[Clara Lou]

Well, it is excessive federal regulation. Incandescent bulbs have their place just as CFGs and LEDs and halogens do. I despise do-gooder environmentalists who don’t look past the ends of their noses.

[don-o]

God Bless Texas!

[CA Conservative]

While I applaud the effort, I don’t think it will hold up. If the Supreme Court can hold that a farmer growing wheat on his own land, for his own consumption, can be considered to impact interstate commerce simply because it meant he did not need to buy the wheat from someone else, it will be a snap for them to decide that this law would mean that Texans would not need to buy fluorescent bulbs from vendors in other states, and would thus impact interstate commerce.

[Huck]

do not involve interstate commerce and therefore are not subject to federal regulation.

Total grandstanding. I'm sure Perry's lawyers have heard of Wickard v Fillburn and Raich v Gonzalez. I like me some incandescent light bulbs, but this effort is destined to fail. Good PR, I guess. But ignorant on the law.

In Raich, even SCALIA reaffirmed Wickard's holding that the interstate commerce clause covers some activities that are not interstate (or for that matter, commercial.)

[Ancesthntr]

I’m in Texas, and I’ve replaced most of my incandecent bulbs with the CFLs. That was my choice, made easier by the fact that last summer the local grocery chain had them for free (with the coupon). I’m quite certain that there was a federal subsidy behind that - TANSTAAFL, you know. Anyhow, prior to that I only had put them in master bedroom, master bath, kitchen and living room - areas of high usage where the higher cost of the bulbs would be worth it.

Note that these bulbs are no panacea - for one thing, they contain mercury, and if they break there are warnings all over the container about how to clean it up. I still have several of the bulbs that burnt out, because you’re supposed to give them to a recycling center that can handle the mercury...and I have yet to find one. The second thing is that these bulbs don’t have nearly the promised lifetime - they aren’t meant to be turned on and off like an incandecent, and doing so significantly shortens their life...meaning that they’re more expensive than it seems on the surface (yet another thing that the green weenies haven’t thought about).

I utterly RESENT the idea that people nearly 2,000 miles away seem to think that they know what is best for me (and everyone else), and that they are enforcing their do-gooder nonsense literally at the point of a gun, just like every other regulation out there (and before someone says, “but they’re not coming into anyone’s house with a gun to get rid of incandecents” - that’s not what I mean. I mean it in the sense of what would happen to a company that continued to produce incandecents for interstate sale, and disregarded court orders to cease...the guys with guns would be there before long). This country is about freedom and liberty - and the purpose of government is to secure our liberties, NOT to constantly tell us what to do and how to think like perpetual parents of perpetual children.

[Daveinyork]

Next think ya know those Texans will start allowing their people to have toilets that flush properly.

[kittymyrib]

The government nannies will not give consumers “the right to choose” when it comes to light bulbs. Bravo for Texas...again!

[Graybeard58]

"This is about more than just energy consumption, it is about personal freedom,''

I use the rat tail bulbs in some areas, by choice.

[dfwgator]

I only wish they could have made a stand against Lo-Flo toilets.

[rlmorel]

I post these graphics in threads about the incandescent "ban" to show what a crock the concept of energy savings using CFL bulbs is.

It would be one thing if the bulbs performed as well as incandescents, and were the same price or even marginally more, but they are MUCH more in cost, and a distinct decrease in illumination capability.

I have two charts, one un-altered from Lawrence Livermore Labs showing the patterns of energy usage. It is one of the best graphs I have ever seen.

The second chart is an alteration of the first one, popping out the residential usage and enlarging it so it is more easily seen. On this, I have taken the pipeline for electricity that leads into the residential sector, but a
This one shows a portion, the residential one with residential lighting highlighted. The Tan colored pipe going into the residential sector below is residential electricity. The red line shows how much of that pipe is used for lighting currently. The green line shows how much residential electricity would be used if ALL lighting was CFL.

Using CFL bulbs to save electricity as mandated by the government is the same as putting a magnetic ribbon for some cause on the back of your car.

If people want to pay the extra money on bulbs and accept the lack of performance to save energy in their household, I have no problem with that. But having the government make us do it is nanny-statism.

[Utilizer]

Off-topic, but...

Dunno if it's just me, but this posting has some sort of popup-type thingy showing up demanding a username and password from "idisk.me.com". Never had that happen before, and I have a very good popup and malware blocker. Just FYI and hit the [Esc] key a couple of times to make it go away.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

This is a futile effort, as the feds already have a scheme so that all *new* buildings, and lamp appliances like overhead fans with lights, as well as light sockets must conform to federal demands.

It’s already very difficult to get an overhead fan with a light that is not a dim bulb. So the federals are using a “multi-pronged attack” through appliance manufacturers against the public to force compliance.

And though the rumor that existing buildings cannot be sold without conforming to federal energy standards is *not* true, the feds are now requiring power companies replace existing power meters with others that can be remote controlled.

The purpose of this is that if someone is using more energy than the federal government believes they should, they can direct the power company to limit the amount of energy they get from their power lines.

No mistake, the federals are determined to force this on the public, and they don’t care who they hurt or abuse. And the attack is from so many different directions that even if somebody thwarts one of their attacks, the others will still force their whims on us.

[lormand]

Based on the Circular Firing Squads here on FreeRepublic who cry “Gov Big Hair Perry is a RINO”, I predict that Rick Perry will side with radical environmentalists and declare the incandescent light bulb as a threat to mankind.

[OrangeHoof]

On issue after issue, I see Texas butting heads with Washington and if Washington wins, it won't be long before they are forcing amnesty, gay marriage, socialist health care and all sorts of global warming nonsense on us.

That's why I favor secession. We have our own ports. We have our own power grid. We have our own energy sources. We just need to build our own army and set up our own monetary system and we'd be in business.

And once we're in business, not only could we give liberals the finger, we could show how great a pro-business, pro-growth, pro-freedom economy looks without the nanny state lording it over all of us and taking their cut off the top.

It would embarrass all these socialist governments.

[shield]

The other bulbs are actually very dangerous when disposed of...mercury is the hazard...however, people dispose of those bulbs like any other bulb...Perry is saving the incandescent bulbs for those manufactures in Texas...

[SUSSA]

Well, this is a kick in the wallet. I’ve been buying real lightbulbs for over a year. I was going to make good money when the only place to get them was from those of us who stocked up.