2007, and still is.

    If you wish to side with the majority, you’ll have to applaud the quick dispatch of a stupid bill.

    As for finding out for myself whether what I was being told was the truth or not, I’m glad I took the time and trouble to do it. I’ve still been given absolutely no reason to think of the proposed bill as “marxist” or “Groucho Marxist,” and these seem to be excitement-inducing buzzwords directed toward people who couldn’t be motivated to find out what was really happening…”trained monkeys,” like you, in other words. Right?

    Had it succeeded, the bill definitely would have totalitarian tinges to it — cutting against markets (Marxist, as in Karl Marx), trampling the market decisions, and ordering businesses around.

    But you highlighted a key point — the bill as written couldn’t do much at all. Incompetent legislating from incompetent legislators.

    You know, under the 2007 law, anyone can petition the Department of Energy to overrule any product phase out.

    So there is a good, democratic republicans mechanism for the will of the people to be exercised, or registered at a minimum.

    It would be a good test of whether the current bill was needed at all.

    Morgan, can you tell us how many protests were received under the 2007 law?

    Like

  11. So Morgan and Hattip, would you care to admit that once again you got caught being a stupid reactionary and clapping like trained monkeys to what you got told to clap to instead of finding out for yourselves whether what you were being told was the truth or not?

    No, I think I’ll side with the majority of Americans and the majority of Congress in our understanding that this was a boneheaded move and shouldn’t have been done.

    As for finding out for myself whether what I was being told was the truth or not, I’m glad I took the time and trouble to do it. I’ve still been given absolutely no reason to think of the proposed bill as “marxist” or “Groucho Marxist,” and these seem to be excitement-inducing buzzwords directed toward people who couldn’t be motivated to find out what was really happening…”trained monkeys,” like you, in other words. Right?

    Like

  12. James Kessler says:

    And because I know Morgan, Hattip and most other conservatives here won’t bother to take Ed’s suggestion and go read what is at that link, here’s just one of the operative parts of the article from Mr. Sinclair:

    “Lighting manufacturers have introduced new incandescent bulbs that look like conventional incandescent bulbs. The new bulbs are on store shelves right now. They produce the same quantity and quality of light, but use 28 to 33 percent less energy. Switching to more efficient light bulbs will save households $100 per year on their electric bills.”

    I’ll specifically note the sixth word of that first sentence being “incandescent.”

    So Morgan and Hattip, would you care to admit that once again you got caught being a stupid reactionary and clapping like trained monkeys to what you got told to clap to instead of finding out for yourselves whether what you were being told was the truth or not?

    Like

  13. James Kessler says:

    Oh I forgot the favorite Republican use of “If you can’t win the argument, change the argument”

    They suddenly start calling anything the government does “socialism” just so they can manufacture a reason to oppose something.

    Like

  14. James Kessler says:

    To quote:
    But I’ve learned this common tactic of liberals.� If you can’t win the argument, change the argument.

    Actually thats one of the common tactics of conservatives. Kind of like how the anti-gay marriage bit morphed from being “I hate gays” to being about supposedly protecting the institution of marriage from…wait for it….people wanting to get married. Or “anti-Christian” bias.

    Or how the insurance mandate on health care, originally a Republican idea, suddenly became “socialism” and “throwing grandma under the boss.”

    Or how conservative misogny became “pro-life.”

    Like

  15. Ed Darrell says:

    A minute ago you were calling Republicans statists for attempting to repeal a regulation that you liked. I was calling you on that. Morgan asked how the lack of a law would prevent California from imposing its own standards.

    But I’ve learned this common tactic of liberals. If you can’t win the argument, change the argument.

    So you want the state to impose standards because it’s a “good idea”.

    Energy conservation is a good idea. Generally, national standards on things like lightbulbs work better than state standards, because almost inevitably a couple of states go squirrelly, and it costs a lot more to make stuff for just one or two states — and when the manufacturers don’t make the stuff, we get imports, or regulations requiring manufacturers to make the stuff.

    In the case of the 2007 law, light bulb manufacturers asked for national standards for the sake of consistency from state to state. The standards were written by the light bulb manufacturers, with broad support from conservation groups, the Chamber of Commerce, consumers, and the manufacturers.

    None of those groups changed their minds or positions. The drive against these standards is completely political, with no foundation in fact, in business trends, or any part of science.

    In reality, Rep. Barton really is acting a bit crazier than Groucho Marx in the movie.

    When industry gets the rules it wants, who are you, or Morgan, or anyone else, to claim that it’s “socialism,” or “statism,” or anything other than good old-fashioned free enterprise in a republic consisting of 50 different states?

    There is no good argument to be made against the 2007 standards. They still have the endorsement of all the groups who endorsed them in 2007.

    So, where doe Joe Barton get off telling everyone else what to do? What is this other than an exercise is raw, naked power?

    Fortunately, our republic’s rules helped stop the power grab by Barton. Thank God for the Constitution and the laws under it.

    Like

  16. James Kessler says:

    To quote:
    If “the market” has “rejected” incandescents, then there’s no harm in removing this, according to you, obviously unnecessary bit of legislation, for if it’s really “the market” that did it, it will continue to do so and the incandescent will die a natural death.

    By the same token, as the market has rejected incandescents there is no reason to remove the law. Especially in light of the fact that there are far more important things that we should be concentrating on.

    But no..there goes your party again…coming up with stupid **** in order to distract the masses what a bunch of incompetent nincompoops your party is.

    Like

  17. Ed Darrell says:

    See the next post.

    Dan Weiss reports at Climate Progress that the attempt to kill energy conservation standards failed tonight. It required a two-thirds vote from the House to suspend the rules to consider it (the bill did not go through normal legislative channels) — the bill failed.

    You may want to read Steve Lacey’s earlier explanation of the bill there, too.

    Like

  18. James Kessler says:

    To quote:
    I see you did point to the restricting clause while I was replying. Yes. It would prohibit state and local governments from requiring you to use bulbs with mercury in them…. I can see an argument for this because of the potential pollution of our water potentially houses with mercury, and that pollution of aquifers can cross state lines.

    Then you probably should be asking Congressman Joe Barton why he thinks coal fired power plants and their mercury emissions aren’t a health hazard.

    Because the risk of mercury from a CFL lightbulb is about the same as if you ate a can of tuna.

    Like

  19. Ed Darrell says:

    If “the market” has “rejected” incandescents, then there’s no harm in removing this, according to you, obviously unnecessary bit of legislation, for if it’s really “the market” that did it, it will continue to do so and the incandescent will die a natural death.

    Sections 321 and 322 include a clause that allows any person — any person — to request a waiver for any light bulb, for any reason, to keep it on the market.

    Has anyone asked for any bulbs not to go off the market?

    No. There is zero need for this bill. It’s attempted political smear, and its a demonstration of just how much the so-called Tea Party hates the U.S.

    If the market has rejected incandescents, why are the Tea Partiers now trying to keep incandescents on the market, and banning standards that favor fluorescents? The original standards were written to mirror the market — the proposal today is to upset the market. That’s Soviet-style, don’t-let-the-markets-work-because-we-know-better-than-you-ism.

    I remember the Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate in Utah in 1976 came out with a great line, “it’s just a question of whose whip you wish to kiss.” Tea Party isn’t opposed to Big Government, nor to socialism, just so Big Government favors their friends.

    They’ll vote against fairness, the American flag, and their own children if they have to, to flex their muscles and crack their whips. It would be comical if it weren’t for real.

    Like

  20. Ed Darrell says:

    I see you did point to the restricting clause while I was replying. Yes. It would prohibit state and local governments from requiring you to use bulbs with mercury in them…. I can see an argument for this because of the potential pollution of our water potentially houses with mercury, and that pollution of aquifers can cross state lines.

    Then you’ll have no difficulty showing us the difficulties from mercury pollution today, from the disposal of millions of 40-watt (or, frustrating to the max to Morgan, 32-watt) fluorescents common in kitchens and bathrooms. That threat is much greater than CFLs at the moment, and would remain so for some considerable time to come.

    Got the statistics?

    No. You don’t. First, it’s not a great problem, nor would be mercury pollution from CFLs. Second, as Barton well knows, mercury pollution poses serious threats in emissions from coal plants and especially from mining — threats that he’s been fighting to keep alive, because controlling the deadly mercury poisons would cost his friends a few pennies.

    I do wish that some proponent of today’s bill would make a case for it, arguing that energy conservation is stupid or unnecessary, or citing a genuine harm from saving energy. Mercury pollution from these lightbulbs is only a problem in that it reveals the profound, America-damaging hypocrisy that thrives in the tea these clowns are forcing down our throats.

    Like

  21. Ed Darrell says:

    Come on, Morgan. This bill Barton has up is just more legislative masturbation. Barton’s not clever enough to come up with a bill that would actually do anything other than throw a spanner in the works.

    And from all I have managed to research about it, it is exactly what it has been portrayed to be: A thirteenth-hour realization that Congress screwed up by exerting too much control, and a remedy in the form of relinquishing the control.

    Seriously? Can you tell us what “control” is being exerted that is “too much?” Be specific. What order of the federal government is being repealed. Chapter and verse.

    How does that order affect anyone’s actions? Mind you, incandescent lightbulbs are not banned under the 2007 law, incandescent lights are still legal (and two that meet the tougher standards went on sale in the past year), no incandescents are manufactured in the U.S. anymore (market forces, as best I can tell — I’ll dig up an article or two), and the CFLs would actually decrease mercury pollution.

    Sidetrack that demonstrates Barton’s bill is stupid and not thought out: In some applications today, fluorescent lights are mandated because they emit modest amounts of UV light that kills germs. So their use is requires in some states in schools, to prevent flus and colds from spreading, and in some hospital uses. All fluorescent bulbs, CFL or tubes, or circles, or whatever, use small amounts of mercury.

    Would that be allowed under the new bill?

    I’m also highly amused that Barton cites mercury as if it were a problem in this bill (though he carefully avoids calling it a problem) — because he’s fighting tooth and nail to prevent EPA from controlling mercury pollution in all other contexts.

    Hypocrisy on top of idiocy.

    And, you’re on to a good idea: Look at the bill. Does it do what Barton promises, what Rand Paul hopes, and stop the spread of CFLs, and return the manufacture of 100 watt incandescents? No.

    Legislative fellatio, at a high price: We need jobs. Congress has better things to do.

    Tea Party promised freedom, but they are going after energy savings, driving up the costs of an average household. This is freedom?

    Like

  22. I see you did point to the restricting clause while I was replying. Yes. It would prohibit state and local governments from requiring you to use bulbs with mercury in them…. I can see an argument for this because of the potential pollution of our water potentially houses with mercury, and that pollution of aquifers can cross state lines.

    The other, the not allowing State and Local governments to regulate fixture sizes … I’ll go ahead and say I disagree with. The powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government resides in the various states. So indeed the Federal government should butt out there.

    Then I want to be at the town hall meeting where someone says “Hey, let’s require everyone in our town use a different size fixture!” That would be interesting indeed.

    Like

  23. Whooosh!!!! Misdirection. You didn’t answer anyone’s question.

    A minute ago you were calling Republicans statists for attempting to repeal a regulation that you liked. I was calling you on that. Morgan asked how the lack of a law would prevent California from imposing its own standards.

    But I’ve learned this common tactic of liberals. If you can’t win the argument, change the argument.

    So you want the state to impose standards because it’s a “good idea”.

    Laws should not be passed because they “create jobs”. Laws don’t create jobs. Governments don’t create jobs. Markets create jobs. Sometimes the government is a part of that market, for government is after all, necessary and we don’t ask anyone do do these jobs for free. The only jobs that government can “create” come at the expense of the free market — that which the government relies for its operating funds. You might say each government job “costs” at least one free market job.

    Whether or not we manufacture incandescent bulbs in the US is absolutely irrelavent. Without the law, we would have the freedom to manufacture them here, and if it were profitable somebody would. Once again, the opposite of what you assert. Banning their manufacture here would mean mandatory import, if we even allowed their import.

    NOT requiring A does NOT mean requiring NOT A. It is the reqirement which is artificial, not what happens in its absence.

    And if we didn’t allow their import, think of the poor chillllldren in the 3rd world countries that did manufacture them – who would starve as their families lost their jobs, or die horrible deaths from mercury poisoning from the plants manufacturing the CF’s they made.

    Like

  24. Ellie says:

    Oh heck, I’ve been singing that song since Obama was sworn in. How could anyone not? Even bills that came from the Republicans were rejected if Obama was in favor of them. They’re ready to see the country fail and all because “whatever it is, I’m against it….ever since I first commenced it…I’m against it.”

    Like

  25. Okay good. So we’re arguing about:

    Provides that: (1) no federal, state, or local requirement or standard regarding energy efficient lighting shall be effective to the extent that the requirement or standard can be satisfied only by installing or using lamps containing mercury; and (2) no state or local regulation concerning the energy efficiency or energy use of medium screw base general service incandescent lamps shall be effective.

    That’s where the “Groucho Marxism” is?

    Like

  26. I am doing the research that comes from taking your claim seriously. And I’m again finding that when I take your claim seriously and go looking for the facts that would substantiate it, it’s hollow.

    The text I am citing is from the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, introduced in Congress in March 2011. And from all I have managed to research about it, it is exactly what it has been portrayed to be: A thirteenth-hour realization that Congress screwed up by exerting too much control, and a remedy in the form of relinquishing the control.

    This is the part where you provide the citation, or join me in helping to debunk this “Fillmore’s Bathtub” rumor of your own making.

    Like

  27. Ed Darrell says:

    Here’s the summary of the bill, H.R. 2417, from the Congressional Research Service:

    Better Use of Light Bulbs Act – Repeals provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 concerning lighting energy efficiency, including provisions amending the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), that: (1) prescribe energy efficiency standards for general service incandescent lamps, rough service lamps, and other designated lamps; (2) direct the Secretary of Energy (DOE) to conduct and report to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on an annual assessment of the market for general service lamps and compact fluorescent lamps; (3) direct the Secretary to carry out a proactive national program of consumer awareness, information, and education about lamp labels and energy-efficient lighting choices; (4) prohibit a manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler from distributing in commerce specified adapters for incandescent lamps; (5) authorize the Secretary to carry out a lighting technology research and development program; and (6) set forth minimum energy efficiency standards for incandescent reflector lamps. Provides that EPCA shall be applied and administered as if such provisions had not been enacted.

    Provides that: (1) no federal, state, or local requirement or standard regarding energy efficient lighting shall be effective to the extent that the requirement or standard can be satisfied only by installing or using lamps containing mercury; and (2) no state or local regulation concerning the energy efficiency or energy use of medium screw base general service incandescent lamps shall be effective.

    You could be right that it does not mandate manufacture of incandescents — which means many people would be simply unable to get light bulbs to replace what burns out. Notice that it contains prohibitions on the sale of “adapters” for incandescent lamps. We need to look at the specifics, but each CFL comes with its own adapter built in. That looks to me to be targeted at CFL bulb directly.

    Like

  28. Ed Darrell says:

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act’.

    SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    What are you quoting from, Morgan? Got a citation?

    I think you’re quoting from the 2007 law, which specifically would not stop California from setting tougher energy conservation standards.

    So, you’re citing the law that is to be repealed under the current proposal.

    Can you cite any reason we should brook people trying to make us emit 20% more carbon dioxide by 2012? Isn’t that insane?

    Like

  29. Since the new bill bans the manufacture and sale of certain forms of CFLs…

    Like

  30. Ed Darrell says:

    1. No incandescent bulbs are manufactured in the U.S. today. Can anyone explain how this bill will “save” jobs that don’t exist? This looks like a “mandatory import” bill to me.

    2. Since the new bill bans the manufacture and sale of certain forms of CFLs, can anyone explain to me how it is not a Soviet-style invervention into industry?

    3. Since the standards as they exist will prevent the need for the construction of 33 coal-fired power plants nationwide, can anyone explain to me why that’s not a good idea?

    4. Since the current bill is projected to save the average homeowner $85 a year on electricity, can anyone explain to me why homeowners should favor paying $85 more each year?

    Like

  31. If “the market” has “rejected” incandescents, then there’s no harm in removing this, according to you, obviously unnecessary bit of legislation, for if it’s really “the market” that did it, it will continue to do so and the incandescent will die a natural death.

    This doesn’t limit anyone’s freedom to do anything. The very idea that the repeal of a statist act, of government control on something is somehow a statist act is logic that implodes on itself instantaneously when exposed to the light of reason.

    It must be very hard work to maintain one’s worldview when it is based on such illusion.

    Especially now that AGW has been exposed as a giant fraud, I’d rather see the relatively clean, inexpensive and inert incandescent go into landfills rather than more flourescents, which contain mercury to seep into our groundwater.

    Erin Brockovich would, of course, sue the curly-bulb companies that benefitied from this statist intervention rather than the state itself which forced it to happen, and she’d be the heroine.

    Like

  32. Text:

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act’.

    SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    1
    (a) In General- Effective 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, sections 321 and 322, and the items in the table of contents relating thereto, of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 are repealed, unless the Comptroller General has before that time transmitted to the Congress a report containing all of the findings described in section 3(a).

    (b) Reversion- If a repeal occurs under subsection (a), the amendments made by sections 321 and 322 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 are hereby repealed, and the laws amended thereby shall read as if those amendments had not been enacted.

    SEC. 3. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.

    (a) Findings- A report referred to in section 2(a) is a report that finds that–

    (1) consumers will obtain a net savings, in terms of dollars spent on the combination of monthly electric bills and expenses for new light fixtures to accommodate the use of the light bulbs required by the amendments described in section 2(a), compared to dollars spent before the enactment of those amendments;

    (2) the phase-out required by those amendments will reduce overall carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent in the United States by the year 2025; and

    (3) such phase-out will not pose any health risks, including risks associated with mercury containment in certain light bulbs, to consumers or the general public, including health risks with respect to hospitals, schools, day care centers, mental health facilities, and nursing homes.

    (b) Projections- The report shall include monthly and yearly projections of expenses described in subsection (a)(1) over the period of January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017.

    My question for you, Mr. Darrell, since you’ve written much to promulgate a “bathtub” urban legend of your own, that this repeal is somehow a statist move, and defeating the repeal would somehow be a liberating move: Is there something in the text, above, that would “prevent California from setting its own light bulb efficiency standards”?

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: