More Crap From the "Party of the Poor"

Published on January 30, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

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.

Comments (Page 2)

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 01, 2007

california has some serious problems with co2 emmissions, and this bill is about dealing with that.

CA's Co2 emissions aren't tied to light bulb usage, and you know it, Sean. You're right when you say that incandescents will soon go the way of the 8 track, but it should be because of consumer demand, NOT because of legislation. This IS about big government controls, Sean, and it reeks.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Feb 01, 2007

CA's Co2 emissions aren't tied to light bulb usage, and you know it, Sean

actually, according to the orig. associated press release article, they are.

The idea has annoyed some Republicans, who say people should be allowed to make their own choices about which bulbs to buy. But Levine, who heads the Assembly's Utilities and Commerce Committee, points out that the new bulbs are so efficient that electric utilities give them away.

He said replacing one 75-watt incandescent light bulb with a 20-watt compact fluorescent bulb would prevent 1,300 pounds of carbon dioxide from being pumped into the atmosphere by electric plants. Carbon dioxide is a major component of the gases that most experts believe are responsible for global warming. Consumers could also save $55 over the life of a single bulb.
full article...WWW Link">Link

another article explains the rest...
If Californians switched completely to compact fluorescent bulbs, it would reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by about 1.8 million metric tons per year or as much as shutting down one or two gas-fired power plants or removing 400,000 cars from the road, said California Energy Commissioner Arthur Rosenfeld, a physics professor emeritus of the University of California-Berkeley. California emits about 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gases a year.

``We treat it as too small to be noticed,'' said Rosenfeld, who last year won the federal Energy Department's highest honor. ``It's a perfect example of all the low-lying fruit that's around. In the case of fluorescent lamps, it's particularly silly not to be using them.''

full article here..link="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/16586529.htm?source=rss&channel=mercurynews_northern_california"]WWW Link

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 01, 2007

Wow, sean. This is the first time I've heard about wind turbines and solar panels causing CO2 emissions. Thanks for the updates.

drmiler

on Feb 01, 2007

points out that the new bulbs are so efficient that electric utilities give them away.

This much is an outright lie!

Wow, sean. This is the first time I've heard about wind turbines and solar panels causing CO2 emissions. Thanks for the updates.

You forgot hydro electric. Which is where "most" of CA power comes from. Can you say "Hoover Dam"?

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 01, 2007

Which is where "most" of CA power comes from.

Which is part of their stupidity, if you ask me. The government's busy banning lightbulbs rather than developing alternative energy sources, and buying the resources of other states (specifically water) rather than gathering their own resources. How much water has been lost by transporting it the distances required to get it to southern California.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Feb 01, 2007

points out that the new bulbs are so efficient that electric utilities give them away.[/quote]

This much is an outright lie!

not according to the article..what's your evidence?

[quote]Wow, sean. This is the first time I've heard about wind turbines and solar panels causing CO2 emissions. Thanks for the updates.

are you contending california doesn't have gas fired plants? they do...many. as of 2004, i believe they had 66 of them. some were on the "retirement list" to be done by 2008 i believe, but many were not.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Feb 01, 2007

California Gross System Power for 2005
In Gigawatt-Hours (GWh)

Fuel Type
In-State
NW Imports
SW Imports
GSP
GSP Percentage

Coal {2}
28,129
4,926
24,796
57,851
20.1%

Large Hydro
34,500
12,883
1,701
49,084
17.0%

Natural Gas
96,088
1,786
10,812
108,686
37.7%

Nuclear
36,155
691
4,861
41,707
14.5%

Renewables
30,916
-0-
-0-
30,916
10.7%

Biomass
6,045

6,045
2.1%

Geothermal
14,379

14,379
5.0%

Small Hydro
5,386

5,386
1.9%

Solar {1}
660

660
0.2%

Wind
4,446

4,446
1.5%

Other
-0-

-0-
0.0%

TOTAL
225,788
20,286
42,170
288,245
100.0%

Source:

Net System Power: A Small Share of California's Power Mix in 2005, Energy Commission Publication # CEC-300-2006-009-F. (Acrobat PDF, 10 pages, 230 kilobytes, date on line April 13, 2006)

the above outlines california's energy sources. i'm sorry the chart didn't print as it was shown on the page. but you can follow that each source has a percentage atthe bottom. coal has 20% roughly, and gas is around 37%. hydro comes in THIRD w/ 17% aprox. MOST of that is instate sourced. even adding the couple of points for smaller hydro doesn't even give it 2nd place, let alone 1st.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 01, 2007

Sean,

So why aren't they working more on alternative energy and less on regulating the end user? I'll tell you why: lobbyists. It's much easier to target joe commuter as the source of Co2 emissions and ignore big businesses, but it's also dishonest. The truth is, the reason they aren't exploring wider implementation of alternative energy options is because of the potential loss of revenue by energy suppliers.

drmiler

on Feb 01, 2007

Now add together what the gas, water, wind and nuke produce
Totaling
34,500 large hydro
96,088 natural gas which only accounts for 2.3% of CA's generated CO2
Link
36,155 nuke
14,379 geothermal
5386 small hydro
4446 wind
660 solar
taken together those are some pretty impressive GWh numbers and of all of them, only the natural gas one give off CO2. 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".

kingbee

on Feb 01, 2007

I don't think it's analogous to gasoline at all.

you see no similarity between legislating incandescent bulbs outta existence and legislating leaded gas outta existence?

unleaded gas was once more expansive yet produced less horsepower by volume than the alternative. making leaded gas unavailable to consumers wasn't easy on minimum wage workers--or anyone else--driving the automotive equivalent of a 3-br home.

if you can envision a non-theoretical alternative scenario in which we would not now be filling your kids' bodies with toxic levels of lead, please share. i'm all for non-carbon energy sources (i'm less concerned about co2 than i am about so2 and hg btw) but i'm not gonna hold my breath, so to speak, in anticipation of socal edison shutting down its coal-fired steam plants.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Feb 02, 2007

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...

drmiler

on Feb 02, 2007

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.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Feb 02, 2007

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."

drmiler

on Feb 02, 2007

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

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Feb 06, 2007

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:)

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!