Light Bulb Manufacturers Unhappy With Republican Intervention

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Wait a minute. The phase-out of leaded gasoline started in the early 1970's and was complete in 1996. Per capita federal expenditures - often used as an indicator of the size of government - in the early 1970's were about $4,000.00. By 1996, that number had risen to over $6,000.00. You see? The phaseout of leaded gasoline increased the size of government. What makes you so sure that the phaseout of the cherished incandescent bulbs won't do the same? In fact, government has already become bigger since the war on incandescent lightbulbs started back in 2007.

So glad you can be facetious. Cute.

Reality is though, it takes government oversight and regulators to make sure laws/regulations are being followed. If not they heavily fine companies/individuals for non-compliance with said laws. Every new law passed, especially in a regulatory sense takes new people to enforce the law. Therefore grows the size and expenditures of government.

Let's also look to the millions of dollars spent on government properties in the name of "energy efficiency" that MIGHT save a few dollars on their electric bills. Of course they'll only end up saving $400,000 in energy use after spending millions, but who's counting...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

OK the thread is about lightbulbs, but someone opened the floor for a discussion of the Era of Darkness...

What ushered in the Era of Darkness was the

CRUSHING DEBT incurred by George W Bush's unbelievably misguided war in Iraq, that we are all (along with our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren) going to have to deal with.

What about Obama's continuing war on Iraq, and escalating war in Afghanistan, plus the non-war on Libya? How does $4.9 trillion in 8 years compare to $4.5 trillion in 3 years, or $12 trillion if the current trend continues?

Edited December 20, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I personally don't see lead fuel as a valid comparison only because the health and pollution risk are very different. Maybe the extra coal burned can be quantified between the bulbs but most scientists would say the health effect is negligible at best.

[Rattlehead 69]

GE's pissed that Congress isn't making competing products illegal? Holy corruption, Batman!

[Misha & Ira 113]

Government does not need to be worried about light bulbs.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I personally don't see lead fuel as a valid comparison only because the health and pollution risk are very different. Maybe the extra coal burned can be quantified between the bulbs but most scientists would say the health effect is negligible at best.

175 million tons of CO2 every year is significant, and yes, the consequences are just a grave or possibly worse.

Coal-fired power plants release more toxic air pollutants such as arsenic and lead than any other U.S. industrial pollution source, says a report Tuesday by the American Lung Association.

"Power plant pollution kills people," Connor said, citing a recent estimate that it causes 13,000 deaths each year. "It threatens the brains and nervous system of children. It can cause cancer, heart attacks and strokes."

http://content.usato...air-pollution/1

Edited December 20, 2011 by Mister Fancypants

[Misha & Ira 113]

175 million tons of CO2 every year is significant, and yes, the consequences are just a grave or possibly worse.

175 million tons of CO2...sounds like a lot....

but, there are already 700 billion tons of CO2 in the atmoshphere...thats with a B.

Plus another 600 billion tons in living biomass (plants, insects and animals)...add to that another 1500 billion tons in the soil....and finally the 36,000 billion tons of CO2 in the ocean.

This is the carbon in the carbon cycle....

700+

600+

1,500+

36,000=

----------

38,800 billion tones of CO2

that is 38,800 x 10^9 tons or 38,800,000,000,000 tons of CO2

to find the percentage that is being contributed to the total carbon cycle, we divide 175 times 10^6 (175,000,000) into the total 38,800,000,000,000

and we get 4.5103092783505154639175257731959 e-6 and multiply by 100 to get the percentage this is...

0.0004510309278350515463917525773195 is the answer....4 ten-thousandths of 1 percent....this is how much is being pumped into the carbon cycle by coal plants.

Now, where did this coal come from? Coal is the compressed sedimentation of biomass..."About 300 million years ago, the earth had dense forests in low-lying wetland areas. Due to natural processes, like flooding, these forests got buried under the soil. As more and more soil deposited over them, they were compressed. The temperature also rose as they sank deeper and deeper. For the process to continue, the plant matter was protected from biodegradation and oxidization, usually by mud or acidic water. This traps the carbon in immense peat bogs that are eventually covered and deeply buried by sediments. Under high pressure and high temperature dead vegetation got slowly converted to coal. As coal contains mainly carbon, the conversion of dead vegetation into coal is called carbonization."

