Hilarious argument against! Energy Saver Light Bulbs

Hat tip: CSPAN Junkie

Wow. Just wow.

Rep. Ted Poe of Texas’ 2nd District.

Not much else to say here.

UU AFFIRMATION

I believe in my right to search for the good, to choose it for myself, and hold it in my heart.

I affirm this right in you as well.

Together we share in the joy of community, the power of reverence, and the challenge of freedom.

This is the promise of my heart extended to you, as we walk on separate paths, together.

————————————————————————————————–

Visit DiscoverUU.com for UU News, plus the best minister blog posts and sermon podcasts.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Hilarious argument against! Energy Saver Light Bulbs”

  1. Matt Says:

    Just as the constitution does not restrict how people should practice religion, it does not tell people how they should light their houses. As UUs we are good stewards of the environment. Along the same lines we should be sensitive of people who can not afford the new energy saver light bulbs.

    Though it may not be the best for the environment, we should not punish people and their families for not being able to afford these new technologies. Being UU is about accepting and helping people. Lets not ridicule them for having less money.

    The same laws that allow us to practice our religion should not force people into financial hardship because the environmental police believe it is the right thing to do.

  2. Aaron Sawyer Says:

    I don’t think this post is about mocking those so impoverished that they can’t afford energy saver bulbs…

  3. David Throop Says:

    Ted Poe’s speaking style is a bit over the top. But I’m mainlywith him on this one.
    This is not an argument against CFL. It’s an argument against the federal government criminalizing the sale of incandescents.
    It’s also a critique of the EPA issuing hysterical warnings about how to respond to a broken CFL. Yes, our EPA really does issue these frightening, overboard safety directions. If people were to take them seriously, they would add a huge increment to the cost of lighting one’s home. Of course, most people will look at these and figure ‘The EPA is full of hooey.” But if we can’t trust the government’s safety guidelines, why should we trust their energy-efficiency rules?

  4. Aaron Sawyer Says:

    http://earth1.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent

  5. Aaron Sawyer Says:

    The above link details the steps to cleaning a mercury spill- and a small amount of mercury is in fluorescent light bulbs. It’s really not as dramatic as people are making it out to be. I’m very surprised to be getting comments in favor of Rep. Poe’s tirade.

    If the government doesn’t regulate light bulbs, the free market has spoken. I’m sure if there was a cheaper bulb upfront that sucked even more energy, people would buy that instead. It’s difficult to think about long term costs and consequences when making personal choices. Example: donuts

  6. freemarket Says:

    Right on! We should be able to use whatever we want to light our homes just like what Matt says. I use lamps using oil rendered from small furry mammals. There’s no law against that, right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: