Obama to Control the Light
Even as he conceded that the issue isn’t “sexy,” President Obama announced Monday that his administration is prioritizing energy-efficiency standards for home appliances, specifically light bulbs.
The president announced that the Department of Energy will accelerate the spending of a “$346 million investment under the Recovery Act to expand and accelerate the development, deployment and use of energy-efficient technologies in residential and commercial buildings. (ie: OUR tax dollars at work)“
When is he going to reach down and tell me when I can turn on my coffee maker or how much TP I can use?
The world is crashing and burning around him and he’s more worried about controling the lights in our homes and businesses than the brutality in Iran.
Get thee behind me Satan —
…
Category : POTUS Obama | Tags : Barack Hussein Obama
1ceolas
wrote on 29 June 2009 at 21:47
Jolene
“When is he going to reach down and tell me when I can turn on my coffee maker or how much TP I can use?” :-)
yes we have that in Europe already…
see http://ceolas.net/#li22x
——————
Otherwise, regarding the light bulbs….
Yes, ban consumers from buying what they want and applaud the savings!
Edison’s simple safe light bulb is bought 19 times out of 20 in the USA.
The popularity is the reason to ban it: After all, that’s why the savings are supposed to be so great, no reason to ban what people don’t want.
Think about it!
——————-
The fact is that efficiency regulation on a product sacrifices performance, construction, appearance and price features, and does not necessarily give the savings suggested anyway.
See http://ceolas.net/#cc2x
onwards regarding such effects of efficiency regulation on buildings, lightbulbs, cars, dishwashers and other products,
———————-
About saving energy =
Does society need to save energy? No, no shortage of electric energy sources…
——————–
About what Obama also said, “saving lots of emissions banning bulbs” =
Does Jolene’s light bulb actually give out any gases, like seems to happen at the White House? ;-)
Since power stations might not give out any gases either, bans are unfair on emission-free energy households being able to use what they want, now or in the future, and emissions can be dealt with directly – as is planned anyway – by using new cleaner coal or renewable (or nuclear) energy.
——————-
Also – Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s lab was involved in developing the compact fluorescent light bulb, any clash of interest there?
——————————-
Why a ban is wrong:
For a long list, with references, why a ban on ordinary light bulbs is wrong, see:
http://ceolas.net/#li1x onwards
2Jo
wrote on 30 June 2009 at 9:35
Thank you for that wonderful information! And what people are not talking about is the EPA having to get involved in the disposal of these new light bulbs should they break.
The Obama administration refuses to do a cost-estimate on this project. Its all about ramming through whatever legislation they can to take control of the population.
They forget, we revolted once …
3bernie
wrote on 1 July 2009 at 21:53
My wife loves light and so we have more than 150 lightbulbs in the house. The compact florescents save us hundreds of dollars each month, but if someone wants to use regular bulbs that should be his business, not the government’s.