Now, this coal was once part of the carbon cycle before being sequestered under the surface of the earth.

This is what the alarmists do not want you to know....

The percentage of Carbon Dioxide being reintroduced into the carbon cycle from human activity is very negligible.

in this example 0.0004510309278350515463917525773195 of 1%

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Do you have any basic understanding of the Carbon Cycle and how our planet's temperature is able to remain fairly constant?

[Misha & Ira 113]

Yes

[Misha & Ira 113]

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not play as significant a role as you think. Go look up the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over geologic time and overlay it with a graph of the Earth's average temperature for the same time period....you might be surprised at what you find.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Misha & Ira

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not play as significant a role as you think. Go look up the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over geologic time and overlay it with a graph of the Earth's average temperature for the same time period....you might be surprised at what you find.

It's always amazing to see so many internet sleuths who've managed to figure out something that the so-called experts completely missed.

But for sh!ts and giggles, I'll post here just the nuts and bolts:

The movement of carbon, in its many forms, between the atmosphere, oceans, biosphere, and geosphere is described by the carbon cycle (Figure 1). This cycle consists of several storage pools of carbon (black text) and the processes by which the various pools exchange carbon (purple arrows and numbers). If more carbon enters a pool than leaves it, that pool is considered a net carbon sink. If more carbon leaves a pool than enters it, that pool is considered net carbon source.

Human Alteration of the Carbon Cycle

Recently, scientists have studied both short- and long-term measurements of atmospheric CO₂ levels. Charles Keeling, an oceanographer at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, is responsible for creating the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, taken at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii. His data (now widely known as the "Keeling curve," shown in Figure 2) revealed that human activities are significantly altering the natural carbon cycle. Since the onset of the industrial revolution about 150 years ago, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation have accelerated, and both have contributed to a long-term rise in atmospheric CO₂. Burning oil and coal releases carbon into the atmosphere far more rapidly than it is being removed, and this imbalance causes atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to increase. In addition, by clearing forests, we reduce the ability of photosynthesis to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere, also resulting in a net increase. Because of these human activities, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than they have been over the last half-million years or longer.

Because CO₂ increases the atmosphere's ability to hold heat, it has been called a "greenhouse gas." Scientists believe that the increase in CO₂ is already causing important changes in the global climate. Many attribute the observed 0.6 degree C increase in global average temperature over the past century mainly to increases in atmospheric CO₂. Without substantive changes in global patterns of fossil fuel consumption and deforestation, warming trends are likely to continue. The best scientific estimate is that global mean temperature will increase between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees C over the next century as a result of increases in atmospheric CO₂ and other greenhouse gases. This kind of increase in global temperature would cause significant rise in average sea-level (0.09-0.88 meters), exposing low-lying coastal cities or cities located by tidal rivers such as New Orleans, Portland, Washington, and Philadelphia to increasingly frequent and severe floods. Glacial retreat and species range shifts are also likely to result from global warming, and it remains to be seen whether relatively immobile species such as trees can shift their ranges fast enough to keep pace with warming.

http://www.visionlea...ewer.php?mid=95

Edited December 21, 2011 by Mister Fancypants

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Not that old canard again! Sheesh!

Steven learned everything he ever needed to know about science from Sesame Street.

[Danno 1,228]

Steve your concern over lightbulbs is much todo about nothing really, compared to real energy users.... did you run your A/C in your car or house this year?

Just a few decades ago very few people had these "luxuries"..... can you do without yours ... to save the planet?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Steve your concern over lightbulbs is much todo about nothing really, compared to real energy users.... did you run your A/C in your car or house this year?

Just a few decades ago very few people had these "luxuries"..... can you do without yours ... to save the planet?

I got the heater cranked all the way up, and you are talking about air conditioning? Sheesh! This has to be about the coldest fall I have been through in a decade, and winter starts tomorrow.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve your concern over lightbulbs is much todo about nothing really, compared to real energy users.... did you run your A/C in your car or house this year?

Just a few decades ago very few people had these "luxuries"..... can you do without yours ... to save the planet?

Danno, are you overweight? Be honest.