Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

More Crap From the "Party of the Poor"

▼

More Crap From the "Party of the Poor"

from JoeUser Forums

Link

I like compact flourescent light bulbs. I really do.

In fact, you will not find traditional incandescent bulbs in our house for that reason. And our nominal electric bill (average bill between 30-50 bucks a month) reflects that and other energy saving options that we implement around our house.

But I'm going to readily acknowledge that good flourescent light bulbs do not come cheap. The cheapest ones aren't worth buying, frankly, and you have to go somewhere in the $2-3 a bulb range to find a bulb that will actually last. Honestly, it's worth it in the long run.

But given the average 3 bedroom home, and the almost inevitable minimum of 10 lightbulbs throughout the home, and you can see where converting to all flourescent might not be an affordable option for some, in light of the fact that incandescent bulbs are about 1/10 the price. In other words, for the cost of one flourescent bulb, you can light the entire house with incandescents (of course, you pay more in the long run, but honestly, that's not something the poorer members of the community see, especially since utilities are covered by welfare programs, light bulbs are not).

And so, armed with this knowledge, it seems ludicrous that California would be seriously considering implementing a ban on incandescent light bulbs. And yet they are. If the loonies in the legislature have their way, Californians will no longer be allowed to purchase incandescent bulbs. And as usual, the poorest will be the hardest hit by their insane laws, because the cost of outfitting the aforementioned 3 bedroom home with compact flourescent bulbs would be half a day's wages for a minimum wage employee, not the kind of outlay one expects to put into light bulbs.

The proposal to ban incandescent bulbs is yet another symptom of a government run amuck, a government that has lost touch with the people it was elected to represent. If you want to cut electric usage, increase rates. Make electricity pricey, and families will do more to conserve, and consumption will drop. But to even consider banning consumer choices, especially in ways that could very well hurt the poor financially, is contemptible and disgusting.

politics
24,796 views 78 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
you see no similarity between legislating incandescent bulbs outta existence and legislating leaded gas outta existence? [/quote]

that's a good analogy actually

[quote]And like I said only 2.3% of the states total generated CO2 levels came from making electricity with natural gas. They need to work on the coal one most assuredly. I can find no information on the "renewables".


those are some good points miler,,,and yes, the coal is a bigger problem, agreed. don't ya just love the child exploitation on those "clean coal" ads? my wife asked me why they do that the other day. i told her cause it wouldn't be very persuasive to accurately show some crotchety old man clammerin for everyone to "buy some coal!" and whatnot...

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
those are some good points miler,,,and yes, the coal is a bigger problem, agreed. don't ya just love the child exploitation on those "clean coal" ads? my wife asked me why they do that the other day. i told her cause it wouldn't be very persuasive to accurately show some crotchety old man clammerin for everyone to "buy some coal!" and whatnot...


Have you "any" information on what the "renewables" might be? Without knowing what they are or how they're used, there is no way to find out what if any CO2 levels they put out. And yes coal fired is their "biggest" problems. I have had the dubious honor of seeing what kind of gunk they spew into the air. I prefer hydro my self.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
ya see how i respond to a logical, well thought out point vs. being called a liar or having my statements deliberately skewed, edited and taken out of context? i look for the truth miler, not to defend any party or individual over everything as many here do.

fact is that global warming and our continued unabashed wastefulness on this planet is no good for anyone. getting away from the political side of it, the fact is that the evidence is clear and obvious that we need to watch ourselves and what we do to our natural resources unless we really wanna go the way of the dinosaur.

i'm not saying we adapt every wing-nut's proposal that comes down the pike. but i am saying that our behavior, and the environment need to be looked at in a fair and responsible manner.

and this bill, which may be overreaching and unnecessary in the long run, is an honest attempt to do just that. i don't see it as a way to try to control consumers unfairly or squelch competition. although it's easy to spin it into that, especially if you leave out 1/2 the vital information in the debate and the defense of the bill.

this bill, in the long run, will have little consequence, in my opinion. if it fails, the awareness will still be raised if all the facts are presented fairly. i believe people will eventually do away with incandescents alltogether. if it passes, it will merely accelerate that process, which might not be such a bad thing. and with the utilities adding in free bulbs for the asking (a true statement you called me a liar for) it all but eliminates the "hurting the poor" argument. not completely, but it attempt to go a long way.

