Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
To: Cincinatus' Wife
The hope is that if they make us energy efficient enough we'll all just give up and die.
2 posted on
04/28/2014 12:35:47 PM PDT by
E. Pluribus Unum
("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Except for the bulb what is there to make efficient?
3 posted on
04/28/2014 12:35:59 PM PDT by
sickoflibs
(Obama : 'You can keep your doctor if you want. I never tell a lie ')
To: Cincinatus' Wife
What a pantload. Any Congress with a pair would simply defund DOE. But that ain’t gonna happen.
5 posted on
04/28/2014 12:36:35 PM PDT by
tgusa
(gun control: deep breath, sight alignment, squeeze the trigger .......)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Why is it that whenever they talk about how WE are
saving money, WE end up paying more, for EVERYTHING?
6 posted on
04/28/2014 12:36:47 PM PDT by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Seriously... residential lighting accounts for what, 2%?, of total electricity use in the USA?
7 posted on
04/28/2014 12:37:16 PM PDT by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
The Energy Department estimates the rules will save the public billions in energy bills Yeah.
We use less energy.
Utility companies make less money.
Regulators raise the rates to make up for the loss.
Just like every other time.
8 posted on
04/28/2014 12:37:51 PM PDT by
null and void
( They don't think think they are above the law. They think they are the law.)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
“The Department of Energy is looking to regulate two types of household lamps.”
The fact that a Republican president and Republican congress not only did not eliminate this department, but instead outlawed the incandescent bulb, tells you all you need to know about these “conservative” jerks.
9 posted on
04/28/2014 12:38:46 PM PDT by
SharpRightTurn
(White, black, and red all over--America's affirmative action, metrosexual president.)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
With all the problems facing our nation, THIS is what they spend their time on.
It’s malfeasance in office...
Anyone signing on to this should be sent home on a one way ticket.
To: Cincinatus' Wife
I ignore them. I do not suffer fascists lightly. As long as they are an irrelevance to me, no harm, no foul.
I pray it stays that way.
To: Cincinatus' Wife
crap....I only got a B-minus on the lamp I made in tenth grade metal shop BEFORE all of these new environmental regs came in...
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Liberals in government know nothing of unintended consequences and could not care less anyway...as history proves.
15 posted on
04/28/2014 12:41:37 PM PDT by
EagleUSA
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Furthermore, the rules would have significant environmental benefits. Carbon dioxide reductions from the GSFL standards would save the government between $1.3 billion and $17 billion, the agency estimates.What??? He's claiming that if you emit a harmless gas, it costs the GOVERNMENT money?? And since when do you gauge "economic benefit" of an action by it's impact on the government anyway, rather than on the good people, you know -= the ones with jobs?
18 posted on
04/28/2014 12:42:35 PM PDT by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
The Energy Department estimates the rules will save the public billions in energy bills over the next three decades and have substantial environmental benefits. But the agency also expects the rules will cost manufacturers more than $90 million, which could lead some to close up shop and cut jobs. It is weighing the costs with the benefits.I call BS all around on this one. First, let's work out just how much an average consumer will save per year over 30 years just to pay for this wet dream. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the patience.
And the $90 million - yeah, right. Nothing the brown-shirted folk at the EPA have ever done has cost so little.
19 posted on
04/28/2014 12:43:42 PM PDT by
Quality_Not_Quantity
(Liars use facts when the truth doesn't suit their purposes.)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
When will they MADATE cars run on air? Just before then deem Oxygen a pollutant.
23 posted on
04/28/2014 12:45:20 PM PDT by
MaxMax
(Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Will we ever see a smaller fedgov in our lives? Will it never end?
25 posted on
04/28/2014 12:46:36 PM PDT by
Geoffrey
To: Cincinatus' Wife
“The Energy Department estimates the rules will save the public billions in energy bills over the next three decades...”
In other words, Obama wants to deny American utility companies $3 billion in revenue.
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Assume that there might be people who stockpiled a lifetime supply of 100 watters. Will those people now have to stockpile lamps that will let them shine?
32 posted on
04/28/2014 12:52:11 PM PDT by
grania
To: Cincinatus' Wife
These "efficiency" rules might make sense for people living in the sun belt. They make less and less sense, for anyone who ever has to heat their house (shop, office, whatever). That's why I put "efficiency" in scare quotes. Yes, incandescent light bulbs are inefficient emitters of visible light -- but, they are perfectly efficient (i.e. 100% efficient) electric heaters. They can actually save you energy. Most of the energy used by incandescent bulbs is converted to invisible infrared "light". You can't see it, but you can feel it. If you're sitting under a (say) 100 Watt incandescent light, you'll feel a tad warmer than you would otherwise, and voilà you're saving energy.
To: Cincinatus' Wife
What about Toilets? We need toilet regulation now!!
34 posted on
04/28/2014 12:53:32 PM PDT by
mylife
To: Cincinatus' Wife
as if free enterprise was highly over rated
35 posted on
04/28/2014 12:54:22 PM PDT by
SisterK
(behold a pale horse)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson