Posted on 06/23/2008 8:25:30 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
WASHINGTON – Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts about the ban on incandescent light bulbs effective in 2014 as a result of an energy bill signed into law earlier this year. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, says his objection is very basic – the Constitution doesn’t authorize Congress to do anything remotely like banning a product that has been used safely and efficiently for more than 100 years in favor of Chinese-imported compact fluorescent light bulbs that pose considerable health and safety risks.
Extensive cleanup is required by the Environmental Protection Agency for simply breaking a bulb. When a bulb, which contains mercury, is broken, according to the EPA, the room must be evacuated for 15 minutes and aired out with windows, but not before all glass is removed, placed in a sealed glass jar and disposed of outside. Any remaining glass must be picked up with tape. In addition, central heating or air conditioning units must be turned off.
Wait… Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb?
(Excerpt) Read more at sayanythingblog.com ...
Can you imagine using a CFL bulb as a freezer light bulb. That thing would never come on when you open the freezer door. :)
Why am I imagining a “Blade Runner” future, where, instead of seedy characters on street corners selling illicit drugs, they open their overcoat to all types of Edison light bulbs? ;-)
Where is this occurring? (Some overequipped police department must have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on its hands.)
I broke on the other day trying to fit it in a lamp that it really didn’t want to fit in.
Picked it up and threw it in the trash.
The lights above our patio are the long tube fluorescents. For no reason 2 of them just fell out on the cement about a month ago. Swept them up and threw them in the trash.
I also throw away batteries which is illegal in Ca. I burn my pellet stove on ‘no burn days’.
I ignore every single one of their stupid laws that I can.
Constitution, Article I, Section 8: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
If light bulbs are sold from one state to another, this clause, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives congress the right to ban it.
If the Congress can’t ban the sale of a light bulb, then they can’t ban the sale of drugs either.
The ban is stupid, but arguing that it is unconstitutional won’t help. Not enough people are ready to get the federal government out of the business of deciding what individual are allowed to own.
In fact, I doubt there would be a majority on this board who would allow people to grow Marijuana in their own back yards and smoke it. But if congress can ban that, they certainly can ban you from using incandescent light bulbs.
“Here is the real rub. After 2014, we will have the bulb police to inspect every home, business, etc. to make sure compliance. “
can’t they just do it when they come and check the tags on my mattress ?
Whaddya mean? This is the best idea Congress has come up with since they mandated toilets that don't work. :-))
(Maybe those geniuses just figure out there may be some blowback from this?)
Whaddya mean? This is the best idea Congress has come up with since they mandated toilets that don't work. :-))
(Maybe those geniuses just figured out there may be some blowback from this?)
Revised standards for appliances and lighting. Requires roughly 25 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, phased in from 2012 through 2014. This effectively bans the sale of most current incandescent light bulbs. Various specialty bulbs, including appliance bulbs, colored lights, and 3-way bulbs, are exempt from these requirements. Requires roughly 200 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, or similar energy savings, by 2020.
And this on High Efficiency Bulbs. I think that it's old info, though....
Various efforts to improve the efficiency of incandescent lamps have been made recently, due to legislation and other movements to ban incandescent lamps. The consumer lighting division of General Electric has announced that they are working on what they have dubbed "high efficiency incandescent" (HEI) lamps, which are ultimately expected to be four times as efficient as current incandescent lamps, although their initial production goal is to be 30 lumens per watt or twice as efficient.
LOL. Just wondering how do YOU dispose of those long flourescents when they burn out? They do have tight restrictions like the CFLs. Me, I put on a pair of safety glasses, stand them on end in the garbage can and with a broom handle, do my best Mickey Mantle swing. Most of it lands in the can. What doesn't gets picked up and tossed in.
Bulbs not falling in this range (appliances, Lionel trains) are not affected. Also, NEW high efficiency incandescents that are currently in the pipeline (and that I think will coincidentally come out about as this ban is phased in. Totally coincidental, I'm sure) will not be covered by the ban, either.
For what that's worth. I wanted to find out what the deal was with the ban, as I really didn't like it, either. My opinion? It'll get challenged in court, or overturned, or something, and this will all wind up being much ado about nothing. But that's just my own opinion.
I'm thinking that there will be black market bulbs. Also a whole lot of 35W and 155W bulbs. Or "two-way" and "three-way" bulbs will be more ubitquitous.
People will find a way. They shouldn't have to, though.
BRUSSELS, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.
The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.
Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming.
Don’t forget. The New Deal USSC also found that if you DON’T ship a product across state lines, you are thereby affecting interstate commerce—and thus subject to regulation.
Oh, yeah, I remember reading about that -
a farmer was growing wheat for HIS OWN USE,
and the FDR supreme court said that he was affecting interstate commerce by NOT buying wheat,
therefore his actions were subject to federal regulation.
When did our country decide that fascism was the way to go, anyway?
You forgot, DDT, Chlordane and PCB’s. We can’t buy those things because manufacture/distribution is outlawed. If they were available, we could buy them. (I have my own private supplier of cuban made Chlordane...and I’m in the environmental industry! It’s Hell on ants!)
As for wetlands, the SCOTUS vacated the last big power grab concerning unconnected wetland on private property. (Connected wetlands -wetlands that cross private property lines- are still owned by the state per state regulations).
Hill Country, huh, Rolf. Us Yokels be from the hills, too.
AKA the Dim Bulb Consortium
I suspicion a lot of money changed hands to get this mandate for every household in the country to be forced to buy a made-only-in-china product. Hopefully, they also bought up a lot of stock that will plunge - they'll have to flush twice though, what with our mandated low-flushers
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.