What is Digg?214 Comments
- populist, on 10/12/2007, -36/+105where in the constitution is the government authorized to do this?
- tonicboy, on 10/12/2007, -49/+91As a matter of fact, Section 8 says "The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" Using this power, they can ban the sale of incandescents between states. To take care of matters WITHIN a state, they can use sticks or carrots to effectively force the states to pass compliant laws. For example, they could withhold federal funding from states who didn't follow along.
In any case, I think this is a great idea. By switching over to CFL's, for example, CFL's will become much cheaper. The overall cost of lighting will become cheaper for consumers and we ease the load on the energy grid. However, I would modify the bill a little bit because I don't think it's fair to completely ban the use of incandescents. Sometimes, they are simply the best option for a situation - for example, in professional photography. Instead of banning their sale outright, there should simply be an extra tax on their sale, so that people who really need to use them still can, as long as they are willing to pay to do so. - populist, on 10/12/2007, -14/+56tonicboy: You claim that "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"" means that the federal government can BAN people from making or buying products like a basic light bulb.
This couldn't be further from the truth. The Commerce clause is to do exactly what it says "regulate" it takes interpretation to turn that into BAN. Nowhere does the constitution permit the federal government to ban trade.
We must take note, the Commerce Clause itself was never meant by the Founders to be some sort of blank check for absolute control over anything and everything we do that might have some sort of influence on some sort of commercial activity. But, that distorted view is just what all three branches force us to accept today.
The original meaning and intent of the Commerce Clause was to make “normal” or “regular” commerce between the states. It was written to ensure that States wouldn’t prohibit the free-flow of commerce from state to state through tariffs, taxes, quotas, and the like. The idea was to ensure that trade was made “regular.” Thus, it was designed to promote trade and not to restrict it. - allaboutdatiki, on 10/12/2007, -4/+40I switched over every bulb I could to CFL years ago. They make sense. But a ban on conventional bulbs? That's just freaking stupid. How about a ban on bureaucrats wasting our time and money?
- LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41You know, I was all for this, I really was, but it would make WAY more sense to crank up the cost of regular bulbs and lower the cost of the energy-saving ones. People will buy the cheaper ones for normal use and regular bulbs for special-use (or if they are stubborn).
Let the economy work it out - no need to make it a crime. - johnsatre, on 10/12/2007, -10/+42these bulbs have been out for years and suddenly every lawmaker has decided to ban the old ones. what a bunch of hype. these same hypocritical douchebags are driving home from capitol hill in SUVs.
- populist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28Even the great centralizer Alexander Hamilton specifically noted in Federalist #17 that the Commerce Clause would have no effect on such matters:
"The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction."
James Madison, the "father of the constitution" concurred in Federalist #42 that the commerce clause would “provide for the harmony and proper intercourse among the States.” - goldylocks7621, on 10/12/2007, -42/+62Banning light bulbs? What's next banning toasters? This is insanity. There are too many sheeple running around these days who believe everything they are spoonfed by the media and government.
- JonGalt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28Commies have been here a while. People just like the names republican and democrat a whole lot more.
- t3soro, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25@chewie:
go read the constitution you clueless uneducated tool. foremost, the constitution IS (or rather, was intended to be, but isn't anymore) the end all be all of the united states government; and secondly, speed limits are imposed by the _states_ with the power that they are granted in the 10th amendment. - konspence, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Fluorescent lights nowadays don't flicker. They run at thousands of hertz, which is altered by the ballast (from 60). Don't you think in Europe they would never use fluorescents, since they would run at 50 hz? They do, because the ballast changes the frequency to a much higher and undetectable rate. Fluorescent lights used to run at 60, but now it's different. And where do you get that theyre 50% more efficient on a 12v source?
- kildorn, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28YAY! Who cares about filling our landfills with Mercury when we can be smug in the fact that we "did something for the planet"
- dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19That's fine, because I'll just buy a buttload of incandescents before they're taken off the shelves and hold onto em for a while, then sell em on Ebay for a tidy profit when people can't find them anywhere else. If they wanna charge me with illegal bulb sales, let's tango MF'ers.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -13/+27@tonicboy
so we should tax people for their choices? and tell them what to do with the energy they have legally purchased? I don't know about anyone else, but I dont need a nanny telling me how to use my energy, i pay for the ***** *****, so i can use it however i want. - Dochtuir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13What about my Lava Lamp !?!
- drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13oh great now I cant warm my snake or lizards will the US gov give me a voucher for heat rocks which waste more than bulbs
- goldylocks7621, on 10/12/2007, -23/+35@ Chewie67
Your ***** clueless dude. If the US had been faithful to the constitution up to this point, this country would be so rich right now you wouldn't even recognize it. And culturally and morally I'm sure it would be a lot better too. - johnsatre, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Cuba successfully banned incandescents 2 years ago, I haven't been keeping track of their cost but for a long time now CFLs have been less expensive than incandescents considering the energy savings and lifespan. Tax them more because they are wasteful, fine, but I'm against a ban. Has anything else been banned because it's less efficient?
- neuropsychguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13[Insert snide comment about how stupid Democrats are].
Couldn't resist a good-natured jab at some fellow Diggers now that Democrats are in "power." We all know that if this had been introduced by a Republican there would be tons of posts questioning his or her intelligence.
*Democrats are not smarter or dumber than Republicans. We are all equally stupid together (on average). - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13It would definitely be stupid. Bans stifle innovation. GE believes they can make incandescent bulbs four times as efficient as they are now. That would almost catch up with a cfl, giving the best of both worlds. (Some people say incandescent are inefficient by design, but GE thinks they can change that.)
What this bill calls for is an extremely aggressive increase in efficiency, not an outright ban. The 2012 goal of 60 lumens per watt is possible, but the 2020 goal of 120 lumens per Watt is outrageous. It cuts out any bulb you'd want in your house will make. Metal halides can explode and sodium vapor lights have an obnoxious color (making even the worst cfl look pleasant), take forever to warm up, and can hum. The bill may be too aggressive, but at least it isn't an outright ban. - goldylocks7621, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22@Chewie67
That's not the point. The point is people have a right to buy what ever light bulb they want. It's none of your business what someone else buys. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+24Ban the sale of one type of lightbulb and the price on another kind will rise. Why? Because without competition you don't get lower prices. Sure, prices on CFLs have dropped over the past years but does anybody believe they'll continue to drop if they're the only bulb you can buy?
Should Congress really try to manage the environment by interfering with the market? - tonicboy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22My God but that's the dumbest thing I ever heard. Did you complete your course on economics on the back of a box of Cracker Jacks? Dozens of companies produce CFLs, genius. The last I checked, that counts as competition. In any case, this bill would not make CFLs mandatory, only more efficient light bulbs. Other light bulbs such as LEDs would be allowable as well.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17@populist
It takes interpretation?
Sure..
(interpretation)
The government can regulate the use of products.
Banning is the most severe form of regulation.
(/interpretation)
The government can, in fact, ban products, and has banned several already... products that endanger the safety of oneself, society, or the environment in general. Drugs, toxic wastes, CFCs, etc. - omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"mostly because of the massive amounts of mercury that the old bulbs will put in the ground"
This is why Americans need to learn about proper disposal methods. Not everything belongs in landfills. - goldylocks7621, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13The fact that they're the only light bulb available would not necessarily mean they would be more expensive or that competition among light bulb producers would stop. It's just that consumers choices would be constricted. If you want to read a really good, clear explanation of basic economic read "Economics in One lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. http://www.mises.org/books/onelesson.pdf
Not only is it a very interesting book, but if you understand what is in that book you will understand more about real economics ( as opposed what passes for economics with socialists ) than 95% of the population. By the way mises.org is the premier economics site in the world, not because they're the most popular but because they understand economics better than anyone else. - goldylocks7621, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12It's so nice to hear people who makes sense!
- elk1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11everyone views this as a bad thing. I see an amazing opportunity in black market incandescent light bulbs. I think i figured out a way to make em in my bath tub and should have a full scale operation running in no time. as soon as this passes i'll be the al capone of the incandescent light bulb world, i just have ot make sure to file my taxes properly.
- randomvictim, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Although I do believe we should be using more efficient lighting, I think banning old light bulbs is unconstitutional.
- jprater, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12you're being sarcastic right? i've never noticed any flickering and i have them all throughout my house.
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I beleive that in retaliation to the government banning our beloved Incandecent light bulbs, the citizens should ban a) Idiots in legislative positions and b) big government.
- juneau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Finally! I'm so glad the gov't is there to tell me which light bulbs to use. We could've never figured this out on our own.
/sigh - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@Chewie67
You, sir know NOTHING about the Federal system of Government. And YES, the COTUS IS SUPPOSED to be the End-All and Be-All of the Federal Government. Read the 10th Amendment. >99% of the Federal laws in existence are un-Constitutional. You should really read John Stossel's book, Give Me A Break. It will open your eyes to the daily abuses of governmental abuses of the small-businessman. - theodicey, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15
Story is inaccurate. It's a hit piece from right wing operative Brent Bozell's bogus "wire service." Hence all the scare quotes in the summary and the ridiculously unjournalistic tone.
According to Jane Harman, who wrote the bill, it won't ban anything. It just requires bulbs to meet certain energy standards which improve with technology.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jane-harman/a-bright-idea-for-america_b_43519.html?p=3
If you have a problem with that, you'd better be out there in the streets protesting every other US Code -- electrical, building, plumbing, housing... - trer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Someone should tell this lawmaker that wasting time with stupid bills contributes to Global Warming, as in hot air emanating from Congress.
- Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7there is going to be allot of mercury in the water supply because most people are to careless,stupid to dispose of CF lights properly.
They will just throw them away in the trash and never give it a second though and anyone thinking they can educate people not to do so is dreaming.
Sad but true :(
LEDs on the other hand would be a good solution . - griz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@marklar69
True, if you throw then in the trash. Just recycle them instead. - EuphopiaB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8***** the government for even considering they have the right to stick their over-powered finger into each of our homes and make us conform to their interests and desires.
How the hell will our cafeteria keep the display food warm? - shipple, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Leftists: they can't keep their grubby hands out of my f***ing business. If you want those kinds of light bulbs, use them, but don't use government guns to FORCE other people to use them.
Think about it: if the people wanted this, they would buy the lightbulbs they wanted in the first place. If they don't want them, stay the f*** out of their way. Where do people get the idea that they have the right to use force to make everyone be like them. Such snobs.
Wanna change it?? -- FreeStateProject.org -- - quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I was a big fan of compact fluorescent lights until I recently read about the mercury problem. I'm hoping the new LED bulbs will come on strong quickly!
- chazhick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I use compact fluorescent bulbs in some fixtures, but banning any kind of light bulb is totally insane and unconstitutional.
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Theodicey, you could be right. I don't believe any statement that "we might be able to do something" when it comes to technology, but I believe they should have the chance to try. That's why I prefer a gradual approach with incentives to spur innovation instead of an outright ban. Then it won't matter if GE is telling the truth or not.
My problem with the bill isn't the 2012 numbers, we are already there. I'm even pretty sure the 2016 numbers can be met. It's the 2020 numbers without knowing if we can get there. I like that the bill is based on efficiency and not how the bulb produces light. - harrydirty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8this is madness!
this...IS...AMERICAAAAAAAAAAA - Erfman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I accept the need to reduce greenhouse gases and protect the environment, but does the Government have to stomp on every little thing like Godzilla. There's too many damn laws, give it a break and focus on root problems like funding clean energy production.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13where in the constitution is the government authorized to do this?
If you think it's unconstitutional to INTRODUCE a bill to Congress please point out where it says that in the Constitution. - pabster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Is this the kind of ***** we are to expect from this Congress?
Democrats are really in trouble, if so. Al Gore is really getting around too much. - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6But... my dimmer slide won't work with the new ones...
- spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8the constitution doesnt grant rights, they are god given.
- barktwiggs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Most of the mercury emissions figures are based on plants without recent high tech pollution scrubbers (which capture approx 90% of pollution). Additionally, do you seriously believe the average Wallmart shopper is going to go out of their way (2 hours or more) to drop off bulbs at a reclamation center?
- Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Here's the actual bill, straight from the House's website.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1547.IH: -
Show 51 - 100 of 204 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is