25 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidI think you are oversimplifying the issue. I remember when compact fluorescent light bulbs came out and I bought some thinking I was going to conserve electricity and there would be no downside. Then I learned about the mercury in the bulbs and when I broke one in my house once I later learned you are supposed to evacuate and clean it up later. Turned out it was not environment friendly at all. That was then, now we have affordable LED lights. Have conservatives resisted those?
I think there is a distinction between what people say in a speech vs. what they actually propose/do for energy efficiency. The track record seems very clear that liberal politicians have been much stronger proponents of efficiency standards, while conservatives have fought to roll back lighbulb and fuel and appliance efficiency standards.
Some people feel safer in big trucks and SUVs. There are real downsides in the safety of small cars and trucks when there is an accident, so there may be some legitimate reason for resisting fuel standards to some extent.
I don't see why anybody would oppose appliance efficiency standards. Where is the downside?
@metal-brain saidOK, lets see how...
I think you are oversimplifying the issue.
I remember when compact fluorescent light bulbs came out and I bought some thinking I was going to conserve electricity and there would be no downside. Then I learned about the mercury in the bulbs and when I broke one in my house once I later learned you are supposed to evacuate and clean it up later. Turned out it was not environment friendly at all.YOU just oversimplifying the issue by asserting the conclusion they were "not environment friendly at all." by ignoring their environmental benefits of greater energy efficiency. Yes, they did some environmental harm (with mercury) back then. But they ALSO did some environmental good (with efficiency) back then thus they being simply "not environment friendly at all." is a far too simplistic conclusion. The correct conclusion would be a more complicated and mixed one stating BOTH benefits and harm.
Of course, now LEDs are becoming much better than what they were back then, the time is fast coming, if it hasn't ALREADY come, to replace all the fluorescent lights with LEDs. I remember the days when fluorescent lighting were practical but LEDs were generally not so practical. That has now completely changed with huge improvements in LEDs and already nearly all the lights in my house are LEDs and I am certain it won't be long before they all will be as LEDs are improving all the time.
@metal-brain said
I think you are oversimplifying the issue. I remember when compact fluorescent light bulbs came out and I bought some thinking I was going to conserve electricity and there would be no downside. Then I learned about the mercury in the bulbs and when I broke one in my house once I later learned you are supposed to evacuate and clean it up later. Turned out it was not envir ...[text shortened]... ent.
I don't see why anybody would oppose appliance efficiency standards. Where is the downside?
That was then, now we have affordable LED lights. Have conservatives resisted those?
Yes they have resisted. Conservatives seem to frame it as a consumer choice issue, without acknowledging the importance of moving towards greater energy efficiency (as a nation). Lightbulbs are a good example: they were never outlawed, but it's been said over and over that they were outlawed. Get your gov't hands off my inefficient lightbulbs!
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/incandescent-light-bulb-ban-101732
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/trump-administration-planning-re-legalize-light-bulbs-set-outlawed-obama-admin/
I don't see why anybody would oppose appliance efficiency standards. Where is the downside?Again, I think this relates to a visceral opposition to anything the gov't tells you. Republicans in particular feed into this mentality with their policy decisions, and therefore you end up losing progress on issues like lightbulb, car, and appliance efficiency standards.
25 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidI don't see why anybody would oppose appliance efficiency standards. Have conservatives resisted that? I doubt it.That was then, now we have affordable LED lights. Have conservatives resisted those?
Yes they have resisted. Conservatives seem to frame it as a consumer choice issue, without acknowledging the importance of moving towards greater energy efficiency (as a nation). Lightbulbs are a good example: they were never outlawed, but it's been said over and over that t ...[text shortened]... refore you end up losing progress on issues like lightbulb, car, and appliance efficiency standards.
A ban on incandescent bulbs doesn't really make sense. When people buy baby chickens and need to keep them warm in the chicken coop they will need something to keep them warm. Inefficient light bulbs produce the heat needed. People would just buy a bunch of bulbs before the ban took effect. It would have limited benefit. Efficiency itself would reduce the use of incandescent bulbs, but there are still applications for simply keeping food and young poultry warm.
Most of the lights in my house are LEDs. It is already working.
Appliance efficiency standards are a good place to start. Write your congressmen if you want to do something now.
@metal-brain saidhttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-04/trump-rolls-back-energy-requirements-for-billions-of-light-bulbs
I don't see why anybody would oppose appliance efficiency standards. Have conservatives resisted that? I doubt it.
"...Trump Rolls Back Energy Requirements for Billions of Light Bulbs...
...
The Trump administration is rolling back Obama-era rules that expanded energy-use requirements to some of the most commonly used light bulbs.
The Energy Department made public a final rule Wednesday that withdrew a requirement that light bulbs commonly used in recessed lighting, track lighting, bathroom vanities and decorative fixtures meet the same energy efficiency standards that effectively phased out the traditional incandescent bulb.
..."
A ban on incandescent bulbs doesn't really make sense. When people buy baby chickens and need to keep them warm in the chicken coop they will need something to keep them warm. Inefficient light bulbs produce the heat needed. People would just buy a bunch of bulbs before the ban took effect. It would have limited benefit. Efficiency itself would reduce the use of incandescent bulbs, but there are still applications for simply keeping food and young poultry warm.Why not, instead of bulbs, use something called the "electric heater" for poultry? And if light is needed with that, just turn on some LEDs with that.
The heat generated by bulbs do NOT help poultry when used for lighting in most peoples homes but rather is wasted at least in the summer (often not in the winter but even then that doesn't help to reduce the carbon footprint).
Therefore a ban on incandescent bulbs, at least for inside most peoples homes for people that don't breed poulty, DOES really make sense.
Tell us please; Do you think more than 0.1% of the human population breed poulty in their homes? And do you think a ban on incandescent bulbs mean those people that breed poultry will refuse to use more than one of their own brain cells and thus just let their poultry die of the cold instead of using alternatives?
25 Nov 19
@metal-brain said
I don't see why anybody would oppose appliance efficiency standards. Have conservatives resisted that? I doubt it.
A ban on incandescent bulbs doesn't really make sense. When people buy baby chickens and need to keep them warm in the chicken coop they will need something to keep them warm. Inefficient light bulbs produce the heat needed. People would just buy a bunch o ...[text shortened]... iciency standards are a good place to start. Write your congressmen if you want to do something now.
Have conservatives resisted that?I already provided an answer and references to your question in earlier posts. The answer is yes.
As another example, the Heritage foundation, a conservative think tank, wrote a big report on this recently with the recommendation "Congress should eliminate all existing federal efficiency regulations for appliances, vehicles and buildings.”
https://e360.yale.edu/features/killing-energy-star-a-popular-program-lands-on-the-trump-hit-list
26 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidNo, you didn't. Here is my quote from my last post before this:Have conservatives resisted that?I already provided an answer and references to your question in earlier posts. The answer is yes.
As another example, the Heritage foundation, a conservative think tank, wrote a big report on this recently with the recommendation "Congress should eliminate all existing federal efficiency regulations for appliances, vehicles ...[text shortened]...
https://e360.yale.edu/features/killing-energy-star-a-popular-program-lands-on-the-trump-hit-list
"I don't see why anybody would oppose appliance efficiency standards. Have conservatives resisted that?"
I asked about appliance efficiency standards this time, not light bulbs. Incandescent light bulbs should not be banned. They are perfect for keeping young poultry warm. A space heater would use much more electricity and risk burning down my chicken coop. Humy isn't thinking properly.
26 Nov 19
14 edits
@metal-brain saidYes, and, obviously, we all have in our households live young chickens running around that will die of cold without incandescent light bulbs because, obviously, we don't know how to turn the central heating on or any other kind of heater other than incandescent light bulbs.
Incandescent light bulbs should not be banned. They are perfect for keeping young poultry warm.
That's why we should roll back efficiency standards and now allow some people to replace their LEDs with incandescent light bulbs in their homes; -Even those people that have no chickens.
A space heater would use much more electricity and risk burning down my chicken coop.Why not just use a smaller heater that uses the same amount of electricity and doesn't burn chicks?
Why not have a thermostat and an automatic temperature control system?
Does YOUR heating system in YOUR home burn YOU? -if no, why would it burn chicks? -if yes, the answer is to call the repair man, not buy incandescent bulbs.
Why cannot too many light bulbs burn chicks? Do light bulbs also come with a thermostat?
DO you have live chickens in your house? -how many people do you know of that do?
26 Nov 19
@humy saidPeople often have the baby chickens in the house at first and put them in an outside chicken coop. Chicken coops are rarely insulated. A thermostat would be useless. You are thinking like a city person. You do not understand what is common sense to rural living people.
Yes, and, obviously, we all have in our households live young chickens running around that will die of cold without incandescent light bulbs because, obviously, we don't know how to turn the central heating on or any other kind of heater other than incandescent light bulbs.
That's why we should roll back efficiency standards and now allow some people to replace their LEDs with ...[text shortened]... ith a thermostat?
DO you have live chickens in your house? -how many people do you know of that do?
Any alternative heating method would use more electricity. Like it or not, there is no such thing as an inefficient heater. Electricity is usually lost in the form of heat and heating applications are still needed. Restaurants use heating light bulbs to keep food warm.
26 Nov 19
5 edits
@metal-brain saidNo, they don't. Not even in the countryside where I live.
People often have the baby chickens in the house
there is no such thing as an inefficient heaterUnless that was a misedit (was it?) and you meant "efficient" (did you?); At least generally correct;
https://www.electrorad.co.uk/blog/electric-radiator-running-costs
"...electric heaters are 100% efficient and therefore, the running cost and energy use of all direct acting electric heaters will be the same...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_heating
"...an electric heater is 100 percent efficient. ..."
So your point is? The above links implicitly explains why, for x amount of heat generated, electric heaters are just as cost effective as light bulbs and work just as well thus its moronic to argue we need light bulbs for heating; why not use the heaters that work exactly just as well?
-and most light bulbs are NOT USED to proving heating for chickens but are instead used in peoples homes for lighting. Therefore, regardless of whether a few are used for chickens, banning the least energy efficient bulbs (and also replacing them with LEDs) will STILL reduce energy wastage.
26 Nov 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidI understood your question. The direct quote from the Heritage foundation report answers it unequivocally. EnergyStar is an extremely popular and cheap program for educating the public on energy efficient appliances. You will have to read the Heritage Foundation report for the rationale on why they oppose appliance efficiency standards, but I'd imagine it has something to do with consumer choice.
No, you didn't. Here is my quote from my last post before this:
"I don't see why anybody would oppose appliance efficiency standards. Have conservatives resisted that?"
I asked about appliance efficiency standards this time, not light bulbs. Incandescent light bulbs should not be banned. They are perfect for keeping young poultry warm. A space heater would use much more electricity and risk burning down my chicken coop. Humy isn't thinking properly.
26 Nov 19
@humy saidPeople often have the baby chickens in the house when it is too cold outside. Then when the temps warm enough to survive the nights in a coop they are put outside. I have done that many times and so have many other people in the country.
No, they don't. Not even in the countryside where I live.there is no such thing as an inefficient heaterUnless that was a misedit (was it?) and you meant "efficient" (did you?); At least generally correct;
https://www.electrorad.co.uk/blog/electric-radiator-running-costs
"...electric heaters are 100% efficient and therefore, the running cost and ene ...[text shortened]... e least energy efficient bulbs (and also replacing them with LEDs) will STILL reduce energy wastage.
You told me you lived in the city. You complained you could not move to the country. Stop your BS.
Using more wattage to warm the same number of chicks is inefficient. It has nothing to do with appliance efficiency. You are assuming again.
26 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidConsumer choice is an obstacle to conserving energy. A carbon tax will narrow choices anyway. You can reduce choice of inefficient products now or later with a tax. You prefer to wait for a tax and get the same lack of choice.
I understood your question. The direct quote from the Heritage foundation report answers it unequivocally. EnergyStar is an extremely popular and cheap program for educating the public on energy efficient appliances. You will have to read the Heritage Foundation report for the rationale on why they oppose appliance efficiency standards, but I'd imagine it has something to do with consumer choice.
Rich people will buy more inefficient appliances than poor people. Wealth inequality is the root problem. It increases violence too. You should endorse Andrew Yang for president. He has the best plan for reducing wealth inequality. He is also the most intelligent candidate I am aware of. Make America think again.