After going after stoves and generators, Biden Admin wants to control your Lighbulbs

[homersapien 11,373]

Perhaps the government should just attach a surcharge tax to domestic electricity use and let consumers decide how to save.  After all, the ultimate goal is to use less electricity, right?

That's a rational approach that doesn't involve regulations (horrors!) on products.

Edited August 3, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I think you misunderstood my point. 

Then by all means, elucidate your point.

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

The fact this thread  even exists means that there are individuals that distrust any controls - short of having the God given right to buy nukes on Amazon. It is what it is. Which is why government has to pick its regulatory battles carefully.

You have a keen eye for the obvious.

(Not sure about "short of" qualifier though.)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

Then by all means, elucidate your point.

Compared with features such as a water heater, refrigerator, air-conditioner, or say, a furnace, light bulbs account for comparatively small percentage of household energy usage.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Compared with features such as a water heater, refrigerator, air-conditioner, or say, a furnace, light bulbs account for comparatively small percentage of household energy usage.  

@homersapiendon't bash my poor syntax. 

[KansasTiger 3,248]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Interesting. Thanks for answering.

This is an example of one of the core premises that my dad always used to tell me about conservatives and liberals.

A liberal thinks he knows better, and wants to tell you, or force you, to make the choice they think is best. The average person isn't smart enough to find the right choices on their own.

A conservative wants you to have the freedom to choose what you think is best for you. That's been less true, as conservative politicians aren't actually conservative anymore. But the premise exists in theory, still.

[homersapien 11,373]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

Compared with features such as a water heater, refrigerator, air-conditioner, or say, a furnace, light bulbs account for comparatively small percentage of household energy usage.  

Which - if the goal is to reduce total consumption by feasible and cost effective technology - is quite irrelevant.

But that's exactly why the government should impose and publicize efficiency standards for all energy consuming devices.

[homersapien 11,373]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

@homersapiendon't bash my poor syntax. 

Bashing your logic is quite sufficient for my purposes.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, KansasTiger said:

This is an example of one of the core premises that my dad always used to tell me about conservatives and liberals.

A liberal thinks he knows better, and wants to tell you, or force you, to make the choice they think is best. The average person isn't smart enough to find the right choices on their own.

A conservative wants you to have the freedom to choose what you think is best for you. That's been less true, as conservative politicians aren't actually conservative anymore. But the premise exists in theory, still.

Precisely the notion I intended to draw out. It doesn't matter if you think light bulb A is superior to light bulb B, your government and liberal companions know better than you do. 

[auburnatl1 4,920]

17 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

This is an example of one of the core premises that my dad always used to tell me about conservatives and liberals.

A liberal thinks he knows better, and wants to tell you, or force you, to make the choice they think is best. The average person isn't smart enough to find the right choices on their own.

A conservative wants you to have the freedom to choose what you think is best for you. That's been less true, as conservative politicians aren't actually conservative anymore. But the premise exists in theory, still.

I get individualism. But there has to be some sort of broader collective thinking as well. Otherwise it’s lord of the flies anarchy.  Everything  from why this board has mods to anti trust laws was put in place because at some threshold individualism fails.  The trick is finding a balance most can live with. And to some degree trust.

Edited August 3, 2023 by auburnatl1

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Which - if the goal is to reduce total consumption by feasible and cost effective technology - is quite irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Seems like an entirely useful rationale to dictate usage of a plethora of household features.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Bashing your logic is quite sufficient for my purposes.

Here's some logic for you: The Energy Department's position, that banning incandescent bulbs helps the planet, is bullsh*t. 

[KansasTiger 3,248]

5 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I get individualism. But there has to be some sort of broader collective thinking as well. Otherwise it’s lord of the flies anarchy.  Everything  from why this board has mods to anti trust laws was put in place because at some threshold individualism fails.  The trick is finding a balance most can live with. And to some degree trust.

Yeah cause there's a real danger of going too far toward individual freedom. Let's name a time in the past 40 years the government willingly swung that way too far. Meanwhile, there are plenty of examples of the govt creeping into areas they don't belong.

Yes, we all get it. Some regulation needs to exist. This is not one of those times.

Edited August 3, 2023 by KansasTiger

[auburnatl1 4,920]

15 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Yeah cause there's a real danger of going too far toward individual freedom. Let's name a time in the past 40 years the government willingly swung that way too far. Meanwhile, there are plenty of examples of the govt creeping into areas they don't belong.

Yes, we all get it. Some regulation needs to exist. This is not one of those times.

The biggest “control” the gov gave up in my lifetime was the draft.  And imo there is no larger control.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

14 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

The biggest “control” the gov gave up in my lifetime was the draft.  And imo there is no larger control.

40 years ago.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

20 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

The biggest “control” the gov gave up in my lifetime was the draft.  And imo there is no larger control.

And there's even talks from some areas of trying to bring it back.

Edit: not anything I personally take seriously yet. But I have heard it mentioned.

Edited August 3, 2023 by KansasTiger

[homersapien 11,373]

43 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Irrelevant? Seems like an entirely useful rationale to dictate usage of a plethora of household features.  

Ignore a feasible and cost effective way to reduce energy consumption simply because there are appliances or practices that use proportionally more energy in the first place?

I fail to see how that's a "useful" rationale in a non-zero sum situation.

[homersapien 11,373]

46 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Here's some logic for you: The Energy Department's position, that banning incandescent bulbs helps the planet, is bullsh*t. 

No it's not. 

Not going to argue about how much it "helps the planet" but it undeniably conserves energy.  Your "logic" isn't logical.

 

[auburnatl1 4,920]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Here's some logic for you: The Energy Department's position, that banning incandescent bulbs helps the planet, is bullsh*t. 

Unless the extra power needed per bulb is from hydro, nuclear (another rabbit hole), or magical pixie dust - I’m missing the logic part.

[GoAU 1,600]

18 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Incandescent bulbs are literally 120 year old tech. Only 5% of the energy generates light - 95.% heat. Which in the summer is remarkably dumb. However, it’s a fair question about individual rights … even if it’s dumb (obviously this is mainly about energy and climate stuff). However, houses have insulation requirements,  ac’s now must use Puron, cars have emissions requirements, ect - feels sort of consistent with the tone of the last 50 yrs.

First, I’ll start with saying my house is fully converted to LED and has been for a long time.  It is clearly the best option out there.  However, I do have a few problems with the “ban”.   First, the manner in which it was crammed down everyone’s throat is clearly authoritarian overreach.  It’s kind of ironic there was a post on another thread accusing the right of being authoritarian.   
 

There should be a venue to try and do something like this. - it’s called Congress.   The President was never intended to have king-like authority to pass what is in essence law through executive or agency declarations.  This will probably / hopefully come to a screeching halt as the Supreme Court tackles the legitimacy of Chevron Deference.  
 

Another point - has anyone considered the impact of this decree on poor households?   Incandescent bulbs are much cheaper to purchase (granted, not over the full life of the bulb) and this could potentially create an issue based on cash flow.   I don’t see LED bulbs getting cheaper once the competitive pressure of keeping prices close to incandescent becomes lbs at retail.  

9 hours ago, Mikey said:

Yes, this restriction is consistent with the policies of recent decades. I'm simply tired of restrictions and in any case, the current administration seems intent to control every phase of life from light bulbs to backup generators to washing machines. When is it too much?

It has been too much for a long time.  These bans and decrees are wrong on multiple levels.  This is not how the government was intended to operate 

3 hours ago, Didba said:

You know what, y’all keep having really high electric bills from your A/C battling the 105-110 degree weather plus the heat given off from incandescents and I won’t.  

This is such a no brainer I thought no one would be against it but yet again, I am proven wrong

Agree, it should be an easy CHOICE, not mandate.  

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

The biggest “control” the gov gave up in my lifetime was the draft.  And imo there is no larger control.

Actually, no one gave up the draft.  Just because it isn’t actively happening doesn’t mean it’s not still there.  They can reactivate it whenever it’s needed.   There are even Reserve basic combat training (BCT) units with drill sergeants and training cadre ready to go as soon as needed.  

[auburnatl1 4,920]

10 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Actually, no one gave up the draft.  Just because it isn’t actively happening doesn’t mean it’s not still there.  They can reactivate it whenever it’s needed.   There are even Reserve basic combat training (BCT) units with drill sergeants and training cadre ready to go as soon as needed.  

Of course. But it’s been tested through several hot wars since Vietnam and it was never broached. Nonetheless, conceptually you’re right. And if the Chinese or Russians start marching down the interstates, yes - I imagine they’d reinstitute.

[GoAU 1,600]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

Of course. But it’s been tested through several hot wars since Vietnam and it was never broached. Nonetheless, conceptually you’re right. And if the Chinese or Russians start marching down the interstates, yes - I imagine they’d reinstitute.

Combine that (or even just something close) and our current recruiting crisis and it gets really scary.  

[auburnatl1 4,920]

4 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Combine that (or even just something close) and our current recruiting crisis and it gets really scary.  

When you have low3% unemployment there’s 2 things you can count on. 1)  the fed will raise interest rates to cool down economy 2) the military will struggle enlisting due to job competition. Unfortunately nothing  fixes both as quickly as a recession

[KansasTiger 3,248]

18 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

When you have low3% unemployment there’s 2 things you can count on. 1)  the fed will raise interest rates to cool down economy 2) the military will struggle enlisting due to job competition. Unfortunately nothing  fixes both as quickly as a recession

I'm sure the current state of military policies and leadership has nothing to do with the recruiting crisis. To not list it is a bit ignorant.

I am former military, and I know several Colonels and a few generals who are family and friends. And not a single one of them encourages their children to join the military (I wont be encouraging my children, either). That was simply unheard of 10-15 years ago. Family service used to be one of the strongest pillars if not the backbone of the military's numbers. My grandfather served, my father served, my brother served, I served, and so on. But if you ask them why we've stopped encouraging our children to serve, it isn't because of the economy.

Edited August 3, 2023 by KansasTiger

[Didba 5,256]

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Interesting. Thanks for answering.

anytime, except when I am on a deadline, in trial, taking a depo, etc.