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

[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.

[Patriotic Army Mom]

I remember it all.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Texas Tells Feds: Shove Your Light Bulb Ban
State lawmakers have passed a bill that allows Texans to skirt federal efforts to promote more efficient light bulbs, which ultimately pushes the swirled, compact fluorescent bulbs over the 100-watt incandescent bulbs many grew up with.
The measure, sent to Gov. Rick Perry for consideration, lets any incandescent light bulb manufactured in Texas - and sold in that state - avoid the authority of the federal government or the repeal of the 2007 energy independence act that starts phasing out some incandescent light bulbs next year.
"Let there be light," state Rep. George Lavender, R-Texarkana, wrote on Facebook after the bill passed. "It will allow the continued manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs in Texas, even after the federal ban goes into effect. ... It's a good day for Texas."
The Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based environmental group, is calling on Perry to veto the bill.
"The Texas legislation is designed to showcase the state's independence," said Bob Keefe, senior press secretary with the council. "But what it really shows off is how some politicians in the Lone Star State will do anything to score political points - even if it means echoing misinformation and wasting time and money passing legislation that can't practically be implemented and isn't in the best interest of constituents."
Perry has until Sunday to veto bills, sign them into law or let them become law without his signature.
Lavender has described his House Bill 2510 as a common-sense bill.
"The 'new and improved' compact fluorescent light bulbs don't work as promised, are significantly more expensive as are the LEDs and have environmental and disposal problems due to the mercury they contain," according to a statement from his office.
The goal of the bill is to make incandescent light bulbs manufactured in Texas - that are sold in Texas and don't leave the state - not subject to federal law or federal rules. Such a bulb would have to have "Made in Texas" clearly imprinted somewhere on it. There are no estimates of how many incandescent light bulbs are manufactured in Texas.
If the bill becomes law, it would go into effect Jan. 1 and would apply to light bulbs made from that day forward.
U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, is trying to repeal the 2007 energy independence act passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush.
The federal act doesn't ban incandescent light bulbs, but it creates new standards for them, such as requiring 100-watt bulbs to be 25 percent more efficient. After that, similar changes will go into effect for 75-, 60- and 40-watt bulbs. The goal is to make the bulbs more energy efficient because much of the traditional bulbs' energy leaves the bulb as heat rather than as light.
The act requires the changes or essentially removes incandescent light bulbs from the market by 2014, leaving consumers to mostly use fluorescent bulbs, which some say are more energy efficient and others say are just more expensive.
"People don't want the government dictating the lighting they can use," Barton said. "Traditional incandescent bulbs have been brightening the night since Thomas Edison created the first one in 1879. They are safe, cheap and reliable."
The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee may soon hold a hearing on energy efficiency and could include Barton's BULB act.
"I am happy that the state Legislature voted to keep incandescent lights on in Texas, but the state wouldn't have to get involved if the federal government would just butt out," Barton said.
For some, the Texas bill represents this state's efforts to claim sovereignty from the federal government, proving that Texas has the right to regulate some commercial activities conducted only in this state.
"Telling Texans what types of light bulbs they can manufacture, sell, purchase and use is not the proper role of the federal government," said Janise Cookston, a spokeswoman for the Wharton-based nonprofit group "We Texans," which works to protect "private property, personal and economic liberty" as well as constitutional government.
"This bill sends the message to Washington that Texas will no longer sit idly by and take unconstitutional intrusion into our lives."
Some say they worry about fluorescent bulbs because they contain mercury, a toxic metal linked to birth defects and behavioral disorders. Estimates show the average bulb has 4 to 5 milligrams of mercury, enough to cover the tip of a ballpoint pin. No mercury is emitted while the bulbs are in use, but vapors can escape if a bulb breaks.
Supporters also say fluorescent bulbs can cost more than $3 each; incandescent bulbs can cost as little as 35 cents each.
Opponents say the health risks of the mercury are minimal. And they say the bill violates the constitutional clause that states the federal law is the "supreme law of the land."
They say the state can't prevent a light bulb from being taken across a state line, which would make it subject to interstate commerce rules and federal regulation. They also say incandescent bulbs are archaic and have been replaced by fluorescent bulbs that last longer, are more environmentally friendly and don't create the same fire hazards incandescent bulbs do.
"Nobody is forcing anybody to use only compact florescent bulbs," said Keefe, of the NRDC. "Several manufacturers are already making incandescent bulbs that have the same lighting quality as old-school incandescents that we all know and use. It's just that newer, more efficient versions use 25-30 percent less energy - saving the average Texas household an estimated $100 per year and reducing overall Texas energy bills by more than $900 million."
Officials with Osram Sylvania, a popular producer of incandescent light bulbs, declined to comment on Texas' bill. But the company noted that it has developed a more efficient incandescent bulb called the Sylvania SuperSaver that will meet the new federal requirements.
GE, meanwhile, is moving forward to fill the demand for fluorescent bulbs.
Officials there say demand for traditional incandescent bulbs has declined and consumers have switched to more efficient lighting.
"As policymakers consider changes to current legislation, we hope they keep in mind that repeal of national standards would result in states establishing their own standards," said Kim Freeman, a spokeswoman for GE Appliances & Lighting. "That could create a patchwork of inconsistent standards across the nation that would mean increased manufacturing and distribution costs, higher prices for consumers and lost sales for retailers."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-...t-federal.html

[Jeanfromfillmore]

House to Consider Bill Nixing Light Bulb Restrictions
House Republicans are pushing a bill Monday that would call off the planned phase-out of certain incandescent light bulbs at the beginning of next year.
The Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, is up for debate on the House floor Monday afternoon, with a vote expected later in the week. It would prohibit the government from implementing restrictions that limit the use of standard incandescent bulbs -- potentially compelling consumers to buy fluorescent bulbs which some lawmakers claim are not as reliable.
"They don't work. They're subject to blowing out when you get a power surge," Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., told Fox News. "Those new (fluorescent bulbs) are a lot like this Obama administration. They're too expensive to afford."
The restrictions stem from a 2007 bill signed by then-President George W. Bush. The bill aimed for better energy efficiency but Republicans have since claimed it will limit consumer options. Blackburn noted that she voted against the bill the first time.
The Obama administration issued a statement announcing its opposition to the repeal, saying it would "result in negative economic consequences for U.S. consumers and the economy."
The statement of administration policy issued by the Office of Management and budget cited Department of Energy figures that say the law "could collectively save U.S. households nearly $6 billion in 2015 alone."
Democrats also ridiculed Republicans for pushing the measure, considering the restrictions were signed into law by Bush and supported by nearly 100 Republicans at the time. A statement from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's office pointed out that while Republicans often claim the legislation amounts to a "ban" on incandescent bulbs, it instead sets stricter energy-efficiency standards.
"This legislation is bad for families, bad for our economy, and bad for our environment," the statement said of the repeal bill.
Republicans face a heavy lift in passing it. The rules the House is operating under would require a two-thirds majority for the proposal to move to the Senate.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1RpNVwJil

[Twoller]

That's good news. Energy efficiency should include the energy of production and I think we can reliably guess that the cost of producing the old incadescent bulbs is easily one third that of these plastic and circuit incrusted pieces of junk.

If you want increased efficiency and energy saving, go with the good old flourescent tubes. They give more light per watt than the incadescent filament bulbs and less heat and they are produced just about everywhere in factories that have been around for decades. You can put them in your house, it's as easy as pie.

[willworkforfood]

House Vote to Lift Light Bulb Restrictions!
Jul 11, 2011
Rep. Burgess on energy debate

http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/1047814...ylist_id=87485

"Thanks jean!"

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Originally Posted by willworkforfood

House Vote to Lift Light Bulb Restrictions!
Jul 11, 2011
Rep. Burgess on energy debate

http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/1047814...ylist_id=87485

"Thanks jean!"

Well here is the final vote, it looks like we're stuck with big gov lighting and no more good old incandescent lamps. This was started by the Republicans, so all the blame isn't with the Dems.

House Turns Out the Lights on Bulb Ban
The House of Representatives voted to preserve a scheduled phase out of incandescent light bulbs Monday evening.
The Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act, would have rescinded efficiency standards for incandescent bulbs included in a 2007 energy bill.
233 members voted yes and 193 cast nay votes. But the House required a supermajority to approve this particular package. In this case, it would have needed 285 yea votes to pass.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) voted present.
The measure gained support after the 2010 elections, as tea party Republicans seized on the prohibition as an example of government overreach.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, says that the increased efficiency standards have the government picking winners and losers in the lighting market.
"To take off the market something that's cheap, effective, and average use costs two or three cents a week to use seems to me to be overkill by the federal government," Barton said of the move away from incandescent bulbs. Supporters of the bill also claim that the compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs designed to replace incandescent bulbs are too expensive and don't work as well as their 19th century competitor."Here's the bottom line, those of us at a certain age, under a compact florescent bulb, we don't look as good as an incandescent bulb," said Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, "The American people should be able to choose what type of light bulb they use in their home. They should not be constrained to all the romance of a Soviet stairwell when they go home in the evening."
Democrats were quick to point out that the bulb ban wasn't their idea. "Our current (Energy and Commerce) Chairman Mr. (Fred) Upton (R-Mich.) introduced the bill to set the standards. our former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) supported it along with many other republicans, and finally President George W. Bush signed these standards into law," noted Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Penn.
The energy efficiency law Doyle cites passed the House with more than 300 votes in the House and over 80 in the Senate.
Upton co-wrote the light bulb language in that energy bill with former Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. Action on the BULB Act was seen by some as a concession to the loser of the Energy and Commerce Chairmanship, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who highlighted Upton's light legislation during their leadership contest last year. Barton has since thanked Upton for taking action on the proposal.
The Obama administration issued a statement announcing its opposition to the repeal, saying it would "result in negative economic consequences for U.S. consumers and the economy."
The statement of administration policy issued by the Office of Management and Budget cited Department of Energy figures that say the law "could collectively save U.S. households nearly $6 billion in 2015 alone." That's because even though CFL bulbs cost more off the shelf, they last longer and use less energy than incandescent bulbs, and could ultimately save the consumer money over the light's lifetime.
The legislation, considered under an expedited rules procedure, required a two-thirds majority for passage.
Despite its failure in the House, a way forward in the Democratically-controlled Senate is uncertain. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., supports the current efficiency standards and is unlikely to support action on a similar measure in committee.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...#ixzz1RxHm3RT1

[willworkforfood]

Great mercury filled lights for $4.00 each, is this whole green theme like glowing toxic green? Sure doesn't sound to earth friendly to me!