i know this is a scary idea to many, but maybe the way to accelerate the prcess might be to have a "sin tax" attached to incandescents and maybe couple it with a tax break for buying florescents (save those receipts). maybe there are other solutions. but i do believe it is kind of silly to ignore this "low lying fruit."
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
ya see how i respond to a logical, well thought out point vs. being called a liar or having my statements deliberately skewed, edited and taken out of context? i look for the truth miler, not to defend any party or individual over everything as many here do.

fact is that global warming and our continued unabashed wastefulness on this planet is no good for anyone. getting away from the political side of it, the fact is that the evidence is clear and obvious that we need to watch ourselves and what we do to our natural resources unless we really wanna go the way of the dinosaur.

i'm not saying we adapt every wing-nut's proposal that comes down the pike. but i am saying that our behavior, and the environment need to be looked at in a fair and responsible manner.


If indeed you are looking for the truth read this and the link


Arctic ice thickening, expanding

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s.


Link
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
miler,,,,ugh....james m taylor is one of the guys who is psid by exxonmobil to pontificate this b.s.

i appreciate the research, but the source is poor...and quite frankly, it's not even worth starting a debate over.

take care:)
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
miler,,,,ugh....james m taylor is one of the guys who is psid by exxonmobil to pontificate this b.s.

i appreciate the research, but the source is poor...and quite frankly, it's not even worth starting a debate over.

take care:)


Umm, I think you should go back and read again. Mr Taylor "may be" who you say he is. However take a "good" look at "where" he's getting his info from....

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Umm, I think you should go back and read again. Mr Taylor "may be" who you say he is. However take a "good" look at "where" he's getting his info from....


from a discredited study from 2000-01.

garbage in, garbage out...and 1 article (even if it wasn't discredited) would hardly outweigh the mountain of evidence that shows the effects of global warming.

next...
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
from a discredited study from 2000-01.

garbage in, garbage out...and 1 article (even if it wasn't discredited) would hardly outweigh the mountain of evidence that shows the effects of global warming.


Please show me a source where it was a discredited study. Because I can find no such thing.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
So why aren't they working more on alternative energy and less on regulating the end user?


Because when forming public policy, you want to go after the low hanging fruit first. Alternative energy takes a little bit of time between idea and project implementation. Changing a light bulb is an IMMEDIATE means for reducing both energy and CO2 emissions. Moreover, the consumer actually saves money over the life of the product.

Additionally, the International Energy Agency has found that:
The carbon dioxide emissions saved by such a switch would, it concludes, dwarf cuts so far achieved by adopting wind and solar power


"Nineteen percent of global electricity generation is taken for lighting - that's more than is produced by hydro or nuclear stations, and about the same that's produced from natural gas," he told the BBC News website.

The carbon dioxide produced by generating all of this electricity amounts to 70% of global emissions from passenger vehicles, and is three times more than emissions from aviation, the IEA says.


Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5128478.stm

Sometimes Government is forced to make public policy decisions for the good of everyone. Given CA's fragile electric grid and the state's desire to curb CO2 emissions, this mandate seems like a very reasonable course of action.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
tell ya what miler,,,go watch the oscar nominated "inconvenient truth" that features nobel prize nominee al gore and get back to me. this is gettin boring goin round and round with ya,,,
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
tell ya what miler,,,go watch the oscar nominated "inconvenient truth" that features nobel prize nominee al gore and get back to me. this is gettin boring goin round and round with ya,,,


So a nomination makes one an impeccable source? Strange, a prize did not make the peanut farmer - to many of his collegues - an impeccable source on the Middle east.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Strange, a prize did not make the peanut farmer - to many of his collegues - an impeccable source on the Middle east.


he's still the only person on the planet who ever existed who actually brought a peace accord between israel and any of it's enemies. if ya can't give credit where it's due, then i got no use for ya...

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
oops,,,misread something....ignore this


Misread a lot since I never said he did not get a peace accord. I was commenting about his latest novel and how many of his friends and advisors have said he was full of poop. Best to read what is written - not what you want someone to write.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
"he's still the only person on the planet who ever existed who actually brought a peace accord between israel and any of it's enemies. if ya can't give credit where it's due, then i got no use for ya..."


Then you should credit Walter Cronkite. He's the one who arranged it to begin with.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then you should credit Walter Cronkite. He's the one who arranged it to begin with.


Cronkite should get some credit, indeed. i also like what walter has said about the senseless drug war that this country foolishly continues to pursue. but don't diminish what carter did. it was truly historic.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
his latest novel


talk about your basic moment of unintended revelation. each and in total, dr guy's blogs are, as i've frequently suggested, works of fiction represented (ineptly more often than not) as fact. his comment on carter's book tells it all so clearly: he has plans to compile them for publication.

it's gonna require an incredible effort on his part but i can sorta vaguely envision him being recognized as the literary equivalent of borat's not quite so amusing brother.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
it's gonna require an incredible effort on his part but i can sorta vaguely envision him being recognized as the literary equivalent of borat's not quite so amusing brother.


that's GOOD ONE! lol

let's not be too hard on the lil pundit tho, he's just trying to grasp some straws and save some face. i'm not sure he's capable of apologizing. but his staunch efforts to be ignorant of facts, some of which he wrote himself, is something dick cheney would be damn proud of. and g gordon liddy would truly admire. there's somethin you can hang yer hat on there guy...have a nice day:)
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
talk about your basic moment of unintended revelation. each and in total, dr guy's blogs are, as i've frequently suggested, works of fiction represented (ineptly more often than not) as fact. his comment on carter's book tells it all so clearly: he has plans to compile them for publication.

it's gonna require an incredible effort on his part but i can sorta vaguely envision him being recognized as the literary equivalent of borat's not quite so amusing brother.


Guess you are choosing to remain ignorant instead of just pretending to be. But then that is your problem not mine.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
let's not be too hard on the lil pundit tho, he's just trying to grasp some straws and save some face. i'm not sure he's capable of apologizing. but his staunch efforts to be ignorant of facts, some of which he wrote himself, is something dick cheney would be damn proud of. and g gordon liddy would truly admire. there's somethin you can hang yer hat on there guy...have a nice day:)


I was mistaken. I thought you could read and understand english. I will not make that mistake again. But for the 2 borat clowns in the crowd, please show me where I am wrong. Please. I so want to think that liberals really can think, and not just regurgitate talking points.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
please show me where I am wrong


already have done that. sorry, this lil reindeer game is over.


No, you have just stated opinions contrary to published facts. You really are a lame debater.

So for the slow learners - prove to me that NO ONE CLOSE TO CARTER HAS RESIGNED OVER HIS BOOK BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH IT.

Sorry Sean, Nyah Nyahs are not good debating techniques. So until you have something substantive to say (as kingbee never does), go stand in his cesspool of ignorance.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Sean, Nyah Nyahs are not good debating techniques. So until you have something substantive to say (as kingbee never does), go stand in his cesspool of ignorance.


sorry guy, just making me repeat everything over and over in hopes that i'll word something differently and you'll have an opportunity to try out your cocktail party lawyering is what is obvious to the rest of us.

keep diggin boy...if you must...but trying to hijack everyone else's posts just to try n "get me" on something is getting quite tired...and transparent. you and everyone else know that i'll stand up to all the attacks i am forced into, but it just isn't right or polite to keep hijacking all these posts and just zero in on me on all of them.

i get tired of repeating myself, so that's when ya get a little taunting (that you bring on yourself by trying to be a poor man's johnny cochran)..and you know it. when ya wanna grow up and stop having the delusions that you are the greta van sustren of joeuser, let me know.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
tell ya what miler,,,go watch the oscar nominated "inconvenient truth" that features nobel prize nominee al gore and get back to me. this is gettin boring goin round and round with ya


I wouldn't watch anything that loony puts out! Besides his movie has already been shown to be "full" of erroneous statements. And this coming from a man who claims to have invented the internet.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
wouldn't watch anything that loony puts out! Besides his movie has already been shown to be "full" of erroneous statements. And this coming from a man who claims to have invented the internet.


Careful Doc. He wil try to beat you into submission by repeating his lies and opinions over and over and over and over and over. Next he will be telling us that Farenheit 911 is factual.