Going Green, is only the cost of the green in your wallet.

[Rim05]

I found another article that I had saved from Jan 2011. It is from the LB Press Telegram but I can not find it any way I search the paper. I don't know how to scan it and post it to the forum. There is even a picture of the LED bulb. This may be common knowledge to the guys but it was new to me.

[Patriotic Army Mom]

I've been green before the term was ever used. In my family we called it being thrifty. Taking care of what we had and saving energy and money for things that we would love to have. This green thing makes me see blue.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Originally Posted by Rim05

I found another article that I had saved from Jan 2011. It is from the LB Press Telegram but I can not find it any way I search the paper. I don't know how to scan it and post it to the forum. There is even a picture of the LED bulb. This may be common knowledge to the guys but it was new to me.

Rimo, LEDs are Light Emitting Diodes and are extremely energy efficient. Where most people have seen LEDs used for quite some time now is in commercial buildings. They are the EXIT signs at the end of hallways that are used as path finders. They use almost no energy and can last for many years. They've started using LEDs for many other items where a low light can be used. There are so many different types of lighting now available but few give off the white light that the incandescent does, and incandescent lamps aren't hazardous waste that contains mercury like the fluorescent.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Light Bulb Repeal Bill Stalls in Congress
A bill to repeal the banning of ordinary incandescent light bulbs is bottled up in a congressional committee despite Americans’ apparent distaste for the more expensive bulbs that would replace them.
The 100-watt incandescent bulb is scheduled to be outlawed in January 2012, the 75-watt bulb will disappear in January 2013, and the 60-watt and 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.
The bill banning the bulbs — which use more energy than newer bulbs — was introduced in 2007 by then Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, and Rep. Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, and signed by President George W. Bush in December 2007.
Upton is now chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and while lobbying Republicans for the post he vowed to repeal the section of the 2007 bill that bans incandescent bulbs.
“We have heard the grass roots loud and clear, and will have a hearing early next Congress,” he said in December. “The last thing we wanted to do was infringe upon personal liberties, and this has been a good lesson that Congress does not always know best.”
In January, Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton proposed the Better Use of Light Bulb (BULB) act, which would cancel the phase-out of incandescent bulbs. The bill has 62 co-sponsors, 61 of them Republicans, and a companion bill in the Senate has 28 co-sponsors.
But Upton’s committee has not yet held a hearing on the bill, and “House Republican leadership has evinced no interest in bringing the Barton bill to the floor,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writes in RealClearMarkets. “Calls to repeal the incandescent light bulb ban are coming from consumers, who prefer incandescent lamps."
“Chairman Upton,” she adds, “how about voting Mr. Barton’s bill out of committee and sending it to the House floor?”
Once incandescent bulbs vanish, Americans will have to purchase either compact fluorescent bulbs — known as CFLs — halogens, or light-emitting diodes (LEDs).
All three cost significantly more than incandescent bulbs, although they last longer. Many people don’t like the light cast by CFLs — the cheapest of the three — and they must be disposed of at special recycling centers because they contain mercury. They also pose a danger if broken in the home.
Another factor to consider: Incandescent bulbs are made in the United States, while almost all CFLs are made in China, according to Furchtgott-Roth.
She concludes: “Consumers should be free, in my opinion, to choose the light bulbs they prefer. If Congress believes that consumers should conserve energy, it can impose a tax on the model bulbs whose use it would discourage, or on electricity in general.”

[ilbegone]

I believe that most of the "green energy" stuff is one sort of scam or another.

Want "green energy"?

Twenty five years ago wind farms were largely a rich man's write off where the consumers pay the highest avoided cost of building conventional power plants, I don't know how efficient they are now but one thing's sure in my mind; we're paying at least twice as much for electricity as we should otherwise.

A former head of DWP informed the city that the DWP could afford to have either "green power" or to own their offices, but that they couldn't afford to do both.

I understand that European countries who heavily invested in wind farms now view the venture as something like having a week dead chicken wired around the neck.

Wind farms and Solar farms are opposed by "environmental" groups because it takes so much of "nature" to create the farm.

"Environmentalists" also object to transmission power lines being built to channel "green energy" to the metropolis from wherever "green power" is generated. I believe the proposed DWP transmission line Green Path North was scuttled by "environmentalists". Currently it seems like "environmentalists" are making a concerted effort to make SDG&E's Sunrise Powerlink so expensive and so difficult to complete that it will discourage any other like project in the future.

Meanwhile, rooftop generation is so costly for efficiency ratio and comes with so many strings attached that actual payback is far off in the future. The tax breaks are subsidization of high energy costs - redistribution of other's means to support it.

"Environmentalists" may mean well, but they are the sort of people who will bitch about cell phone towers to their congressman via a cell phone. I don't see a one of them calling the power company to remove the electrical service to their own dwellings.

[The Waco Kid]

Guys,
Lets just get to the bottom line. Yet again this is government getting involved in areas of our lives in a way that is unacceptable. I stocked up on incandescent bulbs years ago when I first heard about this and have enough to last the rest of my life. No way will I every use one of those hazmat bulbs that have mercury. Dangerous, poor lighting and just plain stupid if you will. But that is what the green movement is all about.

[Patriotic Army Mom]

Yes. it used to be called being conservative and not wasting things. Stay out of my home government!

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Remember when glass soda bottles were returned to the store? They were washed by the soda company and refilled. That was green!!!

Remember when you put your laundry out to dry? That was green.

Remember the milk bottles that were picked up by the milkman and reused? That was green.

There were many more things that people did that were green before the tree huggers came up with the "going green" crap.

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore

Remember when glass soda bottles were returned to the store? They were washed by the soda company and refilled. That was green!!!

Remember when you put your laundry out to dry? That was green.

Remember the milk bottles that were picked up by the milkman and reused? That was green.

There were many more things that people did that were green before the tree huggers came up with the "going green" crap.

Right on, Jean. Remember also when people recycled paper?

Recycling plastic is where things are the worse. Here in CA, you can only recycle plastic that is subsidized by the state. You should be able to recycle all plastic. Plastic is a petroleum product and as much as we worry about oil, we should worry about wasting plastic too.