Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

metspitzer
-dpb
--Cheri
--krw
--Don Klipstein
--phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
---ransley
----phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
-----HeyBub
------phil-news-nospam@ipal.net

Author:
Date:
Subject:

metspitzer
2008-06-20 13:08:48
Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

WASHINGTON Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts
about the ban on incandescent light bulbs effective in 2014 as a
result of an energy bill signed into law earlier this year.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, says his objection is very basic the
Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to do anything remotely like
banning a product that has been used safely and efficiently for more
than 100 years in favor of Chinese-imported compact fluorescent light
bulbs that pose considerable health and safety risks.

Poe cited the dangers associated with CFLs, which carry small amounts
of mercury that can enter the environment through breakage and
disposal. He also objected to reliance on the CFL alternatives when,
currently, all are made in China.

"Congress passed an energy bill that should be called the
anti-American non-energy bill because it punishes Americans for using
energy when it should be finding new sources of available energy," Poe
stated.

(Story continues below)

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67573

Author:
Date:
Subject:

dpb
2008-06-20 12:18:52
Re: Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

metspitzer wrote:
> WASHINGTON – Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts
> about the ban on incandescent light bulbs ...

The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency
standards.

I'm not taking a position, but if it isn't constitutional, neither are
CAFE standards for automobiles or most any other regulations regarding
performance levels of any product (say drug effectiveness, for another
example).

--

Author:
Date:
Subject:

Cheri
2008-06-20 10:23:43
Re: Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - EnvironmentalProtection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

dpb wrote in message ...
>metspitzer wrote:
>> WASHINGTON Members of Congress are beginning to have second
thoughts
>> about the ban on incandescent light bulbs ...
>
>The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum
efficiency
>standards.
>
>I'm not taking a position, but if it isn't constitutional, neither
are
>CAFE standards for automobiles or most any other regulations
regarding
>performance levels of any product (say drug effectiveness, for
another
>example).

They would do better to set some minimum standards efficiency for
themselves, and then follow the standards.

Cheri

Author:
Date:
Subject:

krw
2008-06-20 17:56:03
Re: Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

In article <g3goua$f0f$2@aioe.org>, [email protected] says...
> metspitzer wrote:
> > WASHINGTON ? Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts
> > about the ban on incandescent light bulbs ...
>
> The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency
> standards.

...and where is the sanctioned in the Constitution?

> I'm not taking a position, but if it isn't constitutional, neither are
> CAFE standards for automobiles or most any other regulations regarding
> performance levels of any product (say drug effectiveness, for another
> example).

Sounds good to me.

--
Keith

Author:
Date:
Subject:

Don Klipstein
2008-06-20 23:52:08
Re: Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

In article <g3goua$f0f$2@aioe.org>, dpb wrote:
>metspitzer wrote:
>> WASHINGTON Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts
>> about the ban on incandescent light bulbs ...
>
>The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency
>standards.

That some incandescents available at Home Depot already meet.

Also, only certain incandescents are affected - there are many exceptions
(colored, flood, spot, appliance, decorative, ones of brightness of "usual
25 watt ones and dimmer, ones brighter than the brighter 150 watt 750 hour
ones, other exceptions).

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

Author:
Date:
Subject:

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
2008-06-21 03:04:34
Re: Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

In alt.engineering.electrical dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

| The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency
| standards.

So you are saying that in 10 years, I can still buy incandescent bulbs for
the few places I actually need them?

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Author:
Date:
Subject:

ransley
2008-06-20 20:26:50
Re: Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

On Jun 20, 10:04 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> In alt.engineering.electrical dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> | The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency
> | standards.
>
> So you are saying that in 10 years, I can still buy incandescent bulbs for
> the few places I actually need them?
>
> --
> |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
> | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
> | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Incandesants will never go away they are cheap and are better in many
aplications like above a stove, in a oven, frige, for lower than -15f,
work lights , -15f exterior lights, and where instant on is needed,
industry, and in the winter work lights. Actualy an Incandesant bulb
is a heater that has a byproduct of 4-6% of very good light! The smart
thing to do would be just tax them and give a big rebate to
flourescents, and not wait till 2012

Author:
Date:
Subject:

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
2008-06-21 14:44:20
Re: Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

In alt.engineering.electrical ransley <[email protected]> wrote:

| Incandesants will never go away they are cheap and are better in many
| aplications like above a stove, in a oven, frige, for lower than -15f,
| work lights , -15f exterior lights, and where instant on is needed,
| industry, and in the winter work lights. Actualy an Incandesant bulb
| is a heater that has a byproduct of 4-6% of very good light! The smart
| thing to do would be just tax them and give a big rebate to
| flourescents, and not wait till 2012

LEDs should work fine in a refrigerator. They can scatter them around front
and back, and on each shelf. That would solve the "light blocked by the old
milk" problem.

I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also like the
idea of taxing cheap imports.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Author:
Date:
Subject:

HeyBub
2008-06-21 14:34:59
Re: Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

[email protected] wrote:
>
> I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also like
> the idea of taxing cheap imports.
>

Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote public
policy. Taxes distort the marketplace.

As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in
Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits
when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who
also do what they do best.

Regrettably, not everybody keeps up with the latest economic theories.

Author:
Date:
Subject:

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
2008-06-21 22:20:33
Re: Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
| [email protected] wrote:
|>
|> I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also like
|> the idea of taxing cheap imports.
|>
|
| Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote public
| policy. Taxes distort the marketplace.

And I am not one of those. The marketplace needs to be distorted in a few
places. The market for subprime mortgage origination comes to mind as my
first place, if you need an example.

| As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in
| Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits
| when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who
| also do what they do best.

As long as all nations are on a level playing field, this would be so. But
it is a fact that most nations outside the USA have governments playing a
hand in the economies.

| Regrettably, not everybody keeps up with the latest economic theories.

Regrettably, not everybody is open sighted to what all goes on in the world.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

^ thread list ^ next in thread >>