Posted on 12/30/2013 10:49:05 AM PST by Carbonsteel
No rules yet for recycling mercury-containing alternatives
A federal ban on inefficient light bulbs goes into effect Jan. 1, 2014, almost seven years after it was announced with fanfare by a then-rookie Conservative government.
But the tough regulations are being watered down, and there are no federal rules yet on recycling a class of bulbs that meet the new standard but contain toxic mercury.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbc.ca ...
They are intent on shoving policies down our throats in the name of the environment whether we like it or not.
Never mind that fluorescent light bulbs contain water table damaging mercury.
Never mind that alternatives are 5-10 times as expensive which will force poor people to either light their homes or feed their families.
Never mind that it takes more energy and resources to build LED's and fluorescent light bulbs then incandescent bulbs...far more.
As long as Liberals FEEL good about it then it's OK. No matter how stupid it may be!
Anyone want to BET that at least ONE (1) EXEMPT
Congressman is PROFITING by this destruction of liberty?
Oh, I'm certain of it.
Eventually, we'll find out exactly who, but by then it will too late to "go back to the way things used to be," the guilty parties will be out of office, and it'll be time to "move on."
Inmost of Canada, for most of the year, incandescent light bulbs are extremely efficient. Five percent of the energy goes to lighting the room, with the other 95% helping to heat a cold room!
Dumb, dumb, and more dumb.
Incandescent are handy and cheap, and I don’t need a hazmat suit to clean one up if I drop it. They also light up instantly (ever wait for one of those “efficient” fluorescent bulbs to come to full brightness, especially in the cold?) and they work with dimmer switches (Wikipedia claims fluorescent bulbs can’t be dimmed, but I’m not sure if that’s the case or not).
Beyond all that, the big eco-triumph they are supposed to represent seems rather minimal. Again citing wikipedia, Australia’s program of banning incandescent bulbs is support to reduce green house gas emissions by just over a whopping one-tenth of one percent. (Gee, that seems a FINE tradeoff for higher costs, less performance, and potentially serious health and safety risks!)
Dumb, dumb, and more dumb.
Could someone remind me.
What is the supposed benefit to society that is achieved by banning incandescent lightbulbs?
One other issue I failed to mention...ask any fire fighter what they think of these small fluorescent light bulbs!
They’re far more likely to start a fire!!
some alleged energy savings
whos paying for that electricity anyway?
WE ARE as individuals....
maybe they contribute to global climate change warming cooling??....
Anyone receiving campaign donations from GE.
What does it take to repeal this idiocy?
oh but the light is so beautiful (sarc)
We have a very liberal tenant in a commercial building we own. Months ago we began replacing his burned out bulbs in the hallways with the new bulbs The tenant complained the lighting now looks “drab” and “depressing” compared to the other lighting
We feel so badly for him butt
I'll bet his initials are "Fred Upton."
Liberals get to feel good about themselves,
and politicians get kickbacks from CFL manufacturers.
Out with electrical use harming the envronment
In with mercury and a need for HazMat suits to change a light simple bulb.
Seems a fair trade....
Republican bill. Republican President.
Isn’t soft fascism just wonderful.
GE is mostly responsible for this. Better profits on the expensive bulbs and because they will make fewer of them they pay less on labor costs.
It’s a win-win for a company that is exempted from paying most corporate taxes.
How passe. That whole greater good thing is just window dressing to make the LIVs feel good about our betters in DC.
Somebody is. From what I understand, the new bulbs are made in China. U.S. incandescent plants have shut down. Because there's no positive impact for the environment from these bulbs (in fact the opposite), there must be a positive financial impact for someone in power somewhere.
The poor people will be protected. There will be free light bulb giveaways for them. Or they’ll get some refundable tax credit that assumes every poor family uses 10 lightbulbs per person per year, and they’ll get some of our cash to be sure they can cover light bulbs. It will just take a little time for some democrat politician in a low income area, to receive a few complaints about the cost of light bulbs, and Congress will pass some relief bill for them in no time. IMHO
It was the GOP and Upton that passed this crap.
This was a Canadian article but even so, our last two Republican Presidents haven't been overly conservative. Liberals are dangerous no matter what their party affiliation is.
